FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk Topic: Class Action against HUD,Flint, Land Bank and Salem?

Author    Post   untanglingwebs El Supremo Angry residents are asking if they can file lawsuits against HUD for allowing the outrageous sums of money to b spent on rehabs. The Land Bank now calls themselves a developer, but their development efforts are destroying home sales for ordinary homes. Homeowners don't have the resources to completely remake a home for up to $170,000 and sell it for under $30,000. They don't have the latest energy efficient appliances for themselves, much less to leave for a new homeowner. The home on Welch Blvd. rehabbed by Salem Housing for $170,000 has potential home buyers looking at other homes asking them to give them away. Some homeowners are underwater and can't give their home away. Then to have individuals within the county just say residents on Welch Blvd should just walk away is insane. Look at Smith Village. Homes up to $190,000 being sold for $45,000 to $65,000. And even those sales are sluggish at best. Why is HUD and MSHDA allowing this travesty. Residents want an attorney to advise them if a lawsuit is possible and how can they proceed. Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:01 pm  untanglingwebs El Supremo Michigan Audit Reports Date Issued: October 13, 2010 Audit Report No.: 2011-CH-1001 File Size: 543KB Title:The City of Flint, MI, Lacked Adequate Controls Over Its HOME Program Regarding Community Housing Development Organizations' Home-Buyer Projects, Subrecipients' Activities, and Reporting Accomplishments in HUD's System The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the City of Flint's (City) HOME Investment Partnerships Program (Program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan. We selected the City based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to Program grantees in Region V's jurisdiction and a citizen complaint to our office. Our objectives were to determine whether the City complied with Federal requirements in its use of Program funds for community housing development organizations' (organization) home-buyer projects and subrecipients' activities and accurately reported Program accomplishments in HUD's Integrated Disbursement and Information System (System). This is the second of three planned audit reports on the City's Program. The City did not comply with Federal requirements in its use of Program funds for organizations' home-buyer projects. It (1) did not ensure that organizations entered into lease-purchase agreements or entered into appropriate lease-purchase agreements with households, (2) failed to ensure that an organization transferred homes to home buyers within 42 months of project completion and did not convert the home-buyer projects to rental projects, (3) did not reimburse its HOME trust fund treasury account (treasury account) for terminated projects, (4) inappropriately used Program funds for home-buyer project costs that were administrative expenses, (5) did not prevent an organization from entering into a land contract with a home buyer, (6) inappropriately used Program organization reserve funds for an owner-occupied single-family rehabilitation project, (7) used Program funds for unreasonable acquisition costs, and ( did not decommit and reprogram Program funds for a terminated project . As a result, the City drew down and disbursed nearly $1.7 million in Program funds for organizations' home-buyer projects that did not meet Federal requirements and inappropriately drew down and disbursed more than $143,000 in additional Program funds. The City also did not comply with Federal requirements in its use of Program funds for subrecipients' activities. It (1) inappropriately used Program funds for costs that were not associated with an eligible project, were administrative expenses, and were unrelated to the City's Program activities; (2) lacked sufficient documentation to support Program funds used for projects; and (3) did not reprogram Program funds for a terminated project. As a result, the City inappropriately drew down and disbursed nearly $427,000 in Program funds and lacked sufficient documentation to support nearly $65,000 in Program funds. Further, the City did not accurately report Program accomplishments in HUD's System. It (1) inappropriately entered activity data into HUD's System for 61 properties under 2 or more activity numbers for a total of 130 activities, (2) overreported Program units created by 79 units, (3) did not accurately report completion dates for 35 home-buyer activities, and (4) inappropriately reported the type of activity in HUD's System for 2 activities. We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD's Detroit Office of Community Planning and Development require the City to (1) revise 12-month lease agreements and 60-month purchase option agreements with households to 36-month lease-purchase agreements, convert the home-buyer project to a rental project, or reimburse its Program more than $843,000 from non-Federal funds; (2) convert home-buyer projects to rental projects if it can support that the homes meet property standards or reimburse its Program more than $607,000 from non-Federal funds; (3) reimburse its treasury account nearly $164,000 from non-Federal funds; (4) reimburse its Program nearly $406,000; (5) reimburse its Program nearly $26,000 from non-Federal funds or reprogram the nearly $26,000 from Program organization reserve funds to Program entitlement or subrecipient funds; (6) decommit more than $94,000 in Program funds; (7) reimburse its Program nearly $112,000 from non-Federal funds or reprogram the nearly $112,000 from homeowner and/or acquisition-only activity costs to administrative costs; ( provide supporting documentation or reimburse its treasury account nearly $65,000 from non-Federal funds; (9) reimburse its treasury account nearly $14,000 from non-Federal funds or reprogram nearly $14,000 to the appropriate project; (10) revise Program accomplishments in HUD's System as appropriate; and (11) implement adequate procedures and controls to address the findings cited in this audit report. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date Issued: July 22, 2010 Audit Memorandum No.: 2010-CH-1808 File Size: 1.13 MB Title: Mac-Clair Mortgage Corporation, Flint, MI, Did Not Properly Underwrite a Selection of FHA Loans The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviewed 20 Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans that Mac-Clair Mortgage Corporation (Mac-Clair) underwrote as an FHA direct endorsement lender. Our review objective was to determine whether Mac-Clair underwrote the 20 loans in accordance with FHA requirements. This review is part of “Operation Watchdog”, an OIG initiative to review the underwriting of 15 direct endorsement lenders at the suggestion of the FHA Commissioner. The Commissioner expressed concern regarding the increasing claim rates against the FHA insurance fund for failed loans. Mac-Clair did not properly underwrite 7 of the 20 loans reviewed because its underwriters did not follow FHA’s requirements. As a result, FHA’s insurance fund suffered actual losses of $562,551. Further, Mac-Clair’s direct endorsement underwriters incorrectly certified that due diligence was used in underwriting the seven loans. We recommend that HUD’s Associate General Counsel for Program Enforcement determine legal sufficiency and if legally sufficient, pursue remedies under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act against Mac-Clair and/or its principals for incorrectly certifying to the integrity of the data or that due diligence was exercised during the underwriting of seven loans that resulted in losses to HUD totaling $562,551 which could result in affirmative civil enforcement action of approximately $1,177,602. We also recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family take appropriate administrative action against Mac-Clair and/or its principals for the material underwriting deficiencies cited in this report once the affirmative civil enforcement action cited in Recommendation 1A is completed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date Issued: May 14, 2010 Audit Report No.: 2010-CH-1007 File Size: 389KB Title: The Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Lansing, MI, Needs To Improve Its Controls Over Section 8 Project-Based Housing Assistance Payments The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Michigan State Housing Development Authority's (Authority) Section 8 Project-Based Voucher program (program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority's program based upon our analysis of the housing authorities' programs in Region V's jurisdiction and as part of our internal audit of HUD's oversight of the program. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority operated its program in accordance with HUD's and its requirements. This is the second of two audit reports on the Authority's program. The Authority's program administration regarding documentation of households' eligibility and housing assistance and utility allowance payment calculations was inadequate. The Authority did not ensure that its household files contained the required documentation to support households' admission to and continued assistance on the program. Of the 89 files statistically selected for review, all 89 were missing documentation required by HUD and the Authority's program administrative plan to support nearly $629,000 in housing assistance and utility allowance payments and associated administrative fees. In addition, the Authority did not effectively manage its housing assistance calculation and payment process in accordance with HUD requirements and its program administrative plan, resulting in nearly $23,000 in overpayments for 25 households and more than $3,000 in underpayments for 29 households for the period September 1, 2007, through August 31, 2009. Further, it received nearly $33,000 ($16,417 in administrative fees related to the overpayments and $16,572 in administrative fees related to the underpayments) in program administrative fees for the households with incorrect housing assistance payments. Based on our statistical sample, we estimate that over the next year, the Authority will overpay nearly $25,000 and underpay more than $5,000 in housing assistance and utility allowance payments due to calculation errors. The Authority also inappropriately made more than $47,000 in overpayments of housing assistance and utility allowances for units when it failed to ensure that units receiving program housing assistance payments were under an executed housing assistance payments contract. Based on our statistical sample, we estimate that over the next year, the Authority will overpay nearly $56,000 in housing assistance and utility allowances for units not under housing assistance payments contracts. The Authority did not effectively use HUD's Enterprise Income Verification system (system) Income Discrepancy Report (report) to recover or reimburse program housing assistance and utility allowance payments for households with unreported, underreported, or overestimated income, resulting in more than $32,000 in overpayments and more than $1,700 in underpayments of housing assistance and utility allowances. Further, the Authority did not remove six deceased individuals from its program and did not recover more than $6,000 in housing assistance and utility allowance payments from the properties' owners. We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD's Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Authority to (1) reimburse its program from non-Federal funds for the improper use of nearly $118,000 in program funds, (2) provide documentation or reimburse its program more than $757,000 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported payments cited in this audit report, and (3) implement adequate procedures and controls to address the findings cited in this audit report to prevent nearly $89,000 in program funds from being spent on excessive housing assistance and utility allowance payments over the next year. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date Issued: March 31, 2010 Audit Memoranudum No.: 2010-CH-1804 File Size: 104KB Title: The City of Saginaw, MI, Needs To Improve Its Capacity To Effectively and Efficiently Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Inspector General reviewed the City of Saginaw's (City) Community Development Block Grant (Block Grant) program under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Act). The review was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan. We selected the City based upon the results of our prior audit of the City's Block Grant-funded demolition activities. Our objective was to determine whether the City had the capacity to effectively and efficiently administer its Block Grant program under the Act. We found that the City's capacity to effectively and efficiently administer its Block Grant program under the Act had weaknesses. Specifically, the City: (1) did not have documentation, such as a use survey, to support that work associated its program principally benefited Saginaw's low- to moderate- income residents; (2) lacked a work completion schedule in its program contract; (3) did not follow HUD's regulations and its own requirements for monitoring the program project; (4) had not established sufficient policies and procedures for its Block Grant program under the Act. We recommend that the Director of HUD's Detroit Office of Community Planning and Development require the City to provide documentation, such as a use survey, to support that the $335,750 in Block Grant funds under the Act principally benefitted the City's low- to moderate-income residents. If the City cannot provide supporting documentation, it should amend its substantial amendment to remove the program project and include for the $335,750 in Block Grant funds an eligible activity or activities that meet one of HUD's three national objectives. We also recommend that HUD's Director require the City to implement adequate policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that Block Grant funds under the Act are used effectively and efficiently and in accordance with applicable requirements. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date Issue: January 12, 2010 Audit Memoranudum No.: 2010-CH-1801 File Size: 134.72KB Title: Wayne County, MI, Needs To Improve Its Capacity to Effectively and Efficiently Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General reviewed Wayne County's (County) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (Program). The review was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2009 annual audit plan. We selected the County based upon a request from HUD's Detroit Office of Community Planning and Development. Our objective was to determine whether the County had the capacity to effectively and efficiently administer its Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Congress amended the Neighborhood Stabilization Program and increased its funding as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). As part of a consortium, the Wayne County Land Bank Corporation (Corporation), which is controlled by the County, submitted an application to HUD, dated July 13, 2009, that totaled $290 million in additional Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds under the Recovery Act. The application is under review by HUD. We found that the County needs to improve its capacity to effectively and efficiently administer its Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Specifically, the County: (1) did not ensure that the Corporation fully complied with HUD's regulations for full and open competition regarding the procurement of project management services for the County's Neighborhood Stabilization Program; (2) had not established sufficient policies, procedures, and controls for its Program as of December 16, 2009; and (3) provided a detailed fiscal year 2010 through 2013 budget for planning and administrative costs ($2,609,096) that exceeded 10 percent of the County's total Program grant and its revised Program budget for planning and administrative costs ($2,590,915) by more than $18,000. Lastly, HUD's Detroit Office of Community Planning and Development did not include sufficient special conditions in its Neighborhood Stabilization Program grant agreement with the County. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date Issued: November 3, 2009 Audit Report No.: 2010-CH-1002 File Size: 2MB Title: The City of Saginaw, Michigan, Lacked Adequate Controls over Its Community Development Block Grant-Funded Demolition Activities The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the City of Saginaw's (City) Community Development Block Grant (Block Grant) program-funded demolition activities. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2009 annual audit plan. We selected the City based upon a request from HUD's Detroit Office of Community Planning and Development. Our audit objective was to determine whether the City effectively administered its Block Grant program-funded demolition activities. The City did not effectively administer its Block Grant program-funded demolition activities. It lacked sufficient information for demolition activities to support nearly $138,000 in Block Grant funds used for demolition activity costs, did not request reimbursement from property owners and/or place liens on properties for more than $80,000 in Block Grant funds used for demolition activities, and did not provide sufficient documentation to support that it was not required to request reimbursement from property owners and/or place liens on properties for nearly $51,000 in Block Grant funds used for demolition activities. We informed the director of the City's Department of Development (Department) and the Director of HUD's Detroit Office of Community Planning and Development of a minor deficiency through a memorandum, dated November 3, 2009. We recommend that the Director of HUD's Detroit Office of Community Planning and Development require the City to (1) provide sufficient supporting documentation or reimburse its Block Grant program from nonfederal funds for the nearly $138,000 in Block Grant funds used for unsupported expenses, (2) reimburse its Block Grant program more than $80,000 from nonfederal funds for the demolition activities for which the City did not request the property owners to reimburse the City or place liens on the properties, (3) provide sufficient supporting documentation or reimburse its Block Grant program from nonfederal funds for the nearly $51,000 in Block Grant funds used for the demolition activities for which the City did not provide sufficient documentation to support that it was not required to request reimbursement from property owners and/or place liens on properties, and (4) implement adequate procedures and controls to address the finding cited in this audit report. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date Issued: September 30, 2009 Audit Report No.: 2009-CH-1020 File Size: 830.06KB Title: The City of Flint, Michigan, Lacked Adequate Controls over Its Commitment and Disbursement of HOME Investment Partnerships Program Funds The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the City of Flint's (City) HOME Investment Partnerships Program (Program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2009 annual audit plan. We selected the City based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to Program grantees in Region V's jurisdiction and a citizen complaint to our office. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the City effectively committed and disbursed Program funds and followed HUD's requirements. The City did not effectively commit and disburse Program funds. It inappropriately reported in HUD's Integrated Disbursement and Information System (System) at least $2.5 million in Program funds as subgrants, did not cancel subgrants in HUD's System totaling $400,000 in Program funds, did not reduce a subgrant in HUD's System by nearly $1,000 in Program funds, and could not provide written agreements supporting nearly $141,000 of subgrants in HUD's System. As a result, the City must commit nearly $870,000 in Program funds for eligible subgrants and/or activities by September 30, 2009. The City also inappropriately drew down and disbursed more than $1 million in Program funds that were not used for eligible Program costs for more than 15 days after the City drew down the Program funds from its HOME trust fund treasury account (treasury account) and/or HUD's five-year disbursement deadlines as of July 31, 2007, and June 30, 2008. As a result of the inappropriate draw downs and disbursements, the City avoided not meeting HUD's five-year disbursement deadlines and losing more than $499,000 in Program funds. We recommend that the Director of HUD's Detroit Office of Community Planning and Development reduce the City's line of credit in its treasury account by nearly $680,000 for the Program funds that the City did not appropriately commit by HUD's 24-month commitment deadline and drawdown and disburse by HUD's five-year disbursement deadlines. We also recommend that the Director require the City to cancel incorrect subgrants in HUD's System totaling more than $1.5 million in Program funds, provide written agreements supporting subgrants or decommit nearly $141,000 of Program funds in HUD's System, reduce subgrants by more than $30,000 in Program funds, and implement adequate procedures and controls to address the findings cited in this audit report. These procedures and controls should help ensure that Program funds are committed and disbursed in accordance with federal requirements and the City does not lose more than $730,000 in Program funds over the next month. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date Issued: September 30, 2009 Audit Report No.: 2009-CH-1019 File Size: 519.79KB Title: The Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Lansing, Michigan, Failed to Operate Its Section 8 Project-Based Voucher Program According to HUD 's and Its Requirements The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Michigan State Housing Development Authority's (Authority) Section 8 Project-Based Voucher program (program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2009 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority's program based upon our internal audit survey of HUD's oversight of the program and our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V's jurisdiction. Our objectives were to determine whether (1) the Authority effectively administered its program in accordance with HUD's and its own requirements and (2) the Authority's project-based unit inspections were sufficient to detect housing quality standards violations and provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing to its residents. This is the first of two planned audit reports of the Authority's program. The Authority lacked documentation to support its selection and approval of program projects. As a result, it could not support that any of the five projects it had approved since January 1, 2007, were eligible for more than $1 million in program assistance and nearly $85,000 in program administrative fees received by the Authority were appropriate. We estimate that over the next 12 months, the Authority will receive more than $70,000 in program funds for improper administrative fees. The Authority's program units generally met HUD's housing quality standards. Of the 60 program units selected for inspection, 23 did not meet minimum housing quality standards, and four (7 percent) materially failed due to 24-hour exigent health and safety hazards that predated the Authority's previous inspections. As a result, more than $5,700 in program funds was spent on units that were not decent, safe, and sanitary. We informed the Agency's executive director and the Acting Director of HUD's Detroit Office of Public Housing of a minor deficiency through a memorandum, dated September 29, 2009. We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD's Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Authority to reimburse its program from nonfederal funds for the improper use of more than $85,000 in program funds, provide documentation or reimburse its program more than $1 million from nonfederal funds for the unsupported payments cited in this audit report, and implement adequate procedures and controls to address the findings cited in this audit report to prevent more than $93,000 in program funds from not being used over the next year to house needy families. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:08 pm  untanglingwebs El Supremo Although the City Administrators and State officials won't call the current process Urban Renewal, it really seems like that. The areas being demolished are overwhelmingly African American neighborhoods. he unequal disposition of resources and the overwhelmingly high allocation of resources to downtown entities is a form of more secretive institutional racism. Just read M-Live or some commenters to Flint Talk and it is easy to see these commenters label blacks as biologically and culturally inferior to other races. Therefore, Whites cannot be declared racist because the black race themselves are totally responsible for the inequities in housing, employment, police protection and education opportunities. Twenty years ago I spent 3 weeks in Australia, mostly in Sydney and the Gold and Sunshine Coasts. One question I asked repeatedly was why Australians seemed to love Black Tourists and Athletes while they treated their own Aboriginal people so badly. They pointed out to me that Aborigine people who fully assimilated into the Australian Euro based culture were fie and accepted. It was those aboriginal people who rejected European style homes and lifestyle in favor of their traditional lifestyles that were reviled. There are Blacks who have successfully integrated into white cultural lifestyles. Then look at University Park. I remember several TV 12 stores of blacks demanding completion of this housing development and insisting whites had their subdivisions and it was time for theirs. Problems arose when there was inadequate evaluations of the infrastructure costs and there were tremendous cost over runs. Also the mayor stated that white companies had refused to finance these homes, so he had a black realtor with excusive rights to arrange mortgages. I am told some purchasers had mortgages out of Indiana with excessive rates. The housing took longer to build then anticipated and the tax credits ceased far before the expected ten years. Some homes had structural problems and the city failed to respond to these flaws within the allotted time frame. Improper excavation led to one home being inundated with black mold. When the tax credits ended the residents asked for extensions, which council denied. However when a downtown group went to Lansing for extensions and Tax Credits, they were approved. There were several foreclosures in University Park and there is at least one foreclosure today. Resident paid market value and many believe they overpaid. Today these homes are only worth about half of what they cost in 2005. Underwater-too bad! Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:38 pm  untanglingwebs El Supremo CFPB Monitor Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr Home > Fair Lending > More on new disparate impact suit against HUD More on new disparate impact suit against HUD By Alan S. Kaplinsky on July 2nd, 2013Posted in Fair Lending, Mortgages Last week, we reported that a lawsuit was filed on June 26 in federal district court in Washington, D.C. challenging HUD’s final rule formalizing its use of disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The rule, adopted in February 2013, provides that if a practice has a “discriminatory effect” on a protected class under the FHA, HUD or a private plaintiff can establish liability under the FHA even if there is no discriminatory intent. The CFPB, consistent with the bulletin it issued in April 2012, has been using a disparate impact test in fair lending examinations and investigations under the FHA and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B. Since the FHA’s relevant language is very similar to the ECOA’s relevant language, the outcome of this lawsuit could impact the CFPB’s authority to continue to use a disparate impact theory. The plaintiffs in the new lawsuit are two insurance industry trade groups, the American Insurance Association and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, whose members sell homeowners insurance. The complaint alleges that the HUD rule is contrary to law for two reasons. First, the complaint alleges that, based on the FHA’s plain language, the FHA only prohibits intentional discrimination. Whether disparate impact claims are available under the FHA is the same issue that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear when it granted certiorari in Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. on June 17 . Second, the complaint alleges that the HUD rule is invalid as applied to homeowners insurance companies because it conflicts with the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act. That law generally reserves to the states the regulation of the insurance business and provides that federal law cannot be construed to “invalidate, impair or supersede” state insurance laws unless the federal law specifically relates to insurance. The plaintiffs claim that the HUD rule would impair state laws that prohibit discrimination between risks of the same class or essentially the same hazard in violation of sound actuarial practice. They also claim that it would impair state laws that prohibit consideration of race in the underwriting or rating process because, to avoid potential disparate impact liability, insurers would need to collect and consider data about characteristics such as race and national origin. Accordingly, plaintiffs allege the HUD rule violates McCarran-Ferguson because the FHA does not specifically indicate that Congress intended to override state insurance regulation. The complaint asks the court to declare that, because HUD exceeded its authority to make rules that “carry out” the FHA, it violated the Administrative Procedures Act. It also asks the court to declare that the HUD rule does not accord with the FHA, grant an order and judgment vacating the HUD rule, and enjoin HUD from enforcing the rule. It is possible that HUD may ask the district court to stay any further proceedings in the case pending a decision by the Supreme Court in Mt. Holly. However, as we reported, counsel for the Township of Mount Holly has sent a letter to the Supreme Court asking for an extension in the merits briefing schedule because of ongoing settlement discussions. Should Mt. Holly settle, the D.C. case could prove to be the next vehicle for testing the validity of disparate impact liability under the FHA. However, it is possible that the district court might invalidate the HUD rule as applied to the plaintiffs because of McCarran-Ferguson without ever reaching the broader issue of whether the rule is contrary to the FHA’s language. Such a ruling would be of no consequence to lenders since it would not result in a judicial determination of whether a disparate impact theory applies under the FHA. One possible solution would be for another trade association whose members include mortgage lenders affected by the HUD rule to intervene in the pending lawsuit. That would increase the likelihood of the district court reaching the broader issue. TweetLikeEmailLinkedIn Print Comment Tags: CFPB, disparate impact, equal credit, fair housing Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:43 pm  untanglingwebs El Supremo This is a lawsuit to watch. Will this rule hold up to scrutiny? Isn't this the definition of institutional racism? Is the city's use of federal funding creating a disparate impact on African Americans in the north end. Is there someone who can discuss this rule to us and what it means? Also some of HUD's demands on the city have had a disparate and negative impact. Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:48 pm  untanglingwebs El Supremo Department of Housing and Urban Development portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=discriminatoryeffect... · PDF file of the Act, and urged HUD to eliminate disparate impact liability from the rule. ... pled a specific and actionable policy, a disparate impact, ... HUD Confirms “Disparate Impact” Regulations Under Fair Housing ... www.hrc.org/blog/entry/hud-confirms-disparate-impact-regulations... If a policy has a discriminatory effect, disparate impact theory generally states that the policy ... For more information on HUD's policies or to file a complaint ... HUD and the Impact Standard under the Fair Housing Act www.nationalfairhousing.org/Portals/33/DISPARATE%20IMPACT%20... · PDF file [from HUD Title VIII Manual] Disparate impact has regularly occurred in the area of group home litigation ... this policy has a disparate impact based on the Related searches for hud policies disparate effect Examples of Disparate Impact Define Disparate Impact Lending Overt Disparate Define Disparate Treatment Discrimi… Disparate Effect Definition Facially Discriminatory . HUD Issues Standard for Disparate Impact Liability | AllRegs solutions.allregs.com/hud-issues-standard-for-disparate-impact... HUD Issues Standard for Disparate Impact Liability ... The Final Rule outlines that a practice or policy found to have a discriminatory effect is not necessarily a ... Gregory D. Squires: HUD's Disparate Impact Rule Praised by Fair ... www.huffingtonpost.com/gregory-d-squires/huds-disparate-impact-rul... Feb 24, 2013 · Fair, objective, and non-discriminatory policies and practices are essential for any city to pursue successful community revitalization initiatives. PRRAC Applauds New HUD Regulation On Disparate Impact - … www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/prrac-applauds-new-hud-regulation... PRRAC Applauds New HUD Regulation On Disparate Impact ... policies that have a discriminatory effect can be examined by the court to ensure that they serve a ... HUD Finalizes Fair Housing Rule on “Disparate Impact” - - NMHC ... www.nmhc.org/FinalLegislation.cfm?ItemNumber=61093 It is unclear at this time how big an effect this rule ... voucher policies. HUD states that ... using the theory of disparate impact. HUD cites the ... Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:51 pm  untanglingwebs El Supremo HUD needs to explain to me how excessive subsidies, energy efficient kitchens, washers and dryers, will stabilize neighborhoods. It makes other homes in the neighborhood unable to compete with the rehabs. Saginaw Neighborhood Stabilization Program on average spends $165,000 to renovate homes sold for $42,000 Gus Burns | fburns@mlive.com By Gus Burns | fburns@mlive.com Follow on Twitter on May 31, 2012 at 2:20 PM, updated May 31, 2012 at 2:50 PM SAGINAW, MI — Saginaw City Hall officials say the federally funded Neighborhood Stabilization Program is a broad program that concentrates on revitalization and economic stimulus, not the bottom-line financial investment. The city is spending four times as much fixing up or building homes than it recoups through sales. See a list of the rehabbed homes and their appraisal prices here: Property Listing - All - 2012.02.22 - Costs & Sales.pdf It's a "best-house-on-the-block" approach in an effort to influence other neighbors to maintain or improve their own properties, program officials say. Sometimes they appear out of place in Saginaw's diverse neighborhoods filled with homes spanning from well-kept to abandoned and burned. Saginaw City Hall renovated or constructed more that 40 Saginaw homes in the last year, the majority in the West Side's Covenant Neighborhood, and has plans to complete 12 more beginning this June, a program report released by Development Director Odail Thorns says. As of late-February, Saginaw Neighborhood Stabilization Program administrators, armed with about 20 million Department of Housing and Urban Development grant dollars, spent about $6.6 million deconstructing, renovating and sometimes building 41 homes. Upon completion, qualified buyers paid a total of about $1.3 million to move into the homes, detectible by their crisp trim, inviting sitting porches; new, vibrant aluminum siding; energy-efficient appliances and fixtures and pristine concrete walkways, driveways and landscaping. Each of the improved properties lie within a 10-block "target area" in the Covenant or Cathedral District Neighborhoods, according to a Saginaw NSP Strategy Report from Thorns. Seven test projects reside outside those boundaries. "An appraisal will never come close to what we have into them because nothing in the neighborhood would sell" that high, said Tom Bailey of Thomas Township, the owner of Tom Bailey Construction, whose company renovated three of the program homes. The city "is putting a lot of money into them, but it is creating jobs and it is definitely upgrading neighborhoods. NSPRehabCosts.pngView full size "They have to follow the rules that the feds have set in order to get the money that they have." Federal money comes with strings attached. Each home is dismantled to the studs, stripped of lead and asbestos, and plumbing and other components must be brought up to code. Saginaw Chief Inspector John Stemple said the deconstruction process, which has cost an average of $18,788, ensures a better finished product and that all grant-required building standards are met. "It'd be cheaper to demo the darn thing, but you can't do that," Bailey said, noting the HUD rules. In addition to the deconstruction cost, the average renovation or building costs are $146,000, for a total average costs $165,500 for the first 41 homes. The average sale or appraisal price is about $42,000. Bailey said the amount spent by City Hall on some of the rehabs appears comparable, and sometimes less than he'd estimate construction of new homes with similar quality would cost. Noting one of the factors that lead to the expense, Bailey said, because federal funds are spent, contractors must abide to prevailing wage laws, which can inflate labor costs about 35 percent. Stemple said the purpose of the subsidy program is to restore homes and employ workers. It was never expected that the renovation projects would break even or generate a profit, he said. City officials report that 154 "local contractors" have participated in some phase of the program, and City Hall data indicated the city was spending $20,000 per month for seven additional employees to administrate the program. Program funds aren't spent solely on home renovation or new construction. Saginaw City Hall purchased about 417 properties, demolished 152; and is spending about $3 million in the form of a loan to entice development of a 35-unit senior housing apartment complex to be completed this year near Covenant HealthCare and Bliss Park. Saginaw is one of 12 cities sharing in more than $200 million in Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development throughout the state. For information about purchasing a program home, residents may call 989-401-6000 Qualified applicants who wish to buy one of these “like-new” homes cannot own a home, cannot earn more than a predetermined maximum — $64,900 for a family of four or $45,450 for an individual — must attend an eight-hour home counseling session and have a dependable income and a 20 percent down payment, which there is loan assistance available for. Related: $677,255.76 spent to rehab five Saginaw homes Monthly NSP personnel costs $20,000 Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:01 pm  untanglingwebs El Supremo Thinking strategically about the Neighborhood Stabilization (NSP ... www.hud.gov/.../conplan/foreclosure/pdf/slidepresentationmallach.pdf · PDF file Neighborhood Stabilization (NSP) program Alan Mallach ... appropriate in different communities: • Jump-start market recovery in neighborhoods close to Alan Mallach is a leading expert in HUD programs and rebuilding neighborhoods. He is the nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute. Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:51 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo Mallach stresses the NSP program was about stabilizing neighborhoods not dong housing "deals". Mallach's 3 key Principles: 1) Resources should be targeted to areas destabilized or at risk of destbilztion from vacant and foreclosed properties. 2) Resources should be used in ways that reflect the housing market dynamics of the targeted neighborhood. 3) NSP should be combined with other funds and complementary activities leading to sustainable neighborhood stabilization. Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:06 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo Mallach states the "ultimate test of whether these funds will have "worked will not be how many houses are bought, demolished or rehabilitated, but how many neighborhoods are restored to sustainable health and stability." Mallach also stresses a community must use long term strategies and the goal is growth or "right sizing" the community. There must also be programs put in place that will reduce future foreclosures and keep people in their homes. When an NSP program fails the "neighborhood destabilization is a function of market deterioration or failure", said Mallach. Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:13 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo I believe Flint represents a failure. Smith Village The homes cost more to build than the market rate homes in University Park, although the lots in University Park are larger, and it is a gated community. The homes up for sale in Smith Village are being sold for at least $100,000 less than those in University Park in 2005. Since that time, there have been foreclosures in University Park and home value have fallen to nearly 50% of their initial sale price. I find it difficult to understand how Smith Village will stabilize the neighborhood. These homes are subsidized in the ball park of $120,000 and more. Their taxable value will never rise to a level that will match University Park and will University Park be able to increase their home values. Welch Blvd. Gang activity, shots fired and other crimes are driving residents out. Those wanting to sell are furious because they cannot compete with these Salem Housing/Land Bank homes with their expensive upgrades, energy efficient appliances and cheap prices. Neighboring homes are tanking in value. Not a win-win situation. Also the blocks south of Welch have been decimated with abandonment and demolitions. This neighborhood has been designated as a development area. Right now people just want to leave and NSP has made their options fewer. Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:29 am    Display posts from previous:   All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

Jump to: Select a forum Local News and Politics----------------Open chatFeed BackReal Estate For SalePolitical TalkTigersVehiclesPistonsVehicles for partsThe Flint JournalRed WingsGarage SaleMichigan Professional Soccer TeamsPolitical JokesWantedFlint Sirens Women's Rugby ClubThe Bob Leonard ShowMiscellaneousGenesee County PatriotsFlint City Derby Girls / Flint River Floaters Roller Derby TeamThe Flint Generals Flint Facts----------------Did you know?

<  Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules: You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum