In 1968 Justice Stewart writing for a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court stated "IF CONGRESS WERE POWERLESS TO ASSURE THAT A DOLLAR IN THE HAND OF A BLACK MAN WILL PURCHASE THE SAME THING AS A DOLLAR IN THE HANDS OF A WHITE MAN ......THEN THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT [BANNING SLAVERY] MADE A PROMISE THE NATION CANNOT KEEP."
Jones v Alfred H. Mayer
Today that promise remains unfulfilled for many Americans because of the color of their skin, their race, ancestry, religion or mental or physical disability. The most important consumer purchase a person will make in their life time is buying a home. Under the Federal and California fair housing laws you have the right to be treated in an equal and impartial manner by a financial institution.
What is prohibited?
When applying for a loan, refinancing a mortgage or home equity loan no one can take the following actions for reasons of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, martial or family status or disability:
- deny a loan
- establish terms, conditions, or privileges different for the giving of a loan, for
example giving the loan only with a higher interest rate or downpayment
- charge different costs for services like making an application, doing an
appraisal, closing costs etc.
- be targeted for a loan that has fees, terms or rates that are excessively high
i.e predatory
What Should I look for?
If you experience one or more of the following you may have been discriminated against.
- Property Standards: Does the bank have standards for lending based on the maximum age or minimum property value?
- Minimum Loan Amounts: Does the bank have standards for lending based on a minimum loan amount?
- Subjective Lending Criteria: Does the bank have standards for lending based on the property being well maintained? Is the bank asking vague questions about the applicants character or insisting that the borrower have excellent credit?
- Different Terms for Loan: Does the bank have higher fees on smaller loans; require different downpayments or offer higher interest rates for loans in Hispanic or an African-American neighborhoods?
- Employment Stability: Does the bank have standards for lending based on the applicant being on the job for at least two years?
- Credit Record: Does the bank have standards for lending which excludes from the credit history regular payment of rent, utilities, doctors or the local grocer?
- Appraisal Practices: Does the bank have appraisers that make downward adjustments on the value of a home for "functional obsolescence" because it or the neighborhood is over a certain age?
- Private Mortgage Insurance: Does the bank have insurance companies that reject coverage based on some or all of the underwriting standards listed above?
The problem of predatory lending practices.
This is a problem that effects middle class families, as well as the working poor, but such practices are most especially targeted to lower income families and the elderly that don?t usually qualify for well regulated loans. Faced with a crisis like the purchase of a car, a major repair to their home, or a hospital bill, many people are forced to apply for a loan from a finance company or subprime lender.
Some of these lenders require the payment of high annual interest and points, pad closing costs, add recording fees, bogus broker fees and the like. The applicant must often buy credit life insurance, often for excessive amounts and roll all the premiums up-front to be financed as part of the loan.
The purpose of these terms is to make a lot of money. Also, it is to make sure that the person will not meet the terms of the loan. This forces the person into another round of refinancing so more fees and charges can be assessed until the home is foreclosed on and the borrower?s credit is completely ruined.
Find out your credit score.
The most important information to get a mortgage is your credit score. Score a 750 and your excellent credit history will likely make your dream home a reality. Rate a 525 or lower and your only hope will be a subprime lender or finance company. Until recently, this credit scoring system was a secret. However, now for a small fee, Fair, Issac & Company and Equifax Credit Information Services will provide you your score, information on how it was arrived at and things you can do to improve it. If you want to get your credit score go to their web site (www.myfico.com) or write Equifax Credit Information Services at P.O. Box 70241, Atlanta, Ga. 30324.
Where can you get help?
Often, the only way you can find out if your a victim of housing discrimination or predatory lending is to contact your local Fair Housing enforcement agency and request that they investigate a particular lender and their loan officers.
For people with a disability, the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) also has made a telephone number free of charge for the hearing impaired (1-800-927-9275), also interpreters, tapes, Braille materials and assistance reading and completing the forms. HUD?s web site also has information about filing a complaint (www.hud.gov)
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Lawsuit may delay Alexander Crossing apartments
CHANTAL M. LOVELL - Napa Valley Register Monday, September 18, 2011
A pending lawsuit will likely delay construction of 134 new apartments in southeast Napa, but it is too soon to tell for how long.
St. Anton Partners received City Council approval in August to build the Alexander Crossing apartments at 190 Silverado Trail. The Sacramento-based developer had planned to break ground later this year or early next, depending on weather, said Robert Lawler, a project manager.
That schedule is now up in the air following the filing of a lawsuit on Aug. 31 by neighbor Debra Phairas and the Neighbors Against Alexander Crossings, an unincorporated association.
The suit asks the court to prevent St. Anton from “engaging in any physical construction or pre-construction activities” related to the apartment construction while the case is pending.
“We’re still in the process of getting our permits,” Lawler said. It’s too soon to tell how long construction could be delayed as a result of the lawsuit, he said.
Lawler said St. Anton Partners has hired a land-use attorney to help it defend against allegations that include the assertion that the site is zoned for single-family residences.
St. Anton Partners is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the city of Napa, the City Council and property owner ZR Gateway LLC.
City attorney Michael Barrett said the city is preparing its defense, including a record of the process by which the apartments were approved.
“In general, the court will hear the substance of each party’s position within approximately 9 to 12 months,” he wrote in an email.
In the meantime, Lawler said the developer will continue to seek permits as planned. If a judge does order them to stop all work, or prevents construction from beginning, he is unsure whether the apartments will be ready for occupancy by the spring of 2013, its original estimated date of completion.
Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano, a group that advocates for affordable housing, said the legal challenge further delays people who need affordably- to moderately-priced housing from moving to the city in which they work.
“Alexander Crossing would provide some moderate-income units, and of those 134, 27 would be affordable to low- and very-low-income residents,” said David Grabill, a Santa Rosa attorney who represents the group. Latinos Unidos has previously sued the city and county over lack of affordable housing.
“Right now, one-third of the people who work in Napa County commute from other counties. Most of those people find housing in Napa too expensive. A lot of those people would be interested in Alexander Crossing,” Grabill said.
“Napa has a long way to go to meet its affordable housing needs,” he said. “(Alexander Crossing) is a drop in the bucket, but it’s a drop which is better than no drop. We’re sad the neighbors filed this.”
Napa’s housing manager, Jan Maurer-Watkins, said all new developments are required to make at least 10 percent of their units affordable to people who make 50 percent or less of the area’s median income or pay a fee to contribute to future affordable housing projects.
While the 27 promised affordable units at Alexander Crossing are needed, so are the market-rate apartments, she said.
“There’s more of a demand for rental housing right now because of the foreclosures that have happened over the past years,” she said. “By this project not going through, this would impact the ability of a whole range of Napa residents from finding residences that are affordable to them.”
The neighbors’ attorney, Allan C. Moore, of Danville, said the case is not about preventing apartments from being built or delaying a partially affordable housing project. He said the neighbors behind the suit just want to make sure laws are followed.
“We do not oppose any affordable units, but we do want good government,” Moore said.
The primary issue is whether zoning laws were followed, Moore said. The neighbors allege in the complaint that “a significant portion” of the project is zoned for single-family use, therefore an apartment complex may not be built there.
“I think everybody should care about this,” Moore said. “The multiple-family use was approved in a place that only allows single-family use. ... The general public should always be concerned that the city only approve uses allowed in that zoning.”
Moore equated the alleged wrongdoing with allowing a gas station to be constructed in the heart of a residential area.
The case also accuses the city and other defendants of misleading the public by listing the wrong Assessor’s Parcel Numbers in documents, and failing to do a full environmental impact report.
Grabill said he fears that this type of opposition to new housing projects will deter others from trying to build in Napa. “It’s a red flag to other developers to stay away,” he said.
“We remain committed to the project and we are going to defend it,” Lawler said.
Read more: http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/lawsuit-may-delay-alexander-crossing-apartments/article_4bafbbfe-e271-11e0-8e4a-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1YMwpcFF3
A pending lawsuit will likely delay construction of 134 new apartments in southeast Napa, but it is too soon to tell for how long.
St. Anton Partners received City Council approval in August to build the Alexander Crossing apartments at 190 Silverado Trail. The Sacramento-based developer had planned to break ground later this year or early next, depending on weather, said Robert Lawler, a project manager.
That schedule is now up in the air following the filing of a lawsuit on Aug. 31 by neighbor Debra Phairas and the Neighbors Against Alexander Crossings, an unincorporated association.
The suit asks the court to prevent St. Anton from “engaging in any physical construction or pre-construction activities” related to the apartment construction while the case is pending.
“We’re still in the process of getting our permits,” Lawler said. It’s too soon to tell how long construction could be delayed as a result of the lawsuit, he said.
Lawler said St. Anton Partners has hired a land-use attorney to help it defend against allegations that include the assertion that the site is zoned for single-family residences.
St. Anton Partners is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the city of Napa, the City Council and property owner ZR Gateway LLC.
City attorney Michael Barrett said the city is preparing its defense, including a record of the process by which the apartments were approved.
“In general, the court will hear the substance of each party’s position within approximately 9 to 12 months,” he wrote in an email.
In the meantime, Lawler said the developer will continue to seek permits as planned. If a judge does order them to stop all work, or prevents construction from beginning, he is unsure whether the apartments will be ready for occupancy by the spring of 2013, its original estimated date of completion.
Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano, a group that advocates for affordable housing, said the legal challenge further delays people who need affordably- to moderately-priced housing from moving to the city in which they work.
“Alexander Crossing would provide some moderate-income units, and of those 134, 27 would be affordable to low- and very-low-income residents,” said David Grabill, a Santa Rosa attorney who represents the group. Latinos Unidos has previously sued the city and county over lack of affordable housing.
“Right now, one-third of the people who work in Napa County commute from other counties. Most of those people find housing in Napa too expensive. A lot of those people would be interested in Alexander Crossing,” Grabill said.
“Napa has a long way to go to meet its affordable housing needs,” he said. “(Alexander Crossing) is a drop in the bucket, but it’s a drop which is better than no drop. We’re sad the neighbors filed this.”
Napa’s housing manager, Jan Maurer-Watkins, said all new developments are required to make at least 10 percent of their units affordable to people who make 50 percent or less of the area’s median income or pay a fee to contribute to future affordable housing projects.
While the 27 promised affordable units at Alexander Crossing are needed, so are the market-rate apartments, she said.
“There’s more of a demand for rental housing right now because of the foreclosures that have happened over the past years,” she said. “By this project not going through, this would impact the ability of a whole range of Napa residents from finding residences that are affordable to them.”
The neighbors’ attorney, Allan C. Moore, of Danville, said the case is not about preventing apartments from being built or delaying a partially affordable housing project. He said the neighbors behind the suit just want to make sure laws are followed.
“We do not oppose any affordable units, but we do want good government,” Moore said.
The primary issue is whether zoning laws were followed, Moore said. The neighbors allege in the complaint that “a significant portion” of the project is zoned for single-family use, therefore an apartment complex may not be built there.
“I think everybody should care about this,” Moore said. “The multiple-family use was approved in a place that only allows single-family use. ... The general public should always be concerned that the city only approve uses allowed in that zoning.”
Moore equated the alleged wrongdoing with allowing a gas station to be constructed in the heart of a residential area.
The case also accuses the city and other defendants of misleading the public by listing the wrong Assessor’s Parcel Numbers in documents, and failing to do a full environmental impact report.
Grabill said he fears that this type of opposition to new housing projects will deter others from trying to build in Napa. “It’s a red flag to other developers to stay away,” he said.
“We remain committed to the project and we are going to defend it,” Lawler said.
Read more: http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/lawsuit-may-delay-alexander-crossing-apartments/article_4bafbbfe-e271-11e0-8e4a-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1YMwpcFF3
Monday, July 4, 2011
Napa Valley Register Editorial
Decade-old lawsuit led to better housing plan
The bedrock principle on which the Napa Valley has flourished both economically and culturally in the last half-century has centered on protecting its agriculture. But safeguarding land against development doesn’t excuse the county or its cities from state-mandated housing obligations.
That delicate balance between ag preservation and new housing requirements makes for some difficult planning challenges. Every choice is thoroughly scrutinized not just locally, but by litigious affordable housing advocates.
When Napa Superior Court Judge Ray Guadagni ruled in June that the county’s housing plan complied with California state law — in response to a challenge by attorney David Grabill, representing Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano — it showed that the county is, in fact, balancing its goals well.
“We were relieved,” County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman said. “One of the frustrating things for me is that we spent all this time and energy and money debating the finer points of the law when we could have been spending all of that time, energy and money on providing affordable housing.”
Litigation may be the enemy of progress now, but it was also likely the original catalyst for the county’s current, more progressive, look at its housing needs.
Almost a decade ago, Latinos Unidos and Grabill first sued the county over its housing plans after the county’s Housing Element lost units to the incorporation of American Canyon. Expensive deals between the county and the cities of Napa and American Canyon — but not much housing — were the result.
That lawsuit may have been the foundation for the county’s subregional housing alliance, which has brought the county and its municipalities together to share future housing allocations from the Association of Bay Area Governments. Housing numbers will now be given to Napa County and its municipalities to distribute in a way that makes more planning sense for the entire region.
“It would be fair to say that there was sort of a head-in-the-sand attitude toward housing in the county prior to that first lawsuit,” said Larry Florin, the county’s housing director. “It certainly has evolved into us thinking more proactively about how we deal with it.”
That evolution has grown to include consideration for state legislation like Senate Bill 375 and Assembly Bill 32, which called for future development to be near a city’s transportation network to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.
And development dollars can go a lot further when, for example, affordable housing incentives come from both county and city sources, as evidenced with the recent contributions to the Alexander Crossing proposal in the city of Napa.
Napa County has righted its housing plans in the last decade and made a real attempt at meeting our ever-changing housing needs.
The county’s actions have demonstrated an interest in doing more than just meeting a planning obligation.
Hopefully, livable affordable housing units will follow soon.
For some Napans, “ag preserve” will forever mean “no more houses anywhere in Napa County.”
But that’s not the law, and that’s not the county’s approach to the future.
Read more: http://napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/editorial/decade-old-lawsuit-led-to-better-housing-plan/article_4e11b6f8-a523-11e0-b8a4-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1RABYpFJ6
The bedrock principle on which the Napa Valley has flourished both economically and culturally in the last half-century has centered on protecting its agriculture. But safeguarding land against development doesn’t excuse the county or its cities from state-mandated housing obligations.
That delicate balance between ag preservation and new housing requirements makes for some difficult planning challenges. Every choice is thoroughly scrutinized not just locally, but by litigious affordable housing advocates.
When Napa Superior Court Judge Ray Guadagni ruled in June that the county’s housing plan complied with California state law — in response to a challenge by attorney David Grabill, representing Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano — it showed that the county is, in fact, balancing its goals well.
“We were relieved,” County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman said. “One of the frustrating things for me is that we spent all this time and energy and money debating the finer points of the law when we could have been spending all of that time, energy and money on providing affordable housing.”
Litigation may be the enemy of progress now, but it was also likely the original catalyst for the county’s current, more progressive, look at its housing needs.
Almost a decade ago, Latinos Unidos and Grabill first sued the county over its housing plans after the county’s Housing Element lost units to the incorporation of American Canyon. Expensive deals between the county and the cities of Napa and American Canyon — but not much housing — were the result.
That lawsuit may have been the foundation for the county’s subregional housing alliance, which has brought the county and its municipalities together to share future housing allocations from the Association of Bay Area Governments. Housing numbers will now be given to Napa County and its municipalities to distribute in a way that makes more planning sense for the entire region.
“It would be fair to say that there was sort of a head-in-the-sand attitude toward housing in the county prior to that first lawsuit,” said Larry Florin, the county’s housing director. “It certainly has evolved into us thinking more proactively about how we deal with it.”
That evolution has grown to include consideration for state legislation like Senate Bill 375 and Assembly Bill 32, which called for future development to be near a city’s transportation network to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.
And development dollars can go a lot further when, for example, affordable housing incentives come from both county and city sources, as evidenced with the recent contributions to the Alexander Crossing proposal in the city of Napa.
Napa County has righted its housing plans in the last decade and made a real attempt at meeting our ever-changing housing needs.
The county’s actions have demonstrated an interest in doing more than just meeting a planning obligation.
Hopefully, livable affordable housing units will follow soon.
For some Napans, “ag preserve” will forever mean “no more houses anywhere in Napa County.”
But that’s not the law, and that’s not the county’s approach to the future.
Read more: http://napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/editorial/decade-old-lawsuit-led-to-better-housing-plan/article_4e11b6f8-a523-11e0-b8a4-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1RABYpFJ6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
