Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
HUD loan "problems"
Rotterdam NY...the people's voice    Rotterdam's Virtual Internet Community    Outside Rotterdam  ›  HUD loan "problems" Moderators: Admin
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 94 Guests

HUD loan "problems"  This thread currently has 168 views. |
1 Pages 1 Recommend Thread
rpforpres
May 8, 2014, 6:38am Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
3,891
Reputation
89.47%
Reputation Score
+17 / -2
Time Online
113 days 4 hours 29 minutes
The road of good intentions is often paved with government bureaucracy and nonsensical regulations.

So it should come as no surprise that the city of Schenectady hit a major pothole in its application for federal money to fund a downtown revitalization project.

Late last year, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer pushed for, then celebrated, the award to the city of a $3 million loan through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A significant portion of the loan would be used to remove run-down buildings, which would make room for redevelopment, improve the city's visual image and boost neighbors' property values.

If you read the fact sheet for HUD's Section 108 loan program, it says the loan can be used for "rehabilitation of publicly owned property." But somewhere in the fine print, city leaders learned recently, it says the money can only be used to demolish buildings on property the city acquires after it gets the loan. Any property already owned by the city, such as property taken through foreclosure, would not be eligible for the grant money.

That makes no sense. The logic is backward.

The reason the city applied for the loan in the first place was because it had a list of properties, 78 to be exact, that it had identified and prioritized for clean-up. How could the city justify the need for the loan — and how could HUD agree to issue it — without first identifying eligible properties?

If this policy stands, the city will have to target and acquire new buildings in need of demolition. That's fine. There are plenty in the city, unfortunately.

But since the city already owns 65 of the 79 properties on its priorities list, the HUD money could have been dedicated to demolition costs.

Now the city will have to find separate funding for work on the existing properties and use some of the HUD loan to pay for aquisition of the new properties.

To get around the regulation, city leaders are holding back on some planned foreclosures in order to make those new properties eligible for the HUD loan.

Fortunately for the city, a mistake in notifying property owners last year about how long they had to pay their back taxes forced it to delay some foreclosures. Those properties could now be eligible for the HUD grant.

Other HUD rules that apparently surprised city leaders aren't so off-the-wall, such as requiring that the reconditioned properties be sold to low- or moderate-income people or used for other purposes (parks, community gardens) to serve that population.

That makes sense. HUD money isn't for regentrification or to help wealthy developers get wealthier; it's for those who need it.

Someone in city government should have flagged these rules before the city went after the loan. But they didn't. So the city is stuck with a list of projects it still needs to fund, a new task of identifying additional buildings to demolish, and extra expenses associated with both.

It's possible, city officials said, that HUD could reconsider the rule regarding the ownership status of properties targeted for demolition. It should. And if Sen. Schumer needs to give them a nudge, he should.

The city has many needs, and this loan is vital.

One nonsensical regulation shouldn't stand in the way.
http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2014/may/08/0508_EditorialHUD/
Logged Offline
Private Message
Libertarian4life
May 8, 2014, 7:48am Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
7,356
Reputation
50.00%
Reputation Score
+12 / -12
Time Online
119 days 21 hours 10 minutes
How does taking possession of properties that you can't afford to repair, maintain or demolish, make sense?

Then apply for millions in loans to demolish them.

If they never took the homes they would be millions less in debt.

Taking $25,000 homes and spending 2 to 3 times that amount to dispose of the properties, only makes sense if you have partners in the demolition business.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 1 - 5
mikechristine1
May 8, 2014, 9:47am Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
9,074
Reputation
71.88%
Reputation Score
+23 / -9
Time Online
99 days 18 hours 36 minutes
Notice how the cheerleader for downtown and the dems is not talking about these major problems, these major failures and how his dems are ruining the city.



Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent.  
Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and
speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 2 - 5
senders
May 10, 2014, 5:42am Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
29,348
Reputation
70.97%
Reputation Score
+22 / -9
Time Online
1574 days 2 hours 22 minutes
Quoted from Libertarian4life
How does taking possession of properties that you can't afford to repair, maintain or demolish, make sense?

Then apply for millions in loans to demolish them.

If they never took the homes they would be millions less in debt.

Taking $25,000 homes and spending 2 to 3 times that amount to dispose of the properties, only makes sense if you have partners in the demolition business.


that's what happened during the McMansion crisis...all those folks buying homes they couldn't afford to keep up with...all
getting loans from banks AND the government that they couldn't keep up with, all so that a president could stand
at a podium and make it look like he made Americans prosperous. Meanwhile the storehouses were burning down.


...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......

The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.


STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 3 - 5
mikechristine1
May 10, 2014, 12:13pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
9,074
Reputation
71.88%
Reputation Score
+23 / -9
Time Online
99 days 18 hours 36 minutes
Several days and DV STILL has avoided posting on this issue.   Of course, as one who is not a taxpayer, he has no comprehension of mis-use of tax money


Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent.  
Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and
speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 4 - 5
mikechristine1
May 13, 2014, 5:36pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
9,074
Reputation
71.88%
Reputation Score
+23 / -9
Time Online
99 days 18 hours 36 minutes
STILL NO COMMENT FROM DV!!!

Why are you such a coward to speak about this?


Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent.  
Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and
speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 5 - 5
1 Pages 1 Recommend Thread
|


Thread Rating
There is currently no rating for this thread