Amended August 17, 2018 – AB 354 Institutional investors (see the fine print)

Amended August 17,2018 – AB-354 Institutional investors: housing.(2017-2018)

(SEE THE FINE PRINT IN BLUE BELOW)

Date Published: 08/17/2018 12:10 PM

 

AMENDED  IN  SENATE  AUGUST 17, 2018

AMENDED  IN  SENATE  JUNE 26, 2018

AMENDED  IN  SENATE  JULY 03, 2017

AMENDED  IN  ASSEMBLY  MAY 01, 2017

AMENDED  IN  ASSEMBLY  APRIL 18, 2017

AMENDED  IN  ASSEMBLY  MARCH 28, 2017

 

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2017–2018 REGULAR SESSION

ASSEMBLY BILL

No. 354


 

Introduced by Assembly Member Calderon


February 08, 2017

 


An act to add Division 21 (commencing with Section 60000) to the Financial Code, relating to housing investors.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 354, as amended, Calderon. Institutional investors: housing.

Existing law establishes the Department of Business Oversight within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency.

Existing law, the Economic Revitalization Act, establishes the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, also known as GO-Biz, under the control of a director. Existing law requires GO-Biz to serve the Governor as the lead entity for economic strategy and authorizes it to undertake specified activities, including marketing business and investment opportunities in California by working in partnership with local, regional, federal, and other state public and private institutions.

This bill would require an institutional investor, as defined, to register by July 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, with the Department of Business Oversight by providing a statement containing certain information, including, among other things, the total number of single-family homes in the state that are owned by the institutional investor, including the number owned in each county, and the number occupied by renters throughout the state, and in each county. The bill would authorize the department to charge a reasonable fee to process the registration. The bill would require the department to submit a report to the Legislature by July 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, regarding the information collected from institutional investors during the prior calendar year pursuant to the provisions of this bill.

Vote: majority   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: no  


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Division 21 (commencing with Section 60000) is added to the Financial Code, to read:

DIVISION 21. Institutional Investors

60000.

(a) An institutional investor shall register by July 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, with the department by providing the Department of Business Oversight with a written statement of all of the following for the prior calendar year: 

(1) The total number of single-family homes in the state that are owned by the institutional investor, including the number that are owned in each county, and the number that are occupied by renters throughout the state, and in each county.

(2) The total number of single-family homes in the state annually purchased by the institutional investor.

(3) The total number of offers to purchase single-family homes in the state made by the institutional investor.

(4) The total dollar value of single-family homes owned by the institutional investor in the state and the total dollar value of single-family homes owned by the institutional investor that are occupied by renters.

(5) The total number of single-family homes that are sold to existing tenants.

(b) The department may charge a reasonable fee to administer the registration required pursuant to subdivision (a).

(c) For purposes of this section, “institutional investor” means a publicly traded company or corporation that owns more than 100 single-family homes in the state during a calendar year that are occupied by renters and that have a total value of more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000). An institutional investor may use an automated valuation model to estimate the value of homes it owns for purposes of determining whether the ten-million-dollar ($10,000,000) threshold required by this subdivision is met.An institutional investor does not include a lienholder that acquires ownership of a single-family home through a judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure.

(d) For purposes of this section, “single-family home” means a home that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision. 

(e) (1) Notwithstanding Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, the department shall submit a report to the Legislature by July 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, regarding the information collected pursuant to subdivision (a) during the prior calendar year.

(2) A report required to be submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.

**********************************

NOTE FROM MyCourtHistory:

The problem we have here is something that was part and parcel of my litigation against Wells Fargo.  In an illegal Unlawful Detainer ( which all of them are in the state of CA), a large part of the fraud against the court is the institutional investor groups that are in collusion with the illegal trustees, that pay off the corrupt judges.

Part of litigation strategy I used in my case was to file a Lis Pendens against the property upon receipt of the Unlawful Detainer claim against me, the property owner.   What this action does is place into the public record of a legal action, or an encumbrance, against the property.  This creates the line of litigation directly on to the person who then purchases the property in a Trustee Sale.  The new owner will become part and parcel of the open litigation.  They are unable to use the property, to take over the property, to claim right to the property until the open litigation is complete.  The new owner purchases any and all encumbrances against the property.

This tactic is used to keep most people from buying properties that are in litigation.  Therefore, it is a tactic used to stave off a Trustee Sale.  Any and all parties that are part and parcel of the Trustee Sale become part and parcel to the litigation by the property owner adding that party to the lawsuit as a DOES.  This is not what most homeowners wish to participate in, and it is not a very sound business strategy for institutional investors to buy properties in litigation.

Usually, the argument by the buyer would be that they were unaware of the litigation.  They will lay claim to the fact that they are Bone Fide purchasers.  This term is used do to the leniency the court offers non-institutional home purchasers.  Therefore, I found this new amended version of this bill quite troubling.  The legislation has just eliminated the institutional buyer from the overall protections allotted using the filing of a lis pendens.

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

Our servers are now secured(https) for a more private browsing experience

We have upgraded our website servers and we are now operating on secured server protocols in order to allow our readers a more private browsing experience through the blog.  You can notice this on a website you frequent where in the address bar it will display whether or not the website is operating in a secure or not-secure protocol.

The principal motivation for HTTPS is authentication of the accessed website and protection of the privacy and integrity of the exchanged data while in transit. It protects against man-in-the-middle attacks. The bidirectional encryption of communications between a client and server protects against eavesdropping and tampering of the communication.[4] In practice, this provides a reasonable assurance that one is communicating without interference by attackers with the website that one intended to communicate with, as opposed to an impostor.

Historically, HTTPS connections were primarily used for payment transactions on the Web, e-mail and for sensitive transactions in corporate information systems.  Since 2018, HTTPS is used more often by webusers than the original non-secure HTTP, primarily to protect page authenticity on all types of websites; secure accounts; and keep user communications, identity, and web browsing private.

To learn more about HTTPS you can CLICK HERE!

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

A Trustee is widely known to be bogus

A response from one of my subscribing readers:  My comments are in italics

A trustee for a deed of trust is widely known to be bo gus. Courts have commented that a “trustee’ of a deed of trust is not a trustee at all, in a technical or strict sense”.

Also, there are some who state that a substitution of trustee is not a contract per se and not subject to the statute of frauds.  I hold a different opinion on this issue, as a trustee in a deed of trust contract is an integral part of the contract.  Therefore, a substitution of the integral part of the deed of trust contract makes it part of the overall contract itself.  It would be as if it were an addendum to the original contract.

A deed of trust, or an assignment is a contract subject to the Statute of Frauds and in some cases this has been useful in foreclosure defense. With an assignment it may be helpful to see if the document makes reference to the principal, that is the entity making the assignment also called the assignor. Under California law an agent may execute an assignment but it is not enforceable unless the document names the assignor. Oftentimes in MERS assignments they don’t bother.  In basic contract law, it is quite clear that any and all changes to any part or parcel of the contract must be fully understood, approved and signed off by all parties that are part and parcel to the contract throughout the duration of the contract.  Despite this discrepancy to basic contract law and the statute of frauds (1677). this challenge was effective in Suarez v. Bank of New York Mellon, Cal. Sup. 12-560082 (2013).

Corbin and Williston, the dead rock stars of contract law state, “Noncompliance with Statutory requirements results in the unenforceability of the contract due to Statute of Frauds”.

Even so challenging an assignment is an uphill battle in California thanks to the precedent set in Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 245 Cal. App. 4th 808, 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790 (Ct. App. 2016), an awful ruling that directly contradicted the Supreme Court decision in Yvanova.

 
 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

AB 354 was heard on June 20th and it will be a game changer.

AB 354 will be heard on June 20th in the SENATE BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS COMMITTEE

Majority Leader Ian Calderon is proposing AB 354, which would require Institutional Landlords to report the individual addresses of the homes they own to the State each year, including income and rent increases.

PLEASE CALL and MESSAGE THE COMMITTEE Members and urge them to Vote YES and move this bill forward! The Tenants of Corporate Landlords DESERVE transparency and a fighting chance against Billionaire Wall Street Landlords. It is only requiring REPORTING – no harm to the Billionaires. But, the information is critical to tenants and potential tenants as a Consumer Protection measure, for research, and tracking the impact on Californians.

https://www.facebook.com/AssemblymemberIanCalderon

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB354

SENATE BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS COMMITTEE MEMBERShttp://sbnk.senate.ca.gov/ Phone Notes: how will they vote on AB354?ASK THEM – AB354
Senator Steven Bradford – CHAIR District 35: Los Angeles County communities of Carson, Compton, West Compton, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lennox, West Carson, Watts, Willowbrook, and Wilmington (916) 651-4035 https://www.facebook.com/stevenbradford62/
Senator Andy Vidak – Vice Chair District 14: Fresno, Kern, Kings and Tulare counties (916) 651-4014 https://www.facebook.com/senatorandyvidak/
Senator Ted Gaines – District 1: Alpine, El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Siskiyou and Sierra counties. It is a diverse district that also includes many of the Sacramento suburbs. Major cities within the district include: Yreka, Redding, Auburn, South Lake Tahoe, Truckee, Grass Valley, Folsom, Placerville, El Dorado Hills, Susanville, Quincy and Alturas (916)651-4001 https://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedGaines/
Senator Cathleen Galgiani – District 5: San Joaquin County and portions of Stanislaus and Sacramento Counties (916) 651-4005 https://www.facebook.com/SenatorCathleenGalgiani/
Senator Ben Hueso – District 40: San Diego and all of Imperial County. (916) 651-4040
Senator Ricardo Lara – District 33: Los Angeles County cities and communities of Cudahy, Bell, Bell Gardens, Lynwood, Maywood, Signal Hill, Paramount, South Gate, Vernon, Walnut Park, Huntington Park, and most of Long Beach with portions of the cities of Lakewood & L.A. (916) 651-4033 https://www.facebook.com/SenatorRicardoLara/
Senator Anthony J. Portantino – District 25: Sunland-Tujunga, Glendale, Pasadena, Altadena, Atwater Village, La Cañada Flintridge, La Crescenta, Montrose, South Pasadena, San Marino, Sierra Madre, Monrovia, Duarte, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Claremont, San Antonio Heights, and Upland plus most of Burbank. The district includes the Bob Hope Airport and the communities of interest surrounding and using Griffith Park. (916) 651-4025 https://www.facebook.com/portantino/

 

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2017–2018 REGULAR SESSION

 

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 354

Introduced by Assembly Member Calderon
February 08, 2017
An act to add Division 21 (commencing with Section 60000) to the Financial Code, relating to housing investors.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 354, as amended, Calderon. Institutional investors: housing.  Existing law establishes the Department of Business Oversight within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency.  Existing law, the Economic Revitalization Act, establishes the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, also known as GO-Biz, under the control of a director. Existing law requires GO-Biz to serve the Governor as the lead entity for economic strategy and authorizes it to undertake specified activities, including marketing business and investment opportunities in California by working in partnership with local, regional, federal, and other state public and private institutions.
This bill would require an institutional investor, as defined, to register by July 1, 2018, and annually thereafter, with the Department of Business Oversight by providing a statement containing certain information, including, among other things, the total number of residential properties single-family homes in the state that are owned by the institutional investor, the total number of those residential properties occupied by renters, and the total number of residential properties owned by the institutional investor in each county. including the number owned in each county, and the number occupied by renters throughout the state, and in each county. The bill would authorize the department to charge a reasonable fee to process the registration. The bill would require the department to submit a report to the Legislature by December 1, 2018, July 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, regarding the information collected from institutional investors during the prior calendar year pursuant to the provisions of this bill.

DIGEST KEY

Vote: majority   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: no  


BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Division 21 (commencing with Section 60000) is added to the Financial Code, to read:

DIVISION 21. Institutional Investors

60000.

(a) An institutional investor shall register by July 1, 2018, and annually thereafter, with the department by providing the Department of Business Oversight with a written statement of all of the following:

(1) The total number of residential properties single-family homes in the state that are owned by the institutional investor, including the total number of residential properties occupied by renters, and the total number of residential properties owned by the institutional investor in each county. number that are owned in each county, and the number that are occupied by renters throughout the state, and in each county.
(2) The total number of residential properties single-family homes annually purchased by the institutional investor.
(3) The total number of offers to purchase residential property single-family homes in the state made by the institutional investor.
(4) The total dollar value of residential properties single-family homes owned by the institutional investor in the state and the total dollar value of residential properties single-family homes owned by the institutional investor that are occupied by renters.
(5) The total number of residential properties single-family homes that are sold to existing tenants.
(b) The department may charge a reasonable fee to administer the registration required pursuant to subdivision (a).
(c) (1)For purposes of this section, an “institutional investor” means a publicly traded company or corporation that satisfies both of the following:
(A)Is devoted to holding and managing more than 100 single-family residential properties with owns homes in the state during a calendar year that are occupied by renters and that have a total value of more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in the state occupied by renters, either on behalf of clients or for itself. ($10,000,000).

(B)Owns more than 100 single-family homes in the state during a calendar year.

(2)“Institutional investor” does not include a public entity, including, but not limited to, the state or a city, county, or city and county.

(d) For purposes of this section, “single-family home” means a home that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision.

(c)

(e) (1) The Notwithstanding Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, the department shall submit a report to the Legislature by December 1, 2018, July 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, regarding the information collected pursuant to subdivision (a). (a) during the prior calendar year.
(2) A report required to be submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

America’s Housing Crisis Is Spreading To Smaller Cities

America’s Housing Crisis Is Spreading To Smaller Cities

 

BOISE, ID – NOVEMBER 14, 2017: The downtown Boise skyline. (Photo by Joe Jaszewski for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

America’s Housing Crisis Is Spreading To Smaller Cities.  The next front in the battle over affordable housing isn’t Boston or San Francisco. It’s Boise.

“Have you considered the racket and the lights and the crowds and the traffic, and everything that’s going to happen to those of us who live here?”

It is a familiar sight in America: the public meeting, the angry residents, the housing developer trying to explain himself over the boos.

“Take the money you’ve got and get out of here,” one person shouts. A chant begins: “Oppose! Oppose! Oppose!”

Except this is not San Francisco or L.A. or Boston. It is Boise, Idaho.

And it is a preview of the next chapter in the housing crisis. Rising rents, displacement and, yes, NIMBYism are spreading from America’s biggest cities to those in its middle tier. Last year, according to an Apartment List survey, the fastest-rising rents in the country were in Orlando, Florida; Reno, Nevada; and Sacramento, California. Another survey, by RentCafe, found exactly one city with a population greater than 500,000 ― Las Vegas ― in the top 25.

Small cities are starting to face the same challenges as larger ones. Renting a two-bedroom apartment in Jacksonville, Florida, requires earning at least $18.63 per hour ― $10.53 more than the state minimum wage. In Tacoma, Washington (pop. 211,000), a property management company is evicting low-income residents so it can flip their building into luxury units. Boise, where downtown condos are going for $400,000, was the seventh most unequal city in America in 2016, a jump from 79th place just five years earlier.

And it’s only going to get worse. As the poor get pushed inward from the coasts and as young workers seek out the few affordable places left, they will arrive in America’s smaller cities ― which may not be ready to take them.

Rising rents in small and midsize cities are a humanitarian crisis

Boise is, by some measures, the fastest-growing city in America. It added 3 percent to its population last year and is projected to add another 200,000 people, around a third of its current population, by 2025.

This should be good news. The city’s growth is driven by a booming, diversified economy and an influx of skilled, educated young people. But Boise isn’t adding homes fast enough to keep up. According to an analysis from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there’s a demand for more than 10 times as many homes as the city is building. Without anything new available, incoming residents are scooping up what’s already there, bidding up costs and pricing out current residents.

The impact is devastating. Nearly half of Boise’s renters are living in apartments that eat up over 30 percent of their income. Since 2005, as living costs have exploded, Boise’s median income has fallen and the number of homeless children has more than doubled. Last month, a 5-year-old died when the car her family was sleeping in caught fire in a Walmart parking lot.

And yet, even as the city’s needs have grown, its ability to meet them has diminished.

According to Deanna Watson, the executive director of the Boise City/Ada County Housing Authority, Boise provides rental vouchers to around 2,500 low-income residents. If they can only afford, say, $300 per month, and their rent is $800, the vouchers make up the difference.

With rents booming, though, the assistance isn’t keeping up. HUD recalculates the value of the vouchers every year. But some Boise landlords are raising rents every 60 days.

“I’ve been doing this for 21 years and I’ve never seen anything like it,” Watson says. One voucher recipient lives in an old hotel converted into apartments. He uses a motorized wheelchair and needs live-in care. His rent has gone up $275 in the last 18 months, and he’s falling behind. “We’ve got people spending 80 to 90 percent of their income on rent, even with a rental assistance voucher,” Watson says. “And if they get evicted, or leave on their own, there’s no place for them to move.”

The perverse incentives don’t end there. Boise’s federal voucher allotment is determined each year by the previous year’s spending. With the apartment vacancy rate at 1 percent, and landlords refusing to rent to Boiseans who receive housing assistance (which is legal under Idaho law), it can take months for low-income residents to find anywhere that will take them.

To federal administrators, though, every unused rental voucher looks like unspent funding. Watson says it’s nearly impossible for the local housing authority to predict how many of the vouchers will actually get used. If the agency underspends, HUD will cut its budget. If it overspends, the city will have to make up the difference. Boise’s 2015 Housing Needs Assessment notes that since 2010, as the need for subsidized housing has increased, the use of rental vouchers has fallen. “When the need goes up,” Watson says, “the funding goes down.”

The same vulnerabilities are showing up in small cities across the country. In Orlando, where rents rose by almost 8 percent last year, the median rent already takes up 71 percent of the median income. According to Apartment List, Memphis, Tennessee, had the highest per capita eviction rate in the country between 2015 and 2017. Montana has seen a 33 percent rise in homelessness in the last decade. Smaller cities have lower rents, but they also have lower wages, less diverse economies and fewer social services. Everything that makes it easier to get onto the housing ladder in places like Boise also makes it easier to fall off.

American cities are still catching up from the recession

It’s tempting to look at the housing crisis in Boise as just a miniature version of what’s already happened in the Bay Area and the Pacific Northwest and the Northeastern corridor. But in the last 10 years, the American economy has transformed in ways that are going to make it even harder for smaller cities to respond to growth.

In 2007, the city of Boise was issuing more than twice as many building permits as it is now. Despite having 125,000 more residents, Boise’s metro area built fewer homes in 2016 than it did in 2004.

The reason, says Gary Hanes, a retired HUD administrator based in Boise, is that the recession wiped out the city’s construction sector. Between 2008 and 2012, Boise home prices fell by 40 percent. With homebuilding stalled, thousands of construction workers took other jobs or left for North Dakota or Alaska. By 2012, once all the low-cost and foreclosed homes had been scooped up and the city needed new housing again, there was no one left to build it.

This isn’t just a Boise problem. Construction workers, even in high-paid jobs and booming cities, are in short supply. Plus, thanks to increasing international demand, prices for timber, steel and concrete are going up nationwide. Banks have gotten more risk-averse since the recession, preferring to finance “sure bets” ― such as McMansions in the suburbs ― over “riskier” projects like urban apartment blocks or affordable housing.

The higher costs of materials, financing and labor, combined with the years-long lag in homebuilding, have made construction unbearably expensive. Fred Cornforth, the CEO of the CDI/Idaho Development and Housing Organization, builds affordable housing in 17 states. He tells me that his last project in Boise cost around $155,000 per apartment ― cheaper than Seattle, where he also develops properties, but not by as much as you’d think.

This, Cornforth says, is the fundamental challenge of the housing crisis in Boise and everywhere else: The only way make prices fall is to overbuild. You need vacancy rates of 8 percent or more before rents start to come down. But the backlog is so great, and the costs of building are so high, that it’s impossible even to meet the current demand. Every year, he says, as the backlog grows, the costs go up and the challenge of meeting the need gets worse.

Red states make solving the housing crisis harder

Then there are all the challenges of being located in a red state. Not that California and Massachusetts are exactly exemplars of equitable growth, but nearly all of Boise’s problems are exacerbated by neglect or outright sabotage from state lawmakers.

The city is barred, for example, from forcing developers to reserve a percentage of their units for affordable housing. The state’s Housing Trust Fund, which was created in 1992 and could help alleviate some of the pressure on the vouchers, has never seen a dime of state funding. Plus, Idaho law prevents Boise from taxing itself to provide better city services. Even carpool lanes are forbidden by state law.

“We’ve got a campaign for governor going on right now and there hasn’t been a minute of airtime about how to grow,” says Jerry Brady, a former politician and the founder of Compassionate Boise, a nongovernmental organization that advocates for equitable growth. “It’s all freedom, abortion and who can cut spending the most. There’s never a moment’s conversation about traffic or how to prevent us from becoming the next California.”

This makes no financial sense, of course. The Boise area generates 47 percent of Idaho’s gross domestic product. State funding to build more homes, expand public transit or prepare the city’s water and sewer systems for more residents would, in the long run, save money and attract more growth.

And yet, here we are. Many of the cities now experiencing galloping rises in living costs are in rural, Republican-dominated states ― places where increasing funding to low-income renters and investing in public housing are politically impossible. At the federal level, too, help is decidedly not on the way. Last year’s Republican tax plan removed a subsidy for affordable housing developers. Just last week, HUD Secretary Ben Carson announced that his department was shrinking federal housing subsidies.

That has implications far beyond Boise. In a survey of 156 mayors earlier this year, 72 percent reported that affordable housing was becoming a problem. Even in small towns, housing costs were the No. 2 concern that mayors reported hearing from their constituents. It’s a nationwide problem ― 87 percent of the country’s 250 biggest cities reported rent rises last year ― but one that cities are still expected to solve by themselves.

Neighbors are fighting growth

Ultimately, the housing crisis is not about housing. It is about the inability of American cities to grow.

“It’s hard to acknowledge change,” says Mike Kazmierski, the president of the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada. He’s been watching Reno, another medium-size boomtown, play out the same debates as Boise for over six years now. “If you say your city is going to grow, that means you need another fire station, more schools, more staff. Cities don’t have the budgets for that, and asking for it means raising taxes. The pushback is, ‘We don’t want to pay for that growth. Let them pay for it when they get here.’”

This is where Boise starts to look depressingly familiar. In the last few years, as the city’s growth has become more visible, NIMBY groups have taken over the political conversation. Of the 21 speakers at a town hall meeting last month, only two said they welcomed more growth. Signs reading “OVERCROWDING IS NOT SUSTAINABLE” are showing up in front yards. Some local residents, taking a page from the San Francisco playbook, are trying to get their neighborhood classified as a “conservation district” to block new buildings from going in.

Some of the complaints have merit ― it’s hard not to be sympathetic to residents asking for sidewalks on their streets or more frequent bus service ― but many are simply pleas for the growth itself to stop. A comment on the Facebook page for Vanishing Boise, one of the local anti-development groups, is emblematic of the argument: “Why are they coming in the first place?????”

As in other cities, this dynamic reveals a fundamental weakness in the American political system: Opposition to growth comes from homeowners and voters, entrenched interests who already have the ear of local politicians. Supporters of growth, the beneficiaries of all the new development, haven’t even moved here yet.

This means, says Zoe Olsen, the executive director of the Intermountain Fair Housing Council, that local opposition is often focused on preventing growth rather than managing it. “Everyone wants to preserve the farmland around us,” she says. “But these neighborhood groups are fighting for things like, ‘Let’s have one home per acre.’ The only way we’re going to preserve our parks and our beautiful pastoral feeling is by building upwards.”

But there is no political constituency for this argument. Boise’s homeownership rate is 68 percent ― 25 points higher than San Francisco’s. Despite a Boise State University study showing that the city will lose twice as much of its farmland if it continues to expand through sprawl rather than density, most local advocacy groups are making the same argument San Francisco homeowners have made for decades: If we don’t build it, they won’t come.

It’s the same in other midsize, housing-crunched cities: Thanks to the highways and homeowners already there, it’s almost impossible to form the critical mass to make hard decisions about how to grow. Cedar Rapids, Iowa, spent years debating whether to build a single low-income housing complex. Franklin, Tennessee, changed its zoning to allow less density after a developer put 20 houses on a 24-acre plot. In Boise, residents resisted a city plan to base the F-35 fighter jet nearby ― along with the high-paying, secure military jobs that accompany it ― because they didn’t want the noise.

But there are shoots of hope, too. Hanes, the retired HUD administrator, points out that Boise is building dedicated housing for its chronically homeless population. Of the 1,000 housing units under construction downtown, more than 250 are reserved for low-income residents. Hanes started a group, Love Your Neighbor, that shows up at City Council meetings and argues for more growth.

And Hanes, who lived in San Francisco during its early boom years, sees one significant difference between the new housing crisis in smaller cities and the decades-old one in bigger metropolises.

“Here,” he says, “we can still solve it.”

 

Originally published on HUFFPOST
Written by Michael Hobbes
Senior Enterprise Reporter, HuffPost

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

People have stopped paying their mobile-home loans, and it’s a warning sign for the economy

 

 

People have stopped paying their mobile home loans, and it’s a warning sign for the economy.

  • Delinquencies on mobile-home loans have increased by 2 percentage points over the past year, according to research cited by UBS.
  • The rising delinquency rate, combined with signs of stress in other areas of the consumer-finance market, suggests there’s a two-speed economy.

The mobile-home market is showing signs of stress.

The delinquency rate on mobile-home loans has increased by 200 basis points, or 2 percentage points, over the past year, according to research cited by UBS. The 30-day-plus delinquency level is now about 5%, the highest level since 2005.

The increase in the number of struggling mobile-home borrowers suggests that a large chunk of these people haven’t benefitted from the economic growth of the past few years, despite the low unemployment level.

“We interpret this data to mean that these individuals have not largely benefitted from these macro-dynamics, and may also be disproportionately exposed to industries that have experienced compression — rather than expansion — in the current economic conditions, such as retail or some areas of energy extraction,” UBS said.

 

Conventional single-family residential loan delinquencies haven’t seen a similar uptick, instead continuing their steady downward path through the post-recession recovery.

This data represents a piece of a jigsaw puzzle of the condition of consumer finances in the US. And the picture that’s emerging, according to UBS, is of a two-speed economy, with lower-income consumers and younger borrowers with substantial student debt moving at a slower pace than more affluent and established participants.or example:

  • About three in five consumers with an annual income below $40,000 indicate that their earnings barely or do not cover their expenses, a UBS survey found.
  • Lower-income earners are often renting and carrying non-mortgage debt — such as credit card, auto, and student debt — at levels similar to or higher than the period before the financial crisis.
  • More than one-third of borrowers in this demographic report misrepresenting their financials in loan applications, a UBS survey found.
  • “While delinquency rates among student loans remain the highest of any consumer asset class, several other asset classes are beginning to inflect off of recent lows, despite broadly supportive economic conditions,” UBS said.
  • The new tax law is likely to benefit middle-income borrowers, but it could have limited benefits for lower-income borrowers.

“We believe weakness in these two groups will drive higher credit losses at some stage over the next few years — particularly in credit card, installment, and student loans — with macroeconomic inflection from job growth to job loss as a likely catalyst,” UBS said.

This article first appeared here.   By Matt Turner

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

What is wrong with Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH FLORIDA’S THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL?

Statistics from every Florida District Court of Appeal show something is wrong with the Third District’s handling of foreclosure cases.

By Evan M. Rosen

Fort Lauderdale, Florida (February 8, 2018) – “Statistics reveal what experienced Florida foreclosure attorneys already know, the Third District Court of Appeal has an issue properly adjudicating foreclosure cases. As detailed in one of the attached spreadsheets, of its sixteen written opinions addressing standing in recent-era foreclosure cases, the Third District has only ruled for a property owner twice. 66 Team, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank Nat. Ass’n, 187 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) and Riocabo v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, 230 So. 3d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). (Consider that in 66 Team, the bank did not admit any documents or evidence at trial to prove its case. And in Riocabo, the bank confessed error – admitting that it must lose on appeal.)

Yet, every other district in the state has ruled for property owners in the overwhelming majority of its cases, and have issued far more written opinions. The attached chart tabulates and summarizes every Florida appellate written foreclosure opinion on standing over the course of the “foreclosure crisis.”

The neighboring Fourth District has issued 121 written foreclosure opinions on standing, 88 (73%) have been in favor of property owners. On this same issue, the Second District has issued 43 written opinions, 36 (84%) have been for property owners; the First District has ruled for owners 83% of the time; and the Fifth District has found for owners 72% of the time.

But, the Third District has ruled for a property owner only twice (13%). It’s also noteworthy that the Third has only issued sixteen written foreclosure opinions on standing – the fewest of any appellate court in the state. There is apparently no justifiable way to explain this.” ~ E. Rosen.

 

FROM OUR DESK:

The statistics are quite clear, but nothing seems to make sense.  The corruption in Florida runs as deep as the swamplands.  Draing the swamp?

Read through the press release by clicking here:  press release

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved