Posted on 09/30/2008 4:45:35 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
The Community Reinvestment Act was passed by the 95th US Congress and signed into law by Jimmy Carter.
This Act requires that banks offer credit (home loans, etc) to minorities and the "underpriveleged."
Democrats have used code-words to bolster this ACT, saying that it has provided home ownership opportunities to minorities, needy Americans and the "underprivileged."
Changes in 1995 allowed groups like ACORN to put pressure on banks to give home loans to unqualified home loan applicants. These changes broke down home loan applications by race and income (among other factors) and allowed community organizing groups (@ssholes like ACORN - friends to Obama), to make a stink when banks weren't giving enough loans to minorities and unqualified home loan applicants - the "underprivileged."
This ACT helped make "affordable housing" available to sooooo many more people.
Affordable housing my @ss.
This Act helped grease the skids for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meltdown and $1 trillion dollar tax-payer bailout because minorities and unqualified home loan applicants were being discrimmmmmminated against.
Banks had pressure put on them by Fannie/Freddie, and by @ssholes like ACORN and they gave loans out to people they never would have under normal circumstances - people with bad credit, no collateral, a horrible employment record, or no job at all.
BTW, why does Obama still support this ACT?
Why does he still support hom,e loans for unqualified buyers?
Does he want another market meltdown down the road? Does he want another taxpayer bailout down the road?
I guarantee you, when this ACT is targeted, the Dems will use the typical race-baiting tactics they always use...
But, this ACT has to go.
Taxpayers will demand it.
Until we actually have laissez-faire capitalism at the local level, there will always be calls for Washington to “do something” about affordable housing.
But the former will never happen because the NIMBYs will never allow it.
So what say YOU?
DING DING DING DING! We have a winner!
I am one of those lower income people who would just LOVE to have smaller units available.
If I had the money I would build some to see if there was indeed a market for smaller units.
What would it take for a large group of low-income people to start their own bank or credit union?
In many areas it’s legal to build smaller homes but “normal-sized” land lots cannot be split into appropriately smaller lots.
For example, where I live you could build four 500-sf houses on a 10,000-sf lot, but you couldn’t split the lot into four lots. (In some neighborhoods you could split a 10K lot into two 5K lots, but you can’t create a lot smaller than 5K.)
The only legal option is to create and obtain approval of a condominium plan, and build the four small houses as condominiums.
That drives up the cost and as condominiums they would be priced out of reach of the low income market.
Most communities will not revisit affordable housing until (sigh) mandated by a higher level of government.
It is in the interest of local government that low income people live Somewhere Else.
Locals usually deal with unfavorable local conditions by appealing to a higher level of government. That’s why you get Washington sticking its nose into housing issues and why landlords run to their legislature when potential local rent controls are proposed.
And then the taxpayers say no to Washington doing something about it with taxpayr dollars.
Then, when those who are in the low-income housing finally get tired of it, and with Washington being neutralized, they will pick themselves up by their “bootstraps” and improve their own lot in life.
Some of us work hard and don’t see an advancement path. Since we distrust our local governments which work against us, what options do we have?
I’d like to see some way to block federal money to local governments.
Pardon me but Real Estate prices are about location! location! location! Even if you put low income housing into a high priced location, the value of that 'low income' property will go up, because demand for it will be higher. Prices stay low in places where nobody wants to live.
This is the bases of the Supreme Court's decision which unconstitutionally expanded the reach of Eminent Domain, June, 2005, by forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another. Property which has increased in value or who's location is strategic for other purposes, even with fair compensation, the Supreme Court's decision violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by government except for "public use." Eminent Domain is not to transfer from one private owner to another according to the constitution, yet now, according to the Supreme Court the powerful may do this to the less powerful. Without the right to private property there can be no liberty!
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exxVZTKq1vA
See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4 for a really good 10 minute video about the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.