New Loan Program for Black, Latino Neighborhoods Isn't 'Explicitly Racist'
But Bank of America's Community Affordable Loan Solution program will likely be a gentrification accelerating machine.

Bank of America is causing a bit of a stir with the launch of a new program that provides loans to "lower-income," first-time homebuyers in select cities and, in particular, black and Latino neighborhoods within those markets.
The company launched its Community Affordable Loan Solution program earlier this week. It will offer mortgages that require neither down payments, closing costs, nor minimum credit scores. The lender, per Bloomberg, would also provide down payment grants of up to $15,000. These loans will go to homebuyers in the Dallas; Los Angeles; Charlotte, North Carolina; Detroit; and Miami metro areas.
The announcement has sparked a backlash from mostly right-wing Twitter users and news sources that have declared the new program "explicitly racist," likely illegal, and a certainly unwise expansion of credit to unqualified borrowers.
First, this seems kind of illegal.
But theoretically, will Pantone swatches be involved? "Must be this dark to apply."
How many quanta of blood are we talking? 'One drop'? Quadroon? Octoroon?
If you people insist on moral regression, let's get specific. https://t.co/2upggF8rQX pic.twitter.com/7OTzVx0KJW
— Kmele ???? (@kmele) September 1, 2022
Seems illegal. https://t.co/oAY9anOgPD
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) September 1, 2022
What about middle class white families? https://t.co/KMbrcEB3jo
— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) September 1, 2022
Former adviser to Donald Trump Stephen Miller even dangled the possibility that his public interest law firm, America First Legal, might sue over the new program.
To seek legal aid reach out to us at Equality@AFLegal.org https://t.co/Adt25PSBqo
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) September 1, 2022
Fueling this backlash is an unhelpful, since-modified headline from NBC News declaring that the Bank of America program would provide loans to black and Hispanic homeowners—the easy implication being that you have to be black or Hispanic to qualify for a loan.
That's not the case. A Bank of America spokesperson told Reason that an applicant need not be black or Hispanic to get one of these loans or down payment grants. A Bank of America executive also told Bloomberg that applicants wouldn't have to disclose their race and that U.S. Census Bureau data would be used to determine the black and Hispanic neighborhoods that would receive loans.
That would seem to absolve it of the charge that it's "explicitly" racist. Its targeting of neighborhoods by their racial makeup is also, perhaps surprisingly, likely on firm legal footing.
While the federal Fair Housing Act generally bans housing discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, age, and disability, other federal laws and regulations do allow for financial institutions to operate race-based loan programs under certain conditions.
These are known as Special Purpose Credit Programs (SPCP) first created by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. That law, and subsequent regulations implementing it, allows banks to set up credit programs that require eligible beneficiaries to have "one or more common characteristics (for example, race, national origin, or sex)" provided the program is being used to expand credit to previously excluded groups.
Bank of America's new loan program is a Special Purpose Credit Program.
The concern that the extension of easy credit to homebuyers will saddle people with unaffordable loans is reasonable. No down payment loans generally perform worse. Borrowers lack equity in their homes and, therefore, have more incentive to walk away from them when prices slump. Bank of America's down payment grants are supposed to mitigate that risk.
The legal and credit risk issues aside, a major problem with the program as designed seems to be that it would be a gentrification-acceleration machine that cuts against the stated goal of getting low-income people in neighborhoods long discriminated against by the financial system into homeownership.
For starters, anyone with an income of 150 percent of an area's median income would qualify for Bank of America's program.
Typically, housing affordability programs require "low-income" people to have incomes of 80 percent of the area median income or less. But Bank of America's Community Affordable Loan Solution program will go to people earning almost double that. In a place like Los Angeles—the most expensive city Bank of America is trying out its program in—a single-person household earning a little less than $100,000 per year could participate.
The odds are that Bank of America's loans will generally go toward people at the higher bound of its income limit, as they're the ones who can afford a larger loan and will be more likely to qualify for credit. (Bank of America says it will vet applicants, not by credit score but by some nontraditional credit rating features like their history of timely rent, utility bill, phone, and auto insurance payments.)
We have evidence of the gentrification accelerating effects of other banks' loan programs that are targeted at lower-income areas.
The federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) gives banks credits for making loans in low-income neighborhoods. Those credits are then considered by bank regulators when evaluating banks' applications to open new branches or merge with other banks.
Research from the Cato Institute's Diego Zuluaga has shown that that setup incentivizes banks to loan to the most qualified buyers in those neighborhoods—who are typically higher-income people moving into low-income neighborhoods. It's an effective subsidy for gentrification.
Banks have promised to expand Special Purpose Credit Programs when seeking regulatory approval for mergers in the past. Bank of America's new program also follows the federal government's explicit urging of banks to create Special Purpose Credit Programs. The various federal credit regulating entities issued joint regulatory guidance in February this year encouraging the use of SPCPs to meet the needs of "underserved communities."
So, while Bank of America's new loan program falls short of being "explicitly racist" or illegal, it is downwind of federal regulatory incentives that have worked to subsidize gentrification. We can expect similar results here.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Bank of America is causing a bit of a stir with the launch of a new program that provides loans to "lower-income," first-time homebuyers in select cities and, in particular, black and Latino neighborhoods within those markets.
So bank of America's creates an explicitly racist loan program.
But here's the real problem with it:
But Bank of America's Community Affordable Loan Solution program will likely be a gentrification accelerating machine.
So, explicitly racist, but the main problem is that women and minorities will be hardest hit.
Oh, and here's my favorite:
The announcement has sparked a backlash from mostly right-wing Twitter users and news sources that have declared the new program "explicitly racist," likely illegal, and a certainly unwise expansion of credit to unqualified borrowers.
That's my favorite part of this piece. My absolute favorite.
Republicans pounce, indeed.
Look, if Republicans hadn't started pouncing in 1860, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (dbt-05) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/
Whites should just accept the racism towards them. Racism is only bad when it hurts POC. Everybody knows that. - Progressives.
That's what we get for inventing slavery. And math.
And equity. Both kinds.
Except both slavery and math were African inventions because as far as we are aware, they predate leaving Africa. Some of our earliest records are tax roles from Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Progressives would never say that. According to progressives, by definition white people *can't* have racism directed towards them.
My favorite part is that immediately after the right-wing Twitter users sentence, the idiot puts a tweet by Kmele Foster. Kmele-fucking-Foster!! can't stop laughing...
Oh my god. I was coming here to see if anyone noticed that too ????????????
Republicans pounce by pointing out that we've seen this show before, in 2007.
Once again, thanks for reading the article so I don’t have to.
Classic Govt-create special govt allowed discrimination to solve sunk costs..or more likely to allow politicans to buy votes and benefit their voters. SPCP is clearly illegal...and discriminatory. Sunk costs are sunk costs. Ther problem with these programs is they never quite make up for sunk costs and therefore continue to exist forever. This whole 60's idea that govt had to "make up" for past costs was wrong then and now. This SPCP program is another example of govt doublespeak. End all "sunk cost" programs. And BOA..you were started by an Italian American..now with this program you are discriminating against them..you have lost your bearings when the NYC bolshies took over the company.
That would seem to absolve it of the charge that it's "explicitly" racist. Its targeting of neighborhoods by their racial makeup is also, perhaps surprisingly, likely on firm legal footing.
Then I guess redlining is okay too because it "isn't explicitly racist". This is nothing but redlining. It is just redlining white neighborhoods rather than minority ones. Last I looked that was both racist and illegal.
Is there any piece of leftist bullshit that reason won't defend and justify?
Yeah, I immediately thought of redlining when I read that. Honestly, I'm not sure if this is illegal or not. They're not redlining an area to restrict mortgages, but to encourage them; despite race. But I'm not an expert on mortgage law.
However, this does seem like bad business. If a person has little invested in a property and is struggling, they'll walk away more easily because they don't have much personally invested. When you put 10% down, you have skin in the game. The failure rate on these mortgages will be much higher than normal.
Why is it bad business? They jack up their esg score and when all of the lenders default the feds will bail them out
Ugh. This. At the conceptual level, redlining itself should not be illegal since it can only exist in a world where blood thirsty tycoons who would sell their own mother for a buck will skip out on mountains of revenue out of sheer spite. But then you have government, who is more than happy to pour buckets of money onto people out of sheer spite. Rules against redlining only make sense in the context of government supported redlining.
Classic example of government "solving" problems that only exist because it creates them.
Buckets of other people's money.
2008 is why I call bullshit any time I hear defense of banks refusing to work with somebody because "they're a private entity".
They took our money so they sure as fuck are not private. "Oh, but they paid it back". Irrelevant. They STILL take our money and have access to the financial system are money funds.
Except they didn’t pay it back. They wrote down the debt under some accounting tricks.
this the federal government paid them to write off debt. the Banks still made a profit.
So, while Bank of America's new loan program falls short of being "explicitly racist" or illegal, it is downwind of federal regulatory incentives that have worked to subsidize gentrification. We can expect similar results here.
It doesn't fall short of being "explicitly racist" it has hit the Explicitly Racist Bullseye with alarming precision.
If they had targeted the program at low income communities or zip codes with a high rates of blighted buildings or something similar, they might be able to claim 'not explicitly racist'.
In this case, though, it seems that while a specific applicant doesn't need to prove that they are black or hispanic, a certain percentage of their neighbors must be, in order to qualify.
They need to have maps on their office walls, with the eligible neighborhoods outlined in red.
Maybe in blue this time around? Blue is anti-racist.
Well if it's not explicitly racist it is at least explicitly segregationist. At least the progressives can keep the negros in the right neighborhood.
They're not playing darts. They can hit both bull's eyes separately and equally.
Leave the universities alone. The kids will grow out of it, man.
If Bank of America, a private company, wants to throw away money on risky borrowers, that's their choice.
Oh, except for the part where they're too big to fail, and taxpayers will be on the hook when they lose money on this bad idea.
Classic case of privatized gains and socialized losses.
It's as if no one learned anything from that last housing bubble. Nothing at all.
No, they didn’t. The wrong people lost in the last crisis, with the villains all being rewarded. Same thing will happen again.
I finally found the unedited version of this SNL sketch from 2008. It includes the Sandler’s who owned Golden West Bank. Not easy to find.
https://sohalt.wordpress.com/tag/marion-sandler/
.....only if the risky borrowers are non white?
The program isn't racist. They're loaning people to money based on bad credit, not skin color. What could go wrong?
I see what you did there.
That is the big beef here.
I get why Bush pursued his idiotic policy.
But capitalism requires the ability for companies to fail. If every bank failed, it would suck --- but it'd be a better situation than what we have now.
end mortage securities ...banks have to own the loans..they can't sell them.
That’s a terrible solution. The key is to keep government’s fingers out of the lending industry.
It will offer mortgages that require neither down payments, closing costs, nor minimum credit scores. The lender, per Bloomberg, would also provide down payment grants of up to $15,000.
So, Subprime Mortgage crisis 2: Electric Boogaloo?
It's kinda like not actually buying a house. Or being qualified to buy a house.
This is actually the real evil of the whole thing, especially in the current economic climate. Lots of people are going to get loans they shouldn't have, pay a lot of money on those loans, and wind up with nothing more than an unofficial degree in intersectional economics.
Maybe this is a good thing and leaders who don't want to punish poor and minorities will see the inevitable [giggle] coming ahead of time and move to stop [chuckle] inflation and wreckless government spend... BWAAHAHAAHA... Sorry, I tried.
Back before the last crash I worked in real estate. Had a sit down with a banker who was hawking a VA mortgage. Zero down, 40 year note, closing costs rolled into the principal. I told her that didn't fit my definition of buying a house and while I would have to make it available to my buyers l could not in good conscience recommend it.
It it’s like last time, they’ll make up for it by milking the foreclosure process and living rent free for two years before finally being forced out. There wasn’t much of a downside for these people, as they had nothing to lose. This new crop won’t either.
Why can’t this be for everyone if it’s so great?
Dude, don't you anti-racist?
Did someone say reparations?
Has any episode in history where people were constantly rewarded for failure worked out well?
I don't get why "gentrification" is considered a bad thing.
Only a Progressive would worry about a neighborhood getting better.
If you're a poor person and you rent and the neighborhood gets better, your rent is probably going up to the point you can't afford it.
To a lesser extent, poor homeowners are probably paying more in property taxes. Although of course they can now sell for more since the property value went up.
Agreed. Someone comes into a neighborhood, buys a run down house and fixes it up is helping the neighborhood, not hurting it. If progressives are so worried they should spend their own money (I'm talking about you, rich Hollywood stars) on buying properties and selling them to people in the neighborhood who meet their standards of providing them a good photo opp.
It’s bad if you’re living on a fixed income and can’t afford to live in your neighborhood.
It’s bad if you have limited skills and can’t just drop everything to get retrained for a new career, just to afford living in your home of 15 years or more.
It’s bad if rents climb so high that the market you used for decades may close, because it can’t afford to stick around while offering low prices and free deliveries. Then you’re stuck without a market or having to pay much more for basic groceries.
And when the poor have to find new places to live, they may not be willing to keep the old jobs they had. They may get new ones in their new place.
Lots of reasons to oppose the loss of affordable housing based on artificial forces, like racist policies that cause gentrification.
So redlining the program to specific areas is just fine because....
SPCP "allows banks to set up credit programs that require eligible beneficiaries to have "one or more common characteristics (for example, race, national origin, or sex)" provided the program is being used to expand credit to previously excluded groups."
In other words, past redlining is used to justify contemporary redlining. As Homer Simpson said about alcohol: "To redlining! The cause of...and solution to all of life's problems."
Although it has been said that the new loan program for black and Latino neighborhoods is not "explicitly racist", some believe that it could be seen as a form of discrimination. The program, which was created by the Obama administration, is designed to help these neighborhoods by providing loans to small businesses and homeowners. However, some people are concerned that the program could result in higher prices for these neighborhoods, which would ultimately hurt them.
What I don't get is: what's the point? OK, you make it easier to buy houses in certain neighborhoods in certain cities. But for every buyer, there's a seller. I don't think there are wide swaths of inner-city Miami that can have new houses built on them. So what are you actually accomplishing?
I think the hope is that the sellers will mostly be landlords. As the buyers are income restricted, they will mostly be looking to live in the places they are buying.
There was a time when it was thought that everyone having an ownership stake in the neighborhood would result in more people looking out for the neighborhood.
Can you say price jump in homes if no down payment is required. looks like some of the corporations that have been buying up houses to rent are going to make a pile of money.
I'm not seeing that Britschgi's explanation that 'predatory' loans to low income folks who may or may not be black or latino makes the practice magically not racist. If one uses progressive arguments, any time a racial minority is impacted negatively, it's racism. Damn, current year argument, britches. On a not sarcastic note, classist bullshit isn't any better, and classist and possibly racist bullshit sounds like typical progressive policy.
So why does these programs always attempt to exclude poor people who are not POC? Poor and white? You deserve your station!
Do!
When you see 'affordable loan,' you know things won't go well. For the richest people, ALL loans are affordable. Affordability is not a property of the loan - it's a property of the borrower. The only way to make a loan 'affordable' to a person with little money is to not require them to pay it back. It's that simple. The entire focus of all such discussions on this matter is on the terms of getting the mortgage. You never see them talk about how the money will be paid back. Which is, after all, supposed to be the whole point for the lender.
It’s a political and marketing move. If the banks can’t collect on the loans, they’ll just get the property. The banks don’t lose here.
Does it affect minorites disproportionately? Then it's 'structurally racist' which is explicitly racist.
Britches - you think *Kmele Foster* is right wing? Seriously? WTF man.
"...But Bank of America's Community Affordable Loan Solution program will likely be a gentrification accelerating machine..."
Watch out! Some new 'hoods are going to become livable!
It is a mostly peaceful version of racism.