CRS Report on Federal Land Ownership

Looks like Oregon @53% is 5th in % of land in state owned by feds, CRS report is HERE. 

Who knew: 48% of California land owned by feds.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

California Surpeme Court Ruling Says OK to Abolish Local Redevelopment Agencies.

KQED story is HERE, includes link to Opinion and reaction from cities.  While application of ruling is legally limited to California, it's safe to anticipate that it will spur similar legislative measures to limit/abolish local redevelopment agencies elsewhere in order to generate income for state budgets.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

UPDATE: Letter from LA City Housing Authority Says $15 Million in Annual Profit From Non Profits Including Section 8 Contract Administration Non Profit.

UPDATE: Thanks to HACLA staff who responded to my public records request today and provided me with a clean copy of the letter. Link to letter below now takes you to that clean copy of the letter. 
--------------
A reporter from the Los Angeles Daily News was kind enough to fax me the letter from HACLA COO Simmons sent to the LA City Council on December 13th. (Recent story is HERE).

Because it is a fax some of text is illegible, but several statements from letter HERE are clear:

1. Simmons indicates that profits from Section 8 contract administration are not considered by HUD to be "federal" monies.  However at end of page 4 he says that his understanding is that any money earned by public agency should be considered public funding.
2. The City of Los Angeles provides no money to HACLA.
3. Simmons did not agree with some of policy calls on spending from former Director and Board Chair.

IRS Form 990's for Los Angeles LOMOD Non Profit. 

Last IRS form 990 that I can find for LOMOD for CY 2009 can be found on web page HERE.  A quick look at that 990 show:

1. None of officers were paid with LOMOD funds; their salaries appear to have been paid by HACLA.
2. No expense for travel was shown ( I wonder if travel expense was included in $4.129 million for "management" ?).
3. Admin fees from HUD totaled $22.3 million, while expenses for OTHER than housing assistance payments totaled $17.3 million (includes "management", "other salaries and wages", and payment to subcontractor Quadel). It is not clear how this $5 million in apparent profit relates to statement in letter that non profits produced $15 million in profit a year; if some of "profit" was received from other non profit controlled by HACLA, I hope that project reserves for HACLA non profit owned projects are fully funded.
4. LOMOD net assets stood at $17.5 million at the end of CY 2009.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog. 

Report on California Housing Cost Containment Forums.

Nogradac has story, with link to report:

The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) yesterday released ..[a summary report] of... comments on scoring, public policies, land costs and local requirements. TCAC plans to gather and analyze more data and will hold a public hearing in September on the subject. Tune in to the Tax Credit Tuesday podcast on August 30 to hear more.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

California Local Redevelopment Agencies Eliminated?

From Novogradac news HERE certainly appears that way: 

The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) is encouraging developers applying for low-income housing tax credit funding to consider if financing agreements from redevelopment agencies (RDAs) will be enforceable at the time of development. TCAC issued the instructions because two budget trailer bills signed by the governor, ABx1 26 and ABx1 27, will effectively eliminate RDAs on October 1, 2011. The budget trailer bills, also known as the Redevelopment Restructuring Acts, suspend new redevelopment activities as of June 29, 2011 and dissolve RDAs on October 1, 2011, unless the RDAs make specified contributions to local school and special districts. TCAC assumes that RDAs will be eliminated October 1 and that only RDA obligations existing prior to June 29, 2011 will be enforceable. Guidance from TCAC, as well as legislation updates, will be posted to the Affordable Housing Resource Center as they become available. 

Almanac News story HERE says there is an expensive way for them to come back. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

California Housing Finance Agency $5.7 Billion in Bonds Downgraded.

Bond Buyer story says: 

Moody's Investors Service downgraded the long-term underlying rating on the California Housing Finance Agency's home mortgage revenue bonds to Baa1 from A3, affecting $5.7 billion of outstanding debt.The rating agency said the drop is mainly a result of the downgrade to Ba1 last month of Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corp., which has reinsured more than 40% of CalHFA's single-family mortgage loans that are pledged as repayment for the revenue bonds.

For those with a Multnomah County library card the full June 8th Bond Buyer story can be located HERE; it will require sign in with library card number and PIN. (Well worth effort, lots of good research materials available on line).

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Brown's California Budget Proposes Phase Out of Local Redevelopment Agencies.

Details are found starting on page 2 of his Tax Relief and Local Government budget Chapter found HERE.  (All chapters for budget proposal can be found HERE).

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

San Francisco Public Housing Gets Free Wi-FI.

Bloomberg News story is HERE. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Fannie/Freddie In California CY 2009: $245 Billion/ 816,000 Homes.

My recent post about CY 2009 GSE and FHA activity HERE included tables showing that GSE CY 2009 loan volume in Oregon was 103,000 loans, representing a federal commitment of $22.6 billion.

I thought it might be interesting to see what GSE loan volume was in California during CY 2009 and so I prepared  tables HERE that show the volume of all loans, and also first time home buyer loans, by California county.

Some CY 2009 California GSE SF observations:

• The GSE's purchased more than 816,000 SF loans in California, representing a federal commitment of $245 billion.
• Of those loans, 88,000 were first time home buyer loans representing a $25 billion federal commitment.
• First time home buyer loans represented 11% of all GSE SF loans. 
• Los Angeles county alone accounted for 53,000 SF GSE loans, and a $117 billion federal commitment, with 22,000 homes and $6.9 billion of that committed to first time home buyers.
• Fannie share of GSE loan purchases was 65%.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

California HFA Back in Market with New $1Billion+ FHA Product; Current Rate is 4%.

PR is HERE. Information for lenders is HERE. 

Current interest rates for this first time home buyer only program are HERE. As of this (Wed.) morning the rate was 4.00% (but, with overall mortgage market rates increasing lately, this rate could also be moving upward).

Appears that the most recent $1 billion+ offering statement for California SF bonds is HERE.

Down payment and closing cost assistance is also available through other CALHFA programs; details about these down payment and closing cost programs are HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Hardest Hit New HFA Non Profits: Activities Should be Limited to Single Purpose, Meetings/ Records Subject to Public Meetings/Records Law, With Any Residual Funds Reverted to Housing Trust Funds.

Several states receiving Hardest Hit TARP funding will be forming non profits to administer the program, responding to the Treasury requirement that the recipient cannot be a state agency, and must be an “eligible entity”.  

A review of the two sets of draft organizational documents available from the first round Hardest Hit funded states, Michigan and California, reveals a scope of planned activities that

1. Far exceeds the single function of administering the Hardest Hit TARP funds.

2. Includes virtually no commitment to the transparency required by public agencies.

3. Provides for different use of any remaining receipts when the Hardest Hit Program winds down.

Why Housing Advocates May be Concerned:

1. Open meeting laws and open record laws do NOT apply to new HFA non profits; an expanded scope of activities for new HFA non profits to include current functions would REDUCE transparency of existing operations.
2. Expanded activities of a new State non- profit could threaten operations of existing housing non profits.
3. Proceeds remaining after the Hardest Hit program winds down are not uniformly being targeted to housing trust funds or existing affordable housing programs.

Background:

The lack of transparency in TARP funding is well documented. Plans for spending Hardest Hit TARP funding are no exception—in most cases they were developed without significant public disclosure, without ANY advance posting of the actual plans submitted to the Treasury. (So far, I am pleased to say that has NOT been the case in Oregon, and I look forward to the posting of the actual Oregon draft plan for public comment prior to submission to Treasury, including the non profit bylaws and articles of incorporation).

This process, as well as ongoing behind the scenes negotiation of changes with Treasury, raises the real possibility that state HFA’s MAY be using this new funding to move activities subject to public scrutiny via open meeting and records laws to within the purview of a NEW nonprofit that would NOT be subject to the same public disclosure standards. In addition the NEW activities planned for HFA non profits could pose a threat to the operations of existing non profits.  

Recommended Solutions/Outcomes:
In the two page table HERE I have extracted relevant sections of the California and Michigan hardest hit plans that illustrate these points, as well as MY suggestions about DESIRED outcomes:

1. To focus the scope of HFA non profit activities on a single purpose.
2. To Insure HFA non profit transparency.
3. To insure priority uses of any residual HFA non profit hardest hit funds.

[NOTE: Format of table is LEGAL sized landscape; California and Michigan column headers have page links to their actual draft non profit organizational materials found within state hardest hit plans I have previously posted].

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Hardest Hit State Plan Update: California Non Profit Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws Added.

In reading through the California Hardest Hit Housing plan I noticed they plan to form a non profit corporation to administer the Hardest Hit funding. Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws for that non profit corporation were referenced in the California application but were not included. I followed up with a public record request and CALHFA promptly responded and provided those materials to me.

I have added the California Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws to the existing link in the right pane, Hardest Hit Plan Submissions, First Round States.

I highlighted those in red in the bookmarks panel within the PDF file, and did the same for the non profit Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws that were included in the Michigan application.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Good News: California HFA Hardest Hit Housing Plan Added to 1st Round State Plan File.

I received a response to my public records request with CALHFA advising they have now posted their complete plan on their website.

I have added their plan to 3 other state plans in right pane links section, Hardest Hit Plan Submissions, First Round States.

The only plan missing is from Nevada and I have followed up with them yesterday.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Hardest Hit Housing State Plan Analysis: Geographic Allocation Methods Show Wide Variations.

I have looked at the proposed geographic allocations in the three complete Hardest Plans I currently have copies for and am struck by the wide variations in the methods used. (All three plans are combined in link in right pane, Hardest Hit Plan Submissions, First Round States).

1. Arizona: Their plan states what the allocation is going to be, with no supporting background data. From page 9 of their plan: "Based on the geographical makeup of our market place we suspect approximately 75 percent of these households will be in Maricopa County, which includes the Phoenix metropolitan area. It is estimated that of the remaining 25 percent of households to be assisted is estimated to be 9 percent will be in Pinal County and 8 percent will be in Pima County with the remaining 8 percent spread throughout other rural counties in the state."
2. Florida: Pages 60-62 of their plan provide detailed formulas used to calculate the geographic distribution and include county level data. The formulas used include housing cost decline, a double weighting of unemployment, and county share of seriously delinquent loans.[Note that for second round states Treasury did NOT use housing cost decline in their decision on distribution between the second round states].
   
3. Michigan: On page 71, they propose NO geographic distribution in their plan: "The Authority does not anticipate targeting this assistance on a geographic basis, nor have we anticipated specific hard income limits. However, in practical terms these programs will overwhelmingly assist working and middle-income families."

(Note: No guarantee that any of these methods will be accepted by Treasury).

Some Thoughts for Oregon (and other Second Round States):

1. There is a wide latitude of choices made about geographic distribution, along with supporting data provided.
   
2. For any geographic distribution it is important for transparency purposes to provide the specific data, sources, and formulas used to calculate the allocations. (Without locking into the Florida exact formulas, they have done a VERY good job in documenting their sources, methods, and data).
3. Not ALL funding needs to be geographically distributed, some can be held back for statewide or special project purposes.
4. An alternate to provide the greatest amount of flexibility in Oregon would be to use an EXISTING county level definition of economic distress found in state statutes. The formula used is described HERE, the Administrative Rule is HERE, and the current county level results are shown HERE.
   

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

HFA Hardest Hit Plans Received from Michigan and Arizona.

I am very pleased that both the Michigan and Arizona housing finance agencies have provided me with copies of the Hardest Hit housing plans they submitted to Treasury.

I have combined those plans along with the Florida plan I previously posted into a single PDF file HERE. For future reference, the same document can be found in the links section in the right pane as "Hardest Hit Plan Submissions, First Round States".

Public Thanks to Michigan and Arizona HFA's
I want to publicly acknowledge the promptness and completeness of the information provided by both Michigan and Arizona in response to my public record requests for their plans. Electronic copies were provided within days of my request at no charge.

I will try to post some highlights of what I see in the Michigan and Arizona plans as time permits.

Caveat: These are NOT the Final Plans, But Only the Plans Submitted to Treasury
There likely will be extensive conversations between the first round applicants and the Treasury. I expect substantial changes could be made in the plans submitted so please do NOT represent these plans as THE finally approved plans. (I expect the finally approved plans will eventually appear on the US Treasury website).

Plans Submitted by California and Nevada Not Yet Received.
I have public record requests outstanding for the two remaining states, California and Nevada. I am following up with both requests and will post what I receive as soon as I receive it.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Arizona Goes the Summary Route with Their Hardest Hit Plan Post; California Claims They CAN'T Disclose How They Plan to Spend $700 Million from TARP.

Arizona Goes the 4 Page Summary Route: Arizona's 4 page summary of how they plan on spending $125.1 million HERE is one page longer than Michigan's web posting.

California: We Can't Disclose How We Plan on Spending $700 Million in TARP Funds.
This will come as a big surprise to Florida's HFA (who has published their plan on the web) but the California Housing Finance Agency is CLAIMING they CANNOT disclose the plan because (wait for it) Treasury won't let them. This is what the California HFA has said on their website:

"we have been informed by the U.S. Treasury that the Hardest Hit Program proposals are to be treated as confidential, and at this time, we do not have a timeframe for when Treasury will provide us with a response to our proposal. These documents are exempt from disclosure under application provision of the Freedom of Information Act. The California Public Records Act specifically exempts such federally exempt documents from disclosure"

I don't know how many of you listen to Car Talk on NPR, but to quote both Click and Clack (Tom and Ray) this feels totally B-O-G-U-S to me and I sure hope someone in California challenges this assertion.

Nevada: I don't see anything yet.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

California FHA SF Loans, July 2009: $5.2 BILLION in One Month.

I was blown away by the record setting projected $4-5 Billion in CY 2009 FHA SF loan volume in Oregon in my post yesterday (HERE).

I thought it would be interesting to take a look at California FHA SF loan volume in July to put the Oregon FHA volume in context.

WOW!!2: Californian numbers were equally/more stunning, especially since 3 years or so ago there was virtually NO FHA loan volume in California because FHA loan limits were so low.

Short version is that California did in ONE month what Oregon is likely to do for the full calendar year 2009. For more details take a look at this summary of July 2009 FHA loan activity in California (forgive less than perfect table formatting, it's a work in progress):

California July 2009 FHA SF Loan Summary
Loan Type	# Loans	Insured $$	Per Loan Average
Total Loans	19,163	$5,247,340,504	$ 273,827
Purchase/Refi Subtotal	17,546	$4,485,326,797	$ 255,632
PURCHASE Loans	13,430	$3,208,801,910	$ 238,928
REFI Loans	4,116	$1,276,524,887	$ 310,137
HECM Loans	1,617	$ 762,013,707	$ 471,252

Pretty amazing, no?

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog

California Posts LIHTC Tax Exchange Application.

From Novogradac:

The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee today published an application for cash in lieu of tax credits. The program, created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, allows those projects that have a 2007 or 2008 reservation of low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs) that have been unable to secure an equity investor to receive an award equal to the stated equity in the original application up to 85 cents for every currently reserved federal tax credit dollar. In a memo that accompanied the application's release, TCAC says that uncertainty remains about the availability of funds to replace state tax credits. As such, the application published today is only for 2007 and 2008 9 percent LIHTC reservation holders who do not have state tax credits in the deal. Applications must be submitted by 4 p.m. on May 20, 2009. Click here for more information about TCAC's-and other LIHTC allocating agencies'-plans for the Recovery Act's LIHTC provisions.

SF Developers Choosing FHA MF Financing.

San Francisco Business Times story is HERE

California 90 Day Foreclosure Moratorium (With Holes) Signed Into Law.

SF Chronicle story HERE.

Housing Wire news story includes bill numbers HERE.

California legislative links to these bills are HERE (SBX2 7) (ABx2 7)