Campaign News

The power of eminent domain has traditionally worked against homeowners, who can be forced to sell their property to make way for a new highway or shopping mall. But now the working-class city of Richmond, Calif., hopes to use the same legal tool to help people stay right where they are.

Scarcely touched by the nation’s housing recovery and tired of waiting for federal help, Richmond is about to become the first city in the nation to try eminent domain as a way to stop foreclosures.

The results will be closely watched by both Wall Street banks, which have vigorously opposed the use of eminent domain to buy mortgages and reduce homeowner debt, and a host of cities across the country that are considering emulating Richmond.

The banks have warned that such a move will bring down a hail of lawsuits and all but halt mortgage lending in any city with the temerity to try it.

But local officials, frustrated at the lack of large-scale relief from the Obama administration, relatively free of the influence that Wall Street wields in Washington, and faced with fraying neighborhoods and a depleted middle class, are beginning to shrug off those threats.

“We’re not willing to back down on this,” said Gayle McLaughlin, the former schoolteacher who is serving her second term as Richmond’s mayor. “They can put forward as much pressure as they would like but I’m very committed to this program and I’m very committed to the well-being of our neighborhoods.”

Despite rising home prices in many parts of the country, including California, roughly half of all homeowners with mortgages in Richmond are underwater, meaning they owe more — in some cases three or four times as much more — than their home is currently worth. On Monday, the city sent a round of letters to the owners and servicers of the loans, offering to buy 626 underwater loans. In some cases, the homeowner is already behind on the payments. Others are considered to be at risk of default, mainly because home values have fallen so much that the homeowner has little incentive to keep paying.

Many cities, particularly those where minority residents were steered into predatory loans, face a situation similar to that in Richmond, which is largely black and Hispanic. About two dozen other local and state governments, including Newark, Seattle and a handful of cities in California, are looking at the eminent domain strategy, according to a count by Robert Hockett, a Cornell University law professor and one of the plan’s chief proponents. Irvington, N.J., passed a resolution supporting its use in July. North Las Vegas will consider an eminent domain proposal in August, and El Monte, Calif., is poised to act after hearing out the opposition this week.

But the cities face an uphill battle. Some have already backed off, and those that proceed will be challenged in court. After San Bernardino County dropped the idea earlier this year, a network of housing groups and unions began working to win community support and develop nonprofit alternatives to Mortgage Resolution Partners, the firm that is managing the Richmond program.

“Our local electeds can’t do this alone, they need the backup support from their constituents,” said Amy Schur, a campaign director for the national Home Defenders League. “That’s what’s been the game changer in this effort.”

Richmond is offering to buy both current and delinquent loans. To defend against the charge that irresponsible homeowners who used their homes as A.T.M.’s are being helped at the expense of investors, the first pool of 626 loans does not include any homes with large second mortgages, said Steven M. Gluckstern, the chairman of Mortgage Resolution Partners.

The city is offering to buy the loans at what it considers the fair market value. In a hypothetical example, a home mortgaged for $400,000 is now worth $200,000. The city plans to buy the loan for $160,000, or about 80 percent of the value of the home, a discount that factors in the risk of default.

Then, the city would write down the debt to $190,000 and allow the homeowner to refinance at the new amount, probably through a government program. The $30,000 difference goes to the city, the investors who put up the money to buy the loan, closing costs and M.R.P. The homeowner would go from owing twice what the home is worth to having $10,000 in equity.

All of the loans in question are tied up in what are called private label securities, meaning they were bundled and sold to private investors. Such loans are generally the most unfavorable to borrowers and the most likely to default, Mr. Gluckstern said. But they are also the most difficult to modify because they are controlled by loan servicers and trustees for the investors, not the investors themselves. If Richmond’s purchase offer is declined, the city intends to use eminent domain to condemn and buy the loans.

The banks and the real estate industry have argued that such a move would be unprecedented and unconstitutional. But Mr. Hockett says that all types of property, not just land and buildings, are subject to eminent domain if the government can show it is needed to promote the public good, in this case fighting blight and keeping communities intact. Railroad stocks, private bus companies, sports teams and even some mortgages have been subject to eminent domain.

Opponents, including the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the American Bankers Association, the National Association of Realtors and some big investors have mounted a concerted opposition campaign on multiple levels, including flying lobbyists to California city halls and pressuring Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration to use their control of the mortgage industry to ban the practice.

Tim Cameron, the head of Sifma’s Asset Management Group, said any city using eminent domain would make borrowing more expensive for everyone in the community and divert profits from the investors who now own the loan to M.R.P. and the investors financing the new program. “Eminent domain is used for roads and schools and bridges that benefit an entire community, not something that cherry-picks who the winners are and who the losers are,” he said.

Representative John Campbell, Republican of California, has introduced a bill that would prohibit Fannie, Freddie and the F.H.A. from making, guaranteeing or insuring a mortgage in any community that has used eminent domain in this way. Eminent domain supporters say such limits would constitute a throwback to the illegal practice called redlining, when banks refused to lend in minority communities.

Opponents have also employed hardball tactics. In North Las Vegas, a mass mailer paid for by real estate brokers warned that M.R.P. had “hatched a plan to make millions of dollars by foreclosing on homeowners who are current on their payments.”

In a letter to the Justice Department, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California complained that the opposition was violating antitrust laws and that one unnamed hedge fund had threatened an investor in the project.

But not all mortgage investors oppose the plan. Some have long argued that writing down homeowner debt makes sense in many cases. “This is not the first choice, but it’s rapidly becoming the only choice on how to fix this mess,” said William Frey, an investor advocate.

Mr. Frey said that the big banks were terrified that if eminent domain strategies became widespread, they would engulf not only primary mortgages but some $450 billion in second liens and home equity loans that are on the banks’ balance sheets. “It has nothing to do with morality or anything like that, it has to do with second liens.”

Many of the communities considering eminent domain were targeted by lenders who steered minority families eligible for conventional mortgages into loans with higher interest rates and ballooning payments. Robert and Patricia Castillo bought a three-bedroom, one-bathroom home in Richmond because their son, who is severely autistic, would anger landlords with his destructive impulses. They paid $420,000 for a home that is now worth $125,000, Mr. Castillo, a mechanic, said.

They have watched as their daughter’s playmates on the block have, one by one, lost their homes. But they are reluctant to walk away from the house in part for the sake of their son.

“We’re in a bad situation,” Mr. Castillo, 44, said. “Not only me and my family, but the whole of Richmond.”

Source:

Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have been trading barbs about whether Americans are working hard enough, but behind the give-and-take is a real emerging issue that has a dire impact on our country’s 75 million hourly workers and their families: the 40 hour workweek is no longer something we can count on. The candidates have a chance to move beyond the gamesmanship and support concrete solutions at the national and local level to show their commitment to the stability of working families.

To summarize the exchange, Bush said that “people need to work longer hours.” Clinton quickly responded on Twitter, “Anyone who believes Americans aren't working hard enough hasn't met enough American workers.” Bush retorted, referencing the number of people who are involuntarily working part time and seeking full time work that, “Anyone who discounts 6.5 million people stuck in part-time work and seeking full-time jobs hasn’t listened to working Americans.”

Taken at their word, neither of them is wrong; both sides of the argument resonate in the lived experiences of the millions of people working by the hour. For hourly workers trying to work enough hours to earn enough to get by, it can mean taking the hours they can get –sometimes working short four-hour shifts, putting their lives on hold for a last-minute on-call shift, or working the late night shifts followed by too little sleep because of an early morning shift the next day – also known as a “clopen.”

This is reality for millions of Americans all across the country. Strained, exhausted, and without seeing their families some days. Their rent and bills are predictable, but the work hours they need to pay them are not.

Many of these workers both want more hours, like Bush says, and are working hard, like Clinton says. The American workforce is rapidly changing, and millions of people are caught in a cycle of too few hours, too little control of when their hours occur, and not getting paid for the time they make available to their employers. For part-timed hourly workers, there’s often no way to get ahead.

The issue missing from Jeb and Hillary’s exchange is how underemployment and unpredictability go hand in hand. The one thing these workers can count on is that their schedules will change each week, sometimes with just minutes’ notice. This last minute notice is typical of part-time hourly workers across the economy, especially in fast food and retail, by employers like Target, Starbucks, the Gap, Victoria’s Secret, and others. It’s impossible to pick up more hours at another job if you don’t know day to day what your schedule will be.

If Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are looking for real solutions to these issues, a new movement being led by working moms has some concrete policy solutions to offer. Last week, Congress introduced the Schedules That Work Act, a path-breaking bill addressing these underlying problems of part-time work that Bush and Clinton are debating. The bill is a result of workers calling for schedules they can predict, more stable hours they can count on, and the right to have a say into the hours they work without retaliation. The Schedules That Work Act has garnered a wave of support, in both the House and Senate, and comes after a year when legislators in 12 states introduced policies to guarantee a fair workweek, including active municipal campaigns that includes Minneapolis, Albuquerque, and Washington DC.

Clinton launched her campaign and declared, “I believe you should receive your work schedule with enough notice to arrange childcare or take college courses to get ahead” and Bush’s recent statements on involuntary part-time work show that even the GOP can’t ignore the under-employed. But the chaos that under-employment and unpredictable scheduling sows into workers lives is not just fuel for rhetoric, it’s real. And it requires real policy solutions. Hillary and Jeb have the chance to go deeper than their back and forth, address the common underlying problems they’ve both identified, and stand in favor of federal and local legislation that builds a fair workweek.  

Gleason is the director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy

Source: The Hill

Today, advocates for expanded funding to address opioid misuse will take to the Capitol to push Congress for $45 billion for treatment and overdose prevention. While President Donald Trump declared the opioid epidemic a federal public health emergency last month, his administration hasn’t asked for additional money to help states address the crisis, and Congress hasn’t made any moves or come up with its own emergency authorization, either.

Read the full article here.

Another day, another discriminatory incident at Zara. When the chain first came to the U.S., like many women, I was thrilled. I loved Zara's designer looks sold for a fraction of designer prices. I had outgrown Forever 21 and was excited that the creation of an upscale, sophisticated wardrobe was within my reach.

Oh, and the blazers. I love, love, loved a Zara blazer.

Unfortunately, my love has faded as allegations of discrimination against both employees and customers continue to multiply. The latest incident took place in an East End Toronto store. Cree Ballah, an employee, is filing a lawsuit for discrimination after managers asked her to take her braids out of a bun, and then attempted to "fix" her hair outside of the store in a busy mall in full view of other employees and customers.

“They took me outside of the store and they said, 'We're not trying to offend you, but we're going for a clean, professional look with Zara and the hairstyle you have now is not the look for Zara,” Ballah said.

“It was very humiliating, it was unprofessional,” she continued.

“My hair type is also linked to my race, so to me, I felt like it was direct discrimination against my ethnicity in the sense of what comes along with it,” said Ballah, who describes herself as bi-racial. “My hair type is out of my control and I try to control it to the best of my ability, which wasn't up to standard for Zara.” (Interestingly, Zara has no formal policy regarding employees' hairstyles, as long as they look professional.)

If that was the end of the story, then I’d probably be filling my online shopping cart with their new Palm Springs collection right about now. But, last year Zara's former U.S. general counsel filed a $40 million dollar lawsuit against the retail giant, claiming he was discriminated against for being Jewish, American, and gay. During his time at the company (from January 2008 to March 2015), he reported receiving homophobic emails, witnessing anti-Semitic remarks that were made in his presence, and that Spanish employees were assured of more job security and received greater pay raises despite his strong performance reviews and growing company profitability.

Then the Center for Popular Democracy released a survey of  New York–based Zara employees, titled “Stitched with Prejudice: Zara USA’s Corporate Culture of Favoritism.” The report found that black employees are more dissatisfied with their hours than white employees, are reviewed more harshly by management, and are less likely to be promoted.

I took note of that report, but also saw that the sample included a very small number of employees. Plus, I had shopped at several Zara stores in Manhattan and never had a problem, but admittedly, ignorance is bliss.

As time marched on, however, more and more stories made headlines and it seemed not even Zara customers were safe from discrimination. In 2015, a Muslim woman was refused entrance to a Paris store because she was wearing a hijab. And the Center for Popular Democracy study also found that black customers are far more likely to be targeted as potential thieves than white customers. "The "Stitched with Prejudice" report describes a practice within Zara of referring to suspected shoplifters as “special orders,” leading to the racial profiling of black shoppers as soon as they enter the store.

In 2014, the retailer received backlash for a children’s shirt that drew comparisons to a Holocaust uniform. And in 2007, the store withdrew handbags from their store that featured swastikas.

As luck would have it, my cognitive dissonance regarding Zara wasn't to last. Last summer, while shopping in a Zara in my hometown of Los Angeles, I bought a mini-skirt that I wasn’t quite sure of and asked a sales associate if I could return it if I changed my mind. She said yes, and added that I didn’t even need my receipt to do so. Well, a week later I found myself in that exact situation.

The skirt was a little too short for my taste, so I attempted to return it (and of course I had lost the receipt). I was informed by the sales associate that the item had gone on sale and I would have to return or exchange it at the sale price. I offered to provide the sales associate (and then her manager) with both my credit card number (so they could look up the transaction), as well as my credit card statement to confirm that I had in fact paid full price for the item.

Admittedly, the interaction may not have been motivated by racial bias. The employees may have been tired, underpaid or having a bad day and that’s why they spoke to me in a way that left me feeling angry and humiliated. However, something didn’t feel right about the experience. And when I combined all of their missteps together I decided that I could no longer be a Zara customer. Thus far, I haven’t spent one dollar at a Zara store in about a year.

My personal experience aside, my advice for Zara executives is to get it together and do it fast. The world is more connected than ever before, and multiple allegations of gender, ethnic and religious intolerance are tipping the scales against you (no matter how cute your spring collection is). If more and more of these stories continue to come to light, I won’t be the only former fan girl voting against what appears to be a disgusting company culture by keeping my credit card firmly in it’s wallet.

By xoJane

Source