Archives

Uncategorized

Technical corrections billAs previously reported here, here and numerous other places, this year’s “technical corrections” bill at the General Assembly was and is an especially egregious example of secret legislative sausage making at its worst. The bill is chock-full of substantive (i.e. a lot more than “technical”) changes to the law – many of which were never even the subject of separate legislation – much less public hearings or debate.

A classic example is buried on page 20 of the 58-page, 94-section special interest Christmas Tree. The official explanation from legislative staff and even the explanation from some legislators in committee and on the floor suggested the provision added needed protections or in some manner merely “clarifies” an “ambiguity” in the state’s anti-predatory lending law by specifying that first loans on manufactured homes are also covered.

Sounds innocuous and maybe even okay, right?

Here’s the problem (and the reason why baloney like this shouldn’t get mislabeled as “technical” and then passed in the wee hours of the legislative session when no one is even paying attention):

The manufactured housing industry asked for the change so that lenders would be able to charge an upfront “origination” fee when they sell a manufactured home by itself – i.e. in situations in which no land is involved in the transaction. Currently, under the law in question, a lender can charge such a fee but only where the manufactured home is sold attached to real estate. With this last minute “technical correction,” the barn door is now open to the assessment of such a fee with all manufactured home sales – even though there was never a bill on the subject or a genuine public discussion at the General Assembly on the merits (and problems) of such an idea  This is obviously a big deal that will cost the state’s consumers millions of dollars in the years to come.

The bottom line: It’s not surprising that an industry long known for selling marginal products with the deceptive tactics perfected in the used car business would support squeezing yet another fee from what are typically unsophisticated, lower income consumers. And sadly, it’s even less surprising that the folks currently running the General Assembly would blithely label the legalization of such a rip-off as a “technical correction.”

FYI -  the Governor has until next Tuesday to sign the bill and has given no indication that he will do otherwise.

Uncategorized

This is from a release distributed this morning by the North Carolina Housing Coalition:

High rents make housing unaffordable for many in Raleigh-Cary

Raleigh, N.C. –Renters in the Raleigh-Cary area need to earn $16.88 per hour in order to afford a basic apartment here, according to a report released today that compares the cost of rental housing with what renters can really afford.

The report, Out of Reach 2013, was jointly released by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, a Washington, D.C.-based research and advocacy organization, and the North Carolina Housing Coalition. The report provides the Housing Wage and other housing affordability data for every state, metropolitan area, combined non metropolitan area, and county in the country. The Housing Wage is the hourly wage a family must earn, working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, to be able to afford the rent and utilities for a safe and modest home in the private housing market. Read More

Uncategorized

Senior Researcher Arloc Sherman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put up an extremely helpful and illuminating post yesterday afternoon on the group’s Off the Charts blog about poverty.

It shows a critical fact that is frequently misrepresented or not reported in the public debate:  While poverty has been on the rise over the last decade, non-cash public benefits like housing assistance and food stamps (SNAP) do make a significant difference in keeping it in check.  He notes that because the “official” poverty rate is based on pre-tax cash income, it ignores important non-cash benefits that, when factored in, lower the poverty rate.

This does not mean, however, as conservatives frequently try to argue, Read More

Uncategorized

A new report released Tuesday by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) shows a mismatch between the cost of rental housing and the wages people earn day-to-day.

Out of Reach 2012 finds in North Carolina the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a decent, two-bedroom apartment is $709 a month. A person working the standard 40-hour work week would need to earn roughly an hourly wage of $13.63 to cover their rent and basic utilities.

Now if you make minimum wage ($7.25), you would need to have two full-time jobs or work roughly 75 hours each and every week to be able to afford that same modest apartment in the Tar Heel state.

Across the country, with more families opting to rent over home ownership, vacancy rates are down and rents are trending higher. NLIHC notes that is placing an even greater burden on extremely low-income households, including seniors and those on a fixed-income. And the problem has only gotten worse in recent years:

Despite the immense need, the supply of low-cost rental units is actually shrinking, as more units are converted to serve higher income tenants or fall into disrepair. According to recent ACS [Census] data, the number of units renting for $500 or less fell by one million from 2007 to 2010, and during that same time period, the number of units renting at $1,250 or more grew by two million units.

To read the full report, which includes a look at rental housing in all of NC’s 100 counties, click here.