{"id":2962,"date":"2022-03-29T15:38:58","date_gmt":"2022-03-29T15:38:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/frankbuysphilly.com\/inside-the-governments-feeble-fight-to-end-redlining\/"},"modified":"2022-03-29T15:38:58","modified_gmt":"2022-03-29T15:38:58","slug":"inside-the-governments-feeble-fight-to-end-redlining","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/frankbuysphilly.com\/inside-the-governments-feeble-fight-to-end-redlining\/","title":{"rendered":"Inside the government\u2019s feeble fight to end redlining"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\"redlining-art\"
Despite being outlawed over 50 years ago, redlining still persists in America. Now the country\u2019s signature law to stop redlining is under review.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Redlining is a five-alarm word in the lexicon of American racism, but it really has a quite specific definition: The denying of credit in non-white, particularly Black neighborhoods. <\/p>\n

The federal government was for redlining before it was against it, instituting color-coded maps<\/a> of fast-changing metropolises for the better part of the 20th Century. And redlining is very much still around. <\/p>\n

How much? The racial homeownership gap is now wider than it was in 1890<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What is not widely known is the role federal banking regulators play in letting this practice continue.<\/p>\n

The main law policing redlining is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA. These bank regulators only enforce the CRA when banks seek a merger or acquisition. The broadly written 1960 Bank Merger Act, which President Joe Biden\u2019s administration wants strengthened<\/a>, also requires banking regulators to consider a merger\u2019s impact on the community.<\/p>\n

But the federal government\u2019s merger review process is, at the end of the day, a formality, if a sometimes time intensive and messy formality. The three agencies in charge of such reviews  \u2014 the Federal Reserve<\/strong>, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation<\/strong> and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency<\/strong> \u2014 have not denied a single bank merger in 15 years.<\/p>\n

And if these agencies were to find that a merger ran counter to public interest because of a bank\u2019s discriminatory lending practices, it\u2019s not likely anyone would know about it. Like the waitstaff at a country club to a patron whose card was declined, regulators alert banks, often in phone conversations, of the potential for a denial, well before any public exposure. <\/p>\n

Banks then quietly withdraw their application, rather than face a public denial.<\/p>\n

Ostensibly, the Biden administration has reversed decades-long executive branch indifference to the CRA. Senior administration officials claim that rooting out \u201cmodern-day redlining\u201d is a top priority<\/a>. <\/p>\n

In a joint news conference last September, officials at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau<\/strong>, the Department of Justice<\/strong> and the OCC proclaimed a crack down on \u201cdigital redlining.\u201d And in a March interview with former president Bill Clinton, Department of Housing and Urban Development<\/strong> Sec. Marcia Fudge, called attention to the continued practice of redlining.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe still have redlining in this country,\u201d Fudge said. \u201cWe are looking at where we have failed with the CRA, and we know we have.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\"Screen
Calvin Bradford, the principal of Calvin Bradford & Associates Ltd, and one of the authors of the original Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Photo provided by Calvin Bradford<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

DOJ and CFPB can bring lawsuits against alleged housing discrimination. And HUD can bring lawsuits claiming bias in mortgage lending. These agencies, though, do not <\/em>have a seat at the table when banks, during a CRA exam or undergoing a merger review, provide a voluminous account of their lending practices. <\/p>\n

They cannot, in other words, do what the Federal Reserve, OCC and FDIC can do: Compel depositories to catch up to nonbank lenders in their minority loan practice. Indeed, depositories\u2019 mortgage lending to minorities is far behind that of nonbanks, a cruel irony since nonbanks do not have community reinvestment obligations. With bank regulators reluctant to wield their power, community groups often take up the mantle, but with mixed results.<\/p>\n

Such inaction is of great frustration to fair lending advocates and also longtime experts on the issue, like Calvin Bradford, one of CRA\u2019s original authors. <\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s white, male and fairly racist all the way through. There haven\u2019t been women involved in high levels of the [banking] agencies, and no minorities, until fairly recently,\u201d said Bradford, presently the principal of Calvin Bradford & Associates Ltd.<\/strong> \u201cIt\u2019s been a racist part of the government that doesn\u2019t care, because its view was: if you\u2019re going to make safe loans, you should make them to white people.”<\/p>\n

The CRA, then and now<\/strong><\/h2>\n

For more than half a century, the federal government has been officially trying to atone for its role in redlining, which by one estimate<\/a> cost minority communities $156 billion in equity. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act 45 years ago amid public outrage<\/a> that discrimination in lending had endured, even after enactment of the 1968 Fair Housing Act. <\/p>\n

But there was a catch. Nowhere in CRA is there mention of race. This is in contrast to The Fair Housing Act, which directs banks to both not discriminate and further housing opportunities to groups who faced historic prejudice.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Instead, the law required federal agencies to assign banks one of four grades based on the curve of how the bank\u2019s lending to low- and moderate-income borrowers compared to their peers. The law also required banks to lend within their communities. In other words, a bank based in Philadelphia, where the plurality of the population is Black, should invariably lend to Black borrowers.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Screen
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Fast forward to today, and there are questions about whether CRA gave precise enough guideposts. For example, researchers at the Urban Institute<\/strong> found that low and moderate-income is a poor proxy<\/a> for people of color. <\/p>\n

The law\u2019s ambiguity on some matters may have been deliberate.<\/p>\n

\u201c[Dem. Sen. William Proxmire] was good at counting votes, and this just squeaked through,\u201d said Bradford, of the then-chair of the Senate Banking Committee. \u201cHe knew it wouldn\u2019t if we put race in.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAs a politician, he was right,\u201d Bradford said. \u201cBut communities were right that not putting it in allowed people to find this escape valve of low and moderate-income.\u201d<\/p>\n

Perhaps as a result of this race-neutral stance, even banks that the DOJ accused of redlining pass their CRA exams.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor banks that have a satisfactory CRA score, it\u2019s still possible for those same institutions to face public scrutiny for redlining actions,\u201d said Jason Keller, a CRA consultant at Wolters Kluwer<\/strong> who previously spent 20 years at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Trustmark Bank<\/strong>, for example, settled charges of redlining in the Memphis area<\/a> for $5 million with the DOJ, the CFPB and the OCC in 2021. But Trustmark has twice received an \u201coutstanding\u201d grade, and five more times a satisfactory grade.<\/p>\n

Federal government lawyers assailed Trustmark for redlining in Hispanic and Black neighborhoods. Although half of Memphis\u2019 census tracts are majority-minority, Trustmark did not assign a single mortgage loan officer to any of its branches in those areas, the federal government said.<\/p>\n

KleinBank<\/strong> settled<\/a> with the DOJ in 2018 over allegations of redlining. But the Minnesota-based lender received a satisfactory grade on its CRA exams in each of the four preceding exam years. And, months after the settlement, banking regulators approved Old National Bank<\/strong>\u2019s purchase of Klein. <\/p>\n

Old National itself was sued by a fair housing group for redlining in 2021. But that did not stop<\/a> the Federal Reserve from approving Old National\u2019s acquisition of First Midwest Bancorp<\/strong> in January. <\/p>\n

\n
\"wi_1975_proxmire_banking\"
William Proxmire chaired the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs from 1975 to 1981 and again from 1987 to 1989.
\ncredit: United States Senate Historical Office<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Overall, consumer reviews of Lyft <\/strong>drivers have more critical feedback than CRA exams. <\/p>\n

In 2021, two banks received a grade of substantial non-compliance. Eleven banks received the grade of \u201cneeds to improve.\u201d<\/p>\n

The rest \u2014 358 banks in all \u2014 were handed grades of satisfactory or outstanding. In the past 30 years, out of nearly 80,000 CRA examinations reported<\/a> by the Federal Financial Institutions Exam Council<\/strong>, fewer than 250 banks received a grade of substantially noncompliant. That\u2019s .3%. <\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s the opposite of the fox guarding the hen house \u2014 the rooster is in charge of the hen house,\u201d Bradford said. \u201c[Banking agencies] do not want to deal with discrimination, partly because if you say discrimination, you create liability to make people whole.\u201d<\/p>\n

This state of affairs has irked not just advocates of fair lending but other federal agencies that touch redlining. According to a report earlier this month from Inside Mortgage Finance, <\/p>\n

DOJ has taken to launching more redlining investigations without the prompting of the FDIC, OCC or the Federal Reserve. <\/p>\n

Meanwhile, depositories greatly lag non-bank mortgage lenders and credit unions \u2013 who are not subject to the CRA \u2013 when it comes to minority lending. <\/p>\n

A February report<\/a> by the Urban Institute found that, in 2018 to 2019, banks made 23% of their owner-occupant home purchase mortgage loans to borrowers of color, compared to 31% made by nonbanks. And a Bloomberg investigation found that Wells Fargo<\/strong>, the largest depository mortgage lender in America, approved fewer than half of Black homeowners\u2019 refinancing applications in 2020. <\/p>\n

\n
\"Screen
Laurie Goodman, Institute Fellow at the Urban Institute<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Banks, the Urban Institute\u2019s Linna Zhu, Laurie Goodman, and Jun Zhu argue, became more risk-averse following the Great Recession. They also are originating fewer mortgages<\/a> overall, and when originating federally-backed mortgages, lending proportionately less to borrowers of color than non-banks. <\/p>\n

\u201cMany banks exhibit their risk aversion by imposing underwriting overlays,\u201d per the Urban Institute authors, \u201cThat narrows the Federal Housing Administration <\/strong>and government-sponsored enterprises\u2019 credit boxes and makes it more difficult for borrowers without pristine credit to secure a loan.\u201d <\/p>\n

Who watches the watchmen?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Months ahead of a 2015 merger between Goldman Sachs<\/strong> and GE Capital Bank<\/strong>, counsel for Goldman Sachs asked top Federal Reserve officials for feedback, documents obtained by a public records request and reviewed by HousingWire show.<\/p>\n

These officials include Michael Hsu, then the deputy associate director of the Federal Reserve\u2019s banking supervision and regulation division and now interim head of the OCC, and Scott Alvarez<\/a>, then the Federal Reserve\u2019s general counsel. <\/p>\n

Before any public announcement of the potential merger was made, Goldman Sachs officials and Federal Reserve staff exchanged more than 100 emails, met in person at least once, and had numerous calls, sometimes on weekends, to discuss the upcoming deal.<\/p>\n

When a news story broke ahead of the announcement, Goldman Sachs officials discussed the matter with their regulator. <\/p>\n

Goldman Sachs gave Federal Reserve officials a powerpoint presentation on the merger. After consulting with the Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs decided to delay the merger announcement by several weeks. The emails show that Federal Reserve officials were on an informal, first-name basis with the investment bank\u2019s lawyers, and addressed Rodgin Cohen \u2014  an attorney at Sullivan & Cromwell<\/strong> \u2014 by his nickname, Rodge.<\/p>\n

Goldman Sachs and Sullivan & Cromwell did not return requests for comment.<\/p>\n

Government watchdogs, policymakers and legal scholars have all sounded the alarm over whether banking regulators act in the interest of the public, or the industry they regulate.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Screen
Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

A 2019 report by the Government Accountability Office, <\/strong>the independent auditing arm of Congress, found numerous weaknesses<\/a> in OCC\u2019s public service. Back in 2017, GAO, in another critical audit, recommended that the Federal Reserve collect employment data to effectively counteract<\/a> the revolving door betweens banks and their regulator. The central bank has not done that.<\/p>\n

Another factor is what motivates bank regulators. Yes, regulators are legally obliged to assess CRA adherence. But their job \u2013 and arguably reputations \u2013 hinges on preventing bank collapses. <\/p>\n

“In the end, if a bank goes under, no one is going to praise regulators for having held them to a high CRA standard,” said Mark Willis, who spent 19 years overseeing the community development program at JPMorgan Chase<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The Federal Reserve\u2019s funding structure is another clear-cut connection to the banking industry. The agency does not receive appropriations from Congress. Instead, it relies on fees from its investments, and fees from the services it provides to banks.<\/p>\n

All excess income from those fees go to the U.S. Treasury<\/strong>. Thus, to do well, the Federal Reserve depends on banks doing well, too.<\/p>\n

The Federal Reserve\u2019s structure, which is intended to limit political interference that would disrupt its mission, may also limit disruptions to the financial institutions it regulates. David Dworkin, a former U.S. Treasury official and State Department<\/strong> veteran during the twilight of the Cold War, compared the Federal Reserve Board to the Soviet Politburo.<\/p>\n

\u201cA small group of independently powerful leaders who have risen through the ranks defers to a powerful chairman until they don\u2019t,\u201d said Dworkin, now president and CEO of The National Housing Conference<\/strong>, a D.C. nonprofit. <\/p>\n

The Soviet Premier \u2014 the Fed Chair, in this metaphor \u2014 had enormous power. But he depended on maintaining strong support among the party bosses.<\/p>\n

\u201cNearly all of that drama occurred behind the scenes, prompting an entire industry of \u2018Kremlinologists\u2019 who tried to figure out what happened in the inner sanctum of the Politburo,\u201d said Dworkin. \u201cAnyone who tries to predict the actions of the Fed today will find that quite familiar.\u201d<\/p>\n

Federal Reserve Board chairs, meanwhile, draw power from their relationships with the presidents of the regional Federal Reserve Banks, Dworkin noted. <\/p>\n

Their boards are majority elected by representatives from banks.  <\/p>\n

Business expense<\/strong><\/h2>\n

In January, the CEO of Indiana\u2019s second largest bank, which had settled charges of redlining<\/a> with the DOJ in 2019, assured investors that an upcoming acquisition would sail through regulatory review. <\/p>\n

The reason? Instead of balking at the latest consolidation in the world of housing finance, community groups with a particular interest in advancing minority homeownership cheered the move.<\/p>\n

Mark Hardwick, CEO of First Merchants Bank<\/strong>, bragged on an earnings call that he was \u201csetting an example\u201d of how to work with community groups, and it was already paying off. One such group, the National Minority Community Reinvestment Co-Operative,<\/strong> which bills itself as a coalition of organizations \u201ccommitted to addressing the socio-economic needs of minority communities,\u201d had written to federal regulators in support of its December 2021 application to acquire Level One Bancorp<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\u201cAl Pina, who leads the NMCRC, for the first time in his career endorsed a merger,\u201d said Hardwick on a company earnings call in January.<\/p>\n

Six months prior, opposition from Pina and other groups to a different bank merger had resulted in a $40 billion community benefits agreement<\/a>. But the group voiced no such opposition to the First Merchants merger, for reasons that are unclear. (The NMCRC did not respond to requests for comment, and First Merchants declined to comment.)<\/p>\n

Less than three months after it had applied for regulatory approval, the Chicago Federal Reserve<\/a> and the FDIC gave their blessing, the bank told investors<\/a> in February. Terry McEvoy, managing director at Stephens<\/strong>, who provides investors analysis of First Merchants, said that bank investors are taking more notice of community groups of late.<\/p>\n

\u201cSomething has changed,\u201d said McEvoy. \u201cWill we get to a point where a specific bank merger is not approved because of this issue? I\u2019m not sure. To date, we\u2019ve only seen delays.\u201d<\/p>\n

Community groups often seize on the review process to negotiate concessions from banks. In numerous recent cases, they have accused banks of redlining, sometimes in the form of a lawsuit<\/a>. <\/p>\n

They have had some success. In the past year, community group opposition<\/a> to mergers cost banks<\/a> more than $100 billion dollars in community benefits<\/a> agreements<\/a>, according to an analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. Top-10 mortgage lender US Bancorp<\/strong>, whose merger with MUFG Union Bank<\/strong> is now before the Federal Reserve, is currently in talks<\/a> for a $100 billion, five-year community benefits agreement.<\/p>\n

But none of the community groups\u2019 efforts have yet killed a merger. <\/p>\n

Take the case of WSFS Financial Corporation<\/strong>, a Delaware-based bank that sought to acquire Pennsylvania-based Bryn Mawr Bank Corporation<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

Groups including the National Community Reinvestment Coalition<\/strong>, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that has negotiated some of the largest agreements in recent years, accused<\/a> WSFS of being behind its peers in minority mortgage lending.<\/p>\n

In Philadelphia, public mortgage data showed 26% of all mortgages went to people of color. But only 13% of those WSFS originated went to people of color, NCRC wrote to the Federal Reserve and the OCC.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Screen
Jason Keller, a CRA consultant at Wolters Kluwer. Photo provided by Jason Keller<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

However, WSFS, during the same time period and in the same geographic area, received an \u201cOutstanding\u201d on its most recent CRA examination \u2014 the highest possible assessment.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe bank demonstrated good geographic and borrower distribution of loans and excellent lending activity,\u201d the OCC wrote in its 2020 CRA exam. It added that WSFS\u2019 community development lending contributed to the outstanding rating, and it praised the bank for using \u201cinnovative and flexible lending products effectively.\u201d<\/p>\n

OCC regulators also wrote that they did not identify \u201cdiscriminatory or other illegal credit practices that require consideration\u201d for the CRA exam.<\/p>\n

Rave reviews aside, WSFS did have to answer to NCRC\u2019s assertions. To clear its name, the bank\u2019s lawyers wrote to the Federal Reserve that NCRC\u2019s \u201cinsinuation of poor lending performance to minority and LMI communities is unfounded.\u201d<\/p>\n

WSFS didn\u2019t deny it trailed its peers in lending to Black borrowers in the Philadelphia area. But it took issue with just how behind it was. In 2018 and 2019, it lagged other lenders in the area by only 3.82% by dollar volume, and 5.85% by number of loans originated to Black borrowers, significantly less than the NCRC\u2019s claimed disparity. <\/p>\n

WSFS wrote that it originated 138 mortgage loans \u2013 worth about $19 million \u2013 to Black borrowers, out of its total 3,609 mortgage loans, or about $765 million by volume in 2018 and 2019.<\/p>\n

The difference in its minority borrowing compared to its peers, the bank argued, was because it had fewer minority applicants.<\/p>\n

WSFS did not respond to a request to comment.<\/p>\n

This back-and-forth has played out numerous times in recent years. <\/p>\n

Each year, the Federal Reserve, in reports to Congress, provides statistics on its merger review activity. Its latest, in 2021, showed that while only 3% of mergers receive adverse comments, those that do face an additional 168 days<\/a> of review, on average. But none of those reviews lead to a scotched merger. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe fact that the bank responds \u2026 means almost nothing to us,\u201d said Kevin Stein, deputy director of the California Reinvestment Coalition<\/strong>. \u201cConceptually it\u2019s a good thing. But it\u2019s not like we can\u2019t wait to see what they say.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reboot the CRA<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Banking regulators are aware that redlining is festering, they say, and are working on it. <\/p>\n

\u201cWe are evaluating how public comments are addressed, including any allegations of redlining, as part of the OCC\u2019s current comprehensive review of the Bank Merger Act,\u201d an OCC spokesperson said.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Screen
Federal Reserve Gov. Lael Brainard<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cThe FDIC takes allegations of redlining or other fair lending concerns very seriously during our review and analysis of any merger application,\u201d an FDIC spokesperson wrote. \u201cAs a general matter, a finding of a pattern and practice of illegal discrimination is inconsistent with a determination that the application meets the convenience and needs of the community.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Federal Reserve declined to comment.<\/p>\n

In July 2021, President Biden issued an executive order asking banking regulatory agencies and the DOJ to make a plan for the \u201crevitalization of merger oversight.\u201d The order drew attention to the toll shuttering 10,000 banks over the past four decades took on minority communities, closures partly due to mergers and acquisitions.<\/p>\n

CFPB Director Rohit Chopra and FDIC Acting Chair Martin Gruenberg, then member of the FDIC Board of Directors (of which Chopra is a member), sought public input on bank mergers in December 2021. The two questioned whether a CRA grade of satisfactory is a sufficiently high standard for a merger approval, and even suggested CFPB personnel be formally consulted during a merger review.<\/p>\n

FDIC chairwoman Jelena McWilliams, though, found the seeking of public input on bank mergers too rash a move. McWilliams was overruled in her opposition to public comment, and subsequently resigned<\/a>.<\/p>\n

At the same time, CRA may finally directly address race. An advanced notice of public rulemaking<\/a>, spearheaded by Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard in October 2020, included a pointed question on racial inequality.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn considering how the CRA\u2019s history and purpose relate to the nation\u2019s current challenges,\u201d the notice read, \u201cWhat modifications and approaches would strengthen CRA regulatory implementation in addressing ongoing systemic inequity in credit access for minority individuals and communities?\u201d<\/p>\n

Brainard said the notice would \u201cbuild a foundation for the banking agencies to converge on a consistent approach that has broad support.\u201d Brainard\u2019s notice, in turn, gave mortgage lenders clarity and predictability, according to trade associations representing them.<\/p>\n

But the notice also came amid squabbles among banking agencies over CRA revision. In 2019, the FDIC and the OCC proposed its own revised CRA rule, under the leadership of then-Comptroller Joseph Otting, but without the support of the Federal Reserve.<\/p>\n

Brainard sharply criticized the proposed rule. She said it was \u201cmore important to get the reforms done right than to do them quickly.\u201d<\/p>\n

(Brainard is consistent in her deliberate approach. There has not been an update issued on Brainard\u2019s 18-month-old advanced notice.)<\/p>\n

According to Hsu, the acting OCC comptroller, \u201cin the not-too-distant future,\u201d federal banking agencies will take the iterative but significant step of a joint CRA notice of proposed rulemaking.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt will reflect the herculean efforts of staff from all three banking agencies, who have been working around the clock for months, building off each of their many years of practical experience with the CRA and thinking about how to make it better,\u201d Hsu said.<\/p>\n

Something\u2019s better than nothing<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Few community groups have the firepower of NCRC, which brought in nearly $40 million in revenue<\/a> in 2020, in part from renting out two office buildings in downtown Washington, D.C..<\/p>\n

But NCRC acknowledges it can only make a limited mark on combating lending discrimination. One challenge: The terms of the community benefit agreements obtained from banks are frequently not public<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Screen
Jesse Van Tol, CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. Photo provided by Jesse Van Tol.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cThe system lacks any means for enforcing the agreements, most of which are obscured from the public, leading to questions of whether banks are holding up their ends of the deals,\u201d the St. Louis Business Journal reported<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat we\u2019ve always argued is that these community benefits agreements should be bigger than they are, but we are constrained by the regulatory landscape,\u201d said Jesse Van Tol, CEO of NCRC. \u201cLook, what the bank regulators have done has been bullshit, but I wouldn\u2019t want them to take over and say, \u2018We know what the community needs are.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

But for NCRC, a flawed community benefits agreement is better than none at all. <\/p>\n

Let\u2019s return to Delaware. WSFS refused to meet with the NCRC to negotiate, the community group said. Despite their opposition, the Federal Reserve unanimously approved the WSFS merger eight months after its application. There were no public conditions for the approval, and no community benefits agreement. One factor in the application sailing through was the bank\u2019s outstanding CRA rating. <\/p>\n

It was WSFS\u2019s ninth acquisition in 10 years. <\/p>\n

Horacio Mendez, a former banker who is now CEO of the Woodstock Institute<\/strong>, an affordable housing advocacy group in Chicago, is waiting to see if the CRA is strengthened to mention race. But Mendez wonders if even efforts within government to strengthen the anti-redlining law\u2019s teeth matter \u2013 whether the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve civil servants who review bank mergers \u201ctake this seriously at all.\u201d <\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s been my experience during the last CRA reform process that the agencies do not see themselves as social justice warriors,\u201d Mendez said. \u201cThey see their role as being the guardians of the safety and soundness of the financial system. By both word and action, it\u2019s been clear that making the financial system work for everyone is a side project.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The post Inside the government’s feeble fight to end redlining<\/a> appeared first on HousingWire<\/a>.<\/p>\n


\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Despite being outlawed over 50 years ago, redlining still persists in America. Now the country\u2019s signature law to stop redlining is under review. Redlining is a five-alarm word in the lexicon of American racism, but it really has a quite specific definition: The denying of credit in non-white, particularly Black neighborhoods.  The federal government was […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2963,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[33,1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/frankbuysphilly.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2962"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/frankbuysphilly.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/frankbuysphilly.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frankbuysphilly.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frankbuysphilly.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2962"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/frankbuysphilly.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2962\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frankbuysphilly.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2963"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/frankbuysphilly.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2962"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frankbuysphilly.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2962"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frankbuysphilly.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}