Suchergebnisse

This article discusses the impact of the foreclosure crisis on the housing prospects of American families. Foreclosure is governed by state law, which establishes a procedure to enable lenders to recover property from defaulting borrowers through a public sale process. States authorize two different methods, judicial foreclosure, in which the foreclosure process requires a judicial hearing, and power of sale foreclosure, in which a trustee can offer mortgaged property to the highest bidder at a public sale after giving twenty days public notice. Judicial foreclosure is administered by state courts in twenty-three states. The power of sale foreclosure process is administered by loan servicers through trustees in the other twenty-seven states. Part I reviews the role that homeownership has played in American society and summarizes the history of federal support for homeownership. Part II examines the housing bubble of the early years of the new millennium and the foreclosure crisis that occurred when the bubble burst in 2008. Part II also examines the roles played by residential mortgage servicing companies that collect and distribute mortgage payments, as well as the role of the computerized mortgages tracking system operated by Mortgage Electronic Registration Services Inc. (MERS) as it interacts with the public land recording system as a nominee for lenders. Part III discusses governmental responses to the foreclosure crisis, including the HOPE NOW Alliance, the FHA HOPE for Homeowners (H4H) program established by the Bush administration, along with the Obama administration's Housing Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and the Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) program. Part IV argues that current foreclosure response techniques such as counseling and mediation can be successful if they become automatic parts of the residential mortgage foreclosure process, are coupled with mandatory loss mitigation requirements for lenders along the lines of the National Mortgage Settlement, and have as a resource a financing cushion for qualified defaulting homeowners, such as a "first priority seed lien" recommended by Professor Christopher Peterson of the University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law. Part IV also recommends that greater attention be paid to the value of renting as a means of restoring stability to the overall housing market.

Does Twenty-First Century America Need Publicly-Owned Housing? This question was being asked in 2011, as an era of sharply-curtailed discretionary government spending dawned in the aftermath of the debt limitation crisis. From its inception in 1937 to the present, public housing remains the housing program with the deepest subsidy, designed for households who cannot compete effectively in the private housing market and, since the 1950s, the program that reaches the lowest income quadrant of society. Questions posed in 2011 center around the future of the 1.1 million public housing units in existence (down from 1.4 million two decades ago), all of which are at least 45 years old and most of which are in need of substantial repairs and renovation. Three successive Administrations (two Democratic and one Republican) have sought to move the Federal government away from ownership and management of housing, arguing that these responsibilities can be handled better by the private sector. For fifteen years Congress has resisted efforts to give up on the public housing model while acknowledging with the HOPE VI program that the original urban high-rise model fostered isolation rather than integration and helped trigger serious declines in the quality of urban life. This article will discuss current Obama Administration proposals to preserve existing public and assisted housing units by enabling housing authorities to borrow from private investors, and integrating those units into surrounding neighborhoods which will be "transform[ed from]. extreme poverty into sustainable mixed-income communities." Through its Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, HUD provides competitive planning and implementation grants to enable grantees to focus not only on the condition of severely distressed public and assisted housing units, but also on the social, educational and physicals needs of residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. The 1969 public housing rent strike in St. Louis, which led to passage of the first Brooke Amendment, will offer a perspective from which to evaluate current approaches. With poverty levels increasing sharply as a result of the Great Recession, and discretionary funds being cut, preservation of existing public and assisted housing becomes a critical issue. Public and assisted housing are valuable community assets and should be recognized as such. What has been missing is full integration of such housing and their occupants into surrounding neighborhoods. Initiatives such as Choice Neighborhoods appear to have the potential for accomplishing that goal so long as the interests of current residents are kept in the forefront.

This article discusses the National Housing Trust Fund, created as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA). The Housing Trust Fun represents a new federal housing development policy. The Fund is designed to serve the approximately 18.5 million households who make less than $30,000 per year, roughly half the national median income in 2005. After a review of the housing affordability concerns of extremely low-income households (annual income 30% or less than area median income) and the impact the subprime mortgage foreclosure has had on such households, the article summarizes HERA's regulatory reform and foreclosure relief provisions and reviews the Housing Trust Fund provision. The Article concludes that the Fund's focus on the extremely low-income cohort (households making, on average, less than $18,000 per year) is the appropriate focus for federal housing development policy. The Housing Trust Fund responds to the housing concerns of persons who have the least ability to compete for affordable and decent housing in the private market and for whom homeownership may be an unrealistic dream. The creation of a dedicated source of funds, while modest in amount at the outset, acknowledges the great difficulty that supporters of housing programs for extremely-low income persons have had in the give-and-take of the legislative process, and it makes a strong policy statement - that the federal government has an important role to play in improving the housing conditions of this segment of the populace.

This article focuses on the exclusionary effects of land use regulation on housing availability and cost. Recent research by economists and others highlighting such effects is examined. The histories of parallel efforts to provide housing for low- and moderate-income families as well as persons with disabilities are reviewed. The article recommends that legislation be enacted that elevates affordable housing for low- and moderate-income to a level of national concern similar to national policies favoring efficient transportation, as well as protecting coastal and wetland areas and endangered species.

The neighborhood collaborative planning movement has an important role to play in efforts to remake American cities. This article begins by defining neighborhood collaborative planning which centers around the importance of resident participation in decisions affecting their community. The article explains how neighborhood collaborative planning is a useful way for residents to take part in governmental decision making, particularly in large cities where distance and complexity of the governmental process may make it difficult for ordinary citizens to participate. Next, it outlines the roles that lawyers and community organizer serve under the two strategies used to foster neighborhood collaborative planning, (1) the advocacy/ confrontation model and (2) the collaborative/ consensus building approach. Also, the article briefly discusses the implementation of programs in various jurisdictions and addresses potential issues that can arise such as ethical issues of inclusion, legal issues of voting, and participation alternatives. The article concludes that neighborhood collaborative planning can be a useful technique for enabling residents who have a stake in the outcome of decisions affecting their community a way to participate in the decision making process.

This article examines the government efforts to respond to affordable housing issues and summarizes the criticisms of these policies and programs. The author focuses on the privatization movement which pushes for a reduction in government participation in public housing activities in order to transfer control and responsibility to the private sector. The article also reviews European policies such as the concept of social housing. The article stresses that careful attention must be paid to the privatization mechanisms selected and emphasizes that shared expectations, shared values, and shared commitment can bring about a successful affordable housing strategy. The article describes some current models of affordable housing in both urban and suburban areas, using examples from St. Louis and other cities. Much of the article attempts to answer the question concerning the appropriate role of the government in securing affordable and decent housing for its citizens.

This article discusses the government's response to what appeared at the time to be an overnight explosion of the homeless population in big cities and small towns as a result of major economic and social changes of the early 1980s. In order to respond effectively to underlying problems of homelessness, it explores solutions that are more comprehensive than merely building shelters. The author argues that while homelessness has a direct link to poverty, the government must also address more complex causes including, the lack of adequate mental health care, substance abuse, a decline in the availability of affordable housing, and the shift from blue-collar manufacturing to service sector jobs. The author stresses the importance of recognizing that reconnecting homeless people with society requires the homeless to move through a series of transitional steps. Two programs, HUD's D.C. Initiative and Beyond McKinney Coalition proposals, that offer support services such as comprehensive health coverage, educational services, substance abuse treatment, day care, and job training and counseling, are featured.

This article follows the shift in federal housing policy from a production emphasis during the decade after the Kerner Commission Report to a policy of limited support that enables a few low-income people to choose their own housing. It details specific legislation enacted over this period and highlights the continuing debate about the most effective use of federal housing funds. Also, discussed is the growth of state and local housing support programs, as well as the non-profit community housing development movement. The author points out that the legislative framework is in place for an effective national housing policy designed to reach those without access to decent housing. He argues for a reaffirmation of the national housing goal of a decent home for every American and a redirection of policy so that more of the funds reach those who need them most. Specific recommendations include capping the mortgage interest tax deduction, endorsing a low-income housing investment trust fund, decentralizing housing spending decisions to the states, establishing "permanently affordable" housing, and revitalizing public housing.

This article discusses the continuing national debate concerning the responsibility that local governments should accept when residents are forced to leave their homes as a result of reinvestment activities encouraged by the cities and funded in part with public funds. The author explains the many different forms that reinvestment displacement may take and traces the legislative and judicial response to this issue. Despite what the author refers to as a considerable amount of buck passing, the article points out resources that are being made available to combat displacement. The article highlights the Supreme Court of New Jersey opinion in the Mount Laurel case that reaffirmed the moral and legal principle that local governments must consider the housing needs of affected citizens when they use the police power to regulate land use. The article concludes by suggesting that minimizing displacement can be accomplished if cities encourage reinvestment and place a higher priority on the interest of the long term residents of reinvestment areas. The major responsibility of such a task lies with state and local government who have developed the highly sophisticated reinvestment techniques that draw heavily on their police power.

This article addresses the perceived inadequacy of the State of Missouri's statutory tools to modernize local government. Some of the more extreme examples of conflicting and obsolete provisions in the laws affecting local government in Missouri are discussed. In many instances these obsolete statutes severely restricted the operations of municipalities. The article also looks at laws relating to special benefit districts, problems in county government, and the issue of home rule. Many of the concerns addressed in this article have to do with the overlap that exists among political subdivisions within a given area, such as counties, cities, and special districts. The article suggests that a solution must take into account the complex inter-relationships among these subdivisions in order to achieve coordination while preserving a truly local and representative system of government.

Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Environ Dsgn JS451.M85.A3: 701 Depository Program