The Brooke Amendment And Section 8 Housing: Revisited

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

This is the title of my newest law review article[2] that discusses the landmark laws enacted by Congress: the “Brooke Amendment” with respect to public housing, and the “Section 8” housing program that was intended to extend the benefits of the Brooke Amendment to housing wherever it is located. Put succinctly, the Brooke Amendment capped the payment of rent at twenty-five percent of a person’s income, with the federal government paying the difference; and it provided funds to improve public housing, and to assure the safety of its residents.

Section 8 was envisioned as giving “vouchers” to those who qualified for public housing, and permitting them to find housing anywhere, with the federal government subsidizing their rents when the twenty-five-percent-of-income threshold was passed. Taken together, the Brooke Amendment and Section 8 were America’s answer to the needs of decent housing for its poor. Today, there are two million voucher families.[3]

The United States has an unenviable record of providing affordable housing for its poor, much less for the poorest of the poor—America’s homeless. They have lived on the streets and wherever they could find shelter; and they have been shunned as “lepers” and cast aside to fend for themselves. Many have been and are in desperate need of mental health care and treatment; and they are not far removed from the poor of Calcutta, who have been chronicled down through the decades.

This is particularly true of the elderly, disabled and families with young children, who have slipped through the “cracks” and the societal “safety nets,” to the extent that such protections still exist. However, the elderly of the Boston area were singled out for humane, dignified and uplifting treatment and protection in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when work began by Senator Edward W. Brooke and me in the U.S. Congress—through its two banking committees—to address their plight.

Since then, billions of dollars have been expended, and millions of poor Americans have been helped, which tragically has only scratched the surface—as the numbers of chronically poor and those who are unable to afford private rents continue to rise in the United States. The ever-accelerating cost of housing, and the short supply of existing affordable housing units, have priced many Americans with even good jobs out of decent housing across America, in such areas as “Silicon Valley” (or the San Francisco Bay Area).

They have lived in campers, recreational vehicles (“RVs”) or wherever they could find to sleep. The effects on the poorest of the poor—those farther down the economic totem pole—have been catastrophic, especially in those areas of the United States where inclement weather is a major factor. Many have died, or been victimized, as homeless shelters have been inadequate or closed entirely for various reasons (e.g., funding and/or staffing shortages) in areas where they are needed the most.

Yesterday’s problems are compounded by staggering mental health issues relating to America’s poor and homeless; violent gang activities such as MS-13; dilapidated public housing projects, which may not be helped by the infusion of more federal funds; Social Security retirement benefits that have not kept pace with the costs of food, housing and the medical needs of America’s elderly poor; the influx of illegal immigrants from other countries, who have few discernible skills and nowhere to live; the shortage of qualified professional staff members who can deal effectively with such problems and challenges, and truly make a positive difference; and the increasing demand by most Americans for affordable housing, which has outstripped the available supply.

One size does not fit all. What works in one community may not work in another. And simply throwing money at the staggering problems might not be any solution at all. U.S. taxpayers may say “enough is enough,” and they might be right—at least with respect to their own self-interests. Money cannot be wasted if federal housing programs are to enjoy broad support from the American people. The tasks today are daunting, but the United States and Americans have risen to the challenges of the past, and may be expected to do so in the future.

 

[Senator Edward W. Brooke (1919-2015)]

 

© 2019, Timothy D. Naegele

---

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and Timothy D. Naegele Resume-19-4-29). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See Timothy D. Naegele [NOTE: To download The Banking Law Journal article, “The Brooke Amendment And Section 8 Housing: Revisited,” please click on the link to the left of this note]; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/edward-w-brooke-is-dead/ (“Edward W. Brooke Is Dead”) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Brooke (“Edward Brooke”)

[3]  But see https://crosscut.com/2019/04/despite-new-law-landlords-continue-turn-away-applicants-section-8-vouchers (“Despite new law, landlords continue to turn away applicants with Section 8 vouchers”) and https://laist.com/2019/04/10/la_wants_to_stop_landlords_from_rejecting_low-income_housing_vouchers.php (“LA Wants To Stop Landlords From Rejecting Section 8 Vouchers”) and https://www.scpr.org/news/2019/04/12/89035/la-considers-prohibiting-landlords-from-rejecting/https://www.scpr.org/news/2019/04/12/89035/la-considers-prohibiting-landlords-from-rejecting/ (“LA considers prohibiting landlords from rejecting housing assistance vouchers”—”Nearly half of the people getting a Section 8 voucher in L.A. will end up losing it because they can’t find any landlords who will rent to them”) and https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-section-8-discrimination-law-homeless-20190419-story.html (“End Section 8 housing discrimination”—”[A]t a time when cities and counties are increasingly relying on vouchers to help reduce homelessness, many landlords won’t even consider leasing to tenants whose rent would be paid, in whole or in part, by the government. The problem is particularly acute in cities with high rents and low vacancies. In Los Angeles, nearly half the people trying to use a Section 8 voucher had it expire in 2017 before they could find a place to live, up from 18% in 2011. Several cities, including San Diego, San Jose and San Francisco, have already banned discrimination against tenants with Section 8 and other housing vouchers.  . . . But California can’t end housing discrimination on a city-by-city basis. State lawmakers need to go further and pass Senate Bill 329, which would enact the ban statewide.  . . . Landlords argue that high denial rates aren’t driven by discrimination but by the paperwork, inspections and restrictions that come with rental subsidy programs. For example, it’s hard to raise the rent, even modestly, on voucher tenants. Plus, they note, the supposed “market rent” the federal government is willing to cover is often too low in California’s overheated markets, where the bigger problem is a lack of affordable housing units”) and https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/04/25/boston-receives-1000-housing-vouchers-for-homeless/ (“Boston receives 1,000 housing vouchers for homeless”) and https://wpdh.com/ny-landlords-cant-discriminate-against-section-8-anymore/ (“NY Landlords Can’t Discriminate Against Section 8 Anymore”) and https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/more-section-8-vouchers-in-chicagos-black-neighborhoods-than-a-decade-ago/e461cdf4-22d1-45bd-9522-e0983c2d1c08 (“Chicago’s Section 8 Vouchers Increasing In Black Communities, Declining In White Neighborhoods”) and https://dc.curbed.com/2019/5/9/18538152/dc-nonprofit-fair-housing-law-online-course (“D.C. nonprofit offers online fair housing course designed to prevent discrimination by landlords”)

Standby Letters of Credit And Other Bank Guaranties: Revisited

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

The United States has experienced periods of boom and bust since its rich history began.  Such is the basic nature of economic cycles, and of our capitalist system that governs global economic activity.  Like the laws of gravity, certainties exist in economics too.  What goes up, comes down—sometimes with a resounding thud.

When crises arise, as they will, public policymakers in America and other countries must be prepared to deal with them in a responsible and effective manner, and have tools at their disposal to do so.  One area of economic activity that few Americans know about, much less comprehend, involves the staggering amounts and extensive uses of guaranties—issued globally by banks, other financial institutions, businesses, governmental agencies[2], and individuals themselves.

According to the latest figures published by the Fed, the aggregate amount of “Financial standby letters of credit and foreign office guarantees” in the fourth quarter of 2018 stood at more than a half-trillion dollars—$566.8 billion, to be exact—which seems exceptionally low.[3]  My newest law review article deals with standby letters of credit and other bank guaranties, and with their counterparts in other areas of domestic and international commerce.[4]

The article builds on an earlier discussion of such issues, before the U.S. Senate more than 40 years ago.[5]  Since then, crises have come and gone; and the issue today is what public policymakers have learned in the interim about how to anticipate and address them.  As I have written:

Guaranties have been used in commercial transactions for centuries, in various contexts and in various parts of the world.  Banks have not been alone in their willingness to engage in such undertakings, and have sought new methods of characterizing guaranty transactions in recent years, in an effort to circumvent legal bars as to these practices.

. . .

A guaranty is a promise by one party to answer for the payment of some debt, or the performance of some obligation, in case of the default of another party, who is in the first instance liable for such payment or performance.  A standby letter of credit is merely one form of a guaranty which has been subject to increased usage by banks in this country during recent years.  There are a variety of reasons why the use of standby letters of credit has increased.  The primary reason from a legal standpoint is that our courts have held that national banks are not permitted to guarantee the obligations of another party.

The national banks involved have been imaginative enough, in responding to this situation, to fashion an instrument which they contend is not an illegal guaranty but is akin to a traditional letter of credit, as a means of avoiding any legal or regulatory constraints. . . .

[T]he standby letter of credit is a means by which a bank permits its customer to make use of the bank’s credit standing and goodwill in the customer’s business.  . . .  [T]he bank is in effect “selling off” its credit to others. . . .

. . .

Quite obviously, instead of “lending” its credit[] in certain transactions, the bank itself could provide funds directly to its customer.  At the time the customer seeks such funds, however, the bank may not . . . wish to lend such monies.

. . .

[T]he use of such instruments abroad has been sanctioned owing to the fact that the laws of several countries authorize banking institutions chartered thereunder to engage in such undertakings.  Accordingly, it has been determined that American banks would be at a severe competitive disadvantage if their foreign counterparts were permitted to guarantee certain transactions, while American banks competing for the same business were prohibited from doing so.  It is questionable, however, whether there has ever been a conscious assessment of the risks which attend foreign transactions of this nature vis-a-vis the benefits derived therefrom.

. . .

Banks are special institutions subject to rules designed to assure their soundness for the benefit of depositors and to maintain public confidence in the banking system.  The potential bank liability on a standby letter of credit, and consequent risk of loss to the depositors and shareholders of the bank, is just as real as if the transaction had been a typical lending transaction by the bank.

. . .

It is appropriate to focus on the use of guaranties in the standby letter of credit context because banks are reluctant to disclose fully or describe the various types of guaranty transactions, and because it presents a useful illustration of a high risk situation once one is able to cut through the complexities of the transactions involved.

. . .

A fee of from one-quarter of one percent to one percent, or as much as $1 million on a $100 million standby letter of credit financing, is collected by the bank for its services; and the bank is not required to commit any funds of its own, unless a default occurs.[6]

No one should deny the opportunity for U.S. banks and other financial institutions to make a profit and serve their customers, as long as they act responsibly and legally, and their solvency and stability are not put at risk.  However, aggregating more than a half-trillion dollars today on the part of American banks and other financial institutions alone, standby letters of credit and other bank guaranties present enormous potential risks to the U.S. and global economies.

 

 

© 2019, Timothy D. Naegele

---

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and Timothy D. Naegele Resume). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  For example, in a lawsuit where a judgment of more than $4 million was rendered against a bank, the bank’s federal regulator was permitted to issue a letter of credit (or guaranty) on behalf of the bank, which allowed it to appeal the verdict.

See Timothy D. Naegele, The Bank Holding Company Act’s Anti-Tying Provision: Almost 50 Years Later—Part I, 135 BANKING L. J. 315, 336-338 (June 2018) (Naegele 2018, Part I) [Timothy D. Naegele-Part I] (discussing Lucken et al. v. Heritage Bank National Association et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Case # 5:16-cv-04005, PACER Docket Sheet entry 197, paragraphs 6-8 (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), if an appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond.  . . . Defendants have obtained . . . a Letter of Credit in favor of Plaintiffs for an aggregate amount not to exceed $5,000,000.00, available through Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines, Des Moines, Iowa.  . . . In addition, Plaintiffs and Defendants have executed an agreement setting forth the events of default which would trigger calling upon the letter of credit”)) [PACER Docket Sheet entry 197]; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/25/the-bank-holding-company-acts-anti-tying-provision-almost-50-years-later/ (“The Bank Holding Company Act’s Anti-Tying Provision: Almost 50 Years Later”)

[3]  See off-balance-sheet-items

[4]  See Timothy D. Naegele Standby Letters of Credit

[5]  See Timothy D. Naegele, Standby Letters of Credit And Other Bank Guaranties, Compendium Of Major Issues In Bank Regulation, Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, United States Senate 621 (May 1975) [Naegele-Standby Letters of Credit And Other Bank Guaranties].

This Senate submission and its attachments constitute a useful starting point for the discussion of this subject, and they will be referred to throughout this article.  The author respectfully suggests that it might be useful for the reader to review them.

[6]  See id. at 626-629, 633, 634, 635.