Ahh yes. However, the main thing that is left out of the explanation of that CRA implementation is the "WHY" it was passed. Back then whole tracts of Inner Cities were blocked from the Bank's Financial Portfolios because of "Red-Lining". Properties in a lined-off area were not accepted for collateral for loans, even under the common 20% Down plus Closing Costs of the then Standard Mortgage. Those who would have bought within the Red-Line areas were turned away, letting the area fall into deeper disrepair and expanding the slums of the inner cities.
It had been going on for years, and the government did try to improve the housing stock but they built ant-hills. Low-cost apartment blocks sprang up with tenancy restrictions on who could live there, with Social Services overseeing the plots.
The initial thrust of the CRA was to open up those areas to local investment, by providing added insurance to the banks that the loan would not lose them money, but the borrower would lose their stake in the property if they defaulted on the mortgage.
Main Street and Wall Street are two symbiotic alien cultures. The first requires stability and long-term planning to succeed. The latter relies on the quick turnover of profit and short-term views. Since corporate lawyers are the main vocation of the Members of Congress, is it any wonder that the Wall Street views are accorded more weight and deliberation than the requirements of Main Street?
Meanwhile, our Overlords have already poisoned the well: USA Today reported: