Does anyone else question the nature of Peter McLaughlin's support for this mortgage insurance proposal?
I look at it this way: it's yet another subsidy for Wells Fargo Mortgage! There are many private and federal programs for mortgage insurance. It is odd that just as the I-35 W Access Project is making dozens of properties ineligible for FHA financing (proximity to freeways, noise levels, etc), McLaughlin comes out with a program that makes them eligible for Wells Fargo financing, on the taxpayers' dime.
Tom Welling
Uptown
--- On Fri 03/14, < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
From: [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:
17:06 -0600
Subject: [Mpls] NRP Housing Issue
Greetings,
I have been involved in the production of low-income housing for over 25
years. As much as anyone, I understand the need for low-income housing and
share the passion for production of new units. The recent proposal before
the NRP Policy Board to create a mortgage insurance program caused quite a
furor. Concerns centered on two issues: is this a wise use of scarce
low-income housing resources; and was the process by which this proposal
was considered legitimate. Let me try to put this proposal in context and
address some of the issues and questions.
The concept of creating affordable home ownership opportunities is, in my
mind, a complement to the production of new affordable rental units. Among
the potential benefits of a home ownership component are: it is often less
expensive per unit/family than rental property; it has the potential to
help stabilize ne
ighborhoods with low ownership rates; it often opens up
affordable rental units as families move into home ownership; it offers
families a way to break out of poverty by owning real estate that
appreciates over time; it may elicit significant private sector
involvement; and because it is a revolving fund, the initial investment is
self-perpetuating.
The actual benefits of a program depend upon the details. During the Policy
Board discussion, I made several specific requests regarding the program
design, including solicitation of bank participation to eliminate the need
for NRP or MCDA to administer the program; estimated costs per unit; steps
required to create a revolving fund to allow these funds to be reused for
mortgages for other low income people once the need for mortgage insurance
is gone for the initial participants.
I viewed this as a preliminary vote of approval by the Policy Board. The
resolution specifies that th
e funds will only be distributed after approval
of guidelines for the program. Thus, the understanding, based on the
debate, was that those guidelines would come back and would include
targeting of the funds by both income and neighborhood. Again, based on
the discussion, it is my expectation that the funds would be tightly
targeted to low-income people and neighborhoods with low rates of home
ownership.
The second question relates to the process by which this decision was
reached. This was an action of the Policy Board, the very same Policy Board
that originally set aside the $4 million and established the basis for its
use. Proposing changes in the intended use of those funds is clearly
within the province of the Policy Board. The City must approve or modify
any such change, a rare occurrence in the history of NRP, but that
authority resides with the Council and the Mayor. The fact that
Neighborhood Reps offered the amendment s
eems very much in keeping with the
role of neighborhoods in the NRP process and is precisely why it is so
important to have Neighborhood Reps on the Board.
The mortgage insurance proposal was meant to change the programmatic use of
a portion of the housing funds, clearly the province of the Board. As
discussed at the meeting, it used a portion of the money set aside on an
alternative approach to dealing with the housing needs of low-income
individuals and families. Because of this difference, it didn't fit within
the existing process and criteria of the fund. Thus, the Board exercised
its authority to change the strategy for use of some of the funds. This
isn't a violation of any process; it was the Board (and the Neighborhood
Reps) exercising their rightful authority.
Finally, if the guidelines mandated in the February resolution are not
satisfactory, the decision can be reversed. If less than $2 million is
needed, the sum c
an be reduced. The resolution was a way to focus people's
attention on an alternative way of addressing the housing needs of
low-income people in Minneapolis and potentially strengthening
neighborhoods with low rates of home ownership. The proposal obviously did
not contain sufficient details to implement immediately. The resolution
provided for that by calling for guidelines to come back to the Policy
Board.
I've been active in affordable housing for over 25 years. Low-income
ownership, with the enhanced control and stability it provides, has been a
goal since my days at PRG helping produce limited equity coops. I voted
for this proposal because it offered the hope, through a modest investment,
of providing another means of addressing the housing needs of low-income
people in Minneapolis. It is surely worth a serious look. That's what the
resolution did. And the Neighborhood Reps are to be applauded for taking
their responsibili
ties seriously.
Peter McLaughlin
NRP Policy Board Member
TEMPORARY REMINDER:
1. Send all posts in plain-text format.
2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible.
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
|
