Talk:Federal Housing Administration

Untitled
The article neglects to mention the FHA's practice of by refusing loans to people living in "declining" neighboorhoods. This "qualification" actually disqualified every African American from receiving loans. Meanwhile, 100 billion dollars were transfered to whites, thus enabling the creation of a white middle class. -Then write about it.

Why does someone keep changing the link from FHA's website to a private sector company's website? User:vnnc_vnnc

I changed the website from fha.gov to hud.gov/federal_housing_administration, because the former was a dead link. 216.64.141.94 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

On the Great Depression
"Because there was little faith in the backing of the U.S. government, few loans were issued and few new homes were purchased" is not clear. Someone should explain how the backing of the U.S. government is relevant to mortgages during the depression, or this sentence should be deleted.--Rscragun (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I am removing the line mentioned above. Someone can add it back in with proper clarification and citation if they have the resources to do so. Before this edit, the first paragraph of the history section read:

"During the Great Depression, the banking system failed, causing a drastic decrease in home loans and ownership. At this time, most home mortgages were short-term (three to five years), no amortization, balloon instruments at loan-to-value (LTV) ratios below sixty percent.[1] The banking crisis of the 1930s forced all lenders to retrieve due mortgages. Refinancing was not available, and many borrowers, now unemployed, were unable to make mortgage payments. Consequently, many homes were foreclosed, causing the housing market to plummet. Banks collected the loan collateral (foreclosed homes) but the low property values resulted in a relative lack of assets. Because there was little faith in the backing of the U.S. government, few loans were issued and few new homes were purchased."

I am removing the last sentence.Rscragun (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

removal of Rethinking the COLOR Line Statement
I removed the following text, which was placed in the middle of the see also/links area, not in the actual article text.
 * Some of the most long term damaging effects of the American gap between resources available to whites, and those available to "aggrieved racial communities", have come from the FHA, by "Codified" policies of the FHA promoting racial discrimination. Following World War II, the FHA along with other private investors started withdrawing funds from inner-city neighborhoods, and funding mainly the growth and development of white, segregated, suburbs. FHA appraisers continually denied fedarally supported funds to Boyle Heights, in Los Angeles, simply because it was a racially mixed "melting pot area literally combed with diverse and subversive racial elements."
 * Rethinking the COLOR Line, 3rd Edition. Gallagher.

If this statement refelects a legitimite concern expressed with the agency/programs then it should be cleaned up to have a NPOV, and re-added in the proper section. kenj0418 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Text Should be Re-added to Article Body
Inclusion of the removed text is essential for a well balanced description of FHA in a historical context. Especially when the "Effects" section appears to applaud the FHA's "greatest effects" within minority populations and urban areas when these very segments were selectively excluded (and catastrophically impacted) by racialized FHA policies for over 30 years. Rreyom (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

More on the race question
For anyone interested in the racial controversy, see Kenneth Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier or one of several other informative histories (Douglass Massey and Nancy Denton, etc.). The original entry here for FHA is misleading, at best! Historians and policy analysts who work on this subject disagree very strongly with the general claims made in the main entry, above.

There is an interesting op-ed piece on the NY Times web site, Dec-26-2007 by Louis Hyman who teaches history at Harvard entitled "The Orginal Subprime Crisis": http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/opinion/26hyman.html

Discussing the National Housing Act of 1968 (which is why I am at this article trying to get a different perspective), the author writes:
 * By 1971, Congressional and press investigations found the program riddled with fraud. Section 235 accelerated existing white flight by providing poor African-Americans with money to buy out their anxious white neighbors, who in turn accepted below-market prices for their houses. Real estate agents frightened white homeowners with visions of all-black neighbourhoods financed by government money, and then pocketed the proceeds from the resulting high home turnover.

Basically the author is claiming that the Housing Act of 1968 was a government program aimed at making the urban poor home owners but became instead a government program for people in the real estate business to make a lot of money through housing resales. Since the mortagages were government backed US tax payers were left with the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.162.105 (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewording unsourced inflammatory language
From "Conversely, HUD has recently approached Congress to make up a $143,000,000 budget shortfall stemming from the FHA program. This is the first time in three decades HUD has made this request. Even though FHA is statutorily required to be budget neutral, the FHA program has been so grossly mismanaged, that coming off the heels of the largest real estate boom in America's history, they are now asking for the taxpayer's to bail them out. If no changes are made to the FHA program, the GAO is projecting taxpayer funded subsidies of half a billion dollars over the next three years."

to

"Conversely, HUD has recently approached Congress to make up a $143,000,000 budget shortfall stemming from the FHA program. This is the first time in three decades HUD has made this request. Even though FHA is statutorily required to be budget neutral, the GAO is projecting taxpayer funded subsidies of half a billion dollars over the next three years, if no changes are made to the FHA program." Wportre 12:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

POV
Frankly, it's appalling that this article hasn't got it together enough to mention redlining and the FHAs role in that practice. I see numerous references to past mentions of redlining being deleted as POV. Well, the "Effects" section, at least, of this article reads like a HUD press release. I added a few sentences on redlining, cited an ongoing university documentation project, and wrote it as neutrally as possible. Please discuss here before you delete.69.94.192.147 (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Insured loans made by banks and other private lenders for home building and home buying."
Is "Insured loans made by banks and other private lenders for home building and home buying." (from introductory paragraph) supposed to be a complete sentence? Maybe it's because English isn't my native language, but I can't parse this. -- 77.7.169.207 (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Federal Housing Administration is the only government agency that is completely self-funded."
The assertion that "The Federal Housing Administration is the only government agency that is completely self-funded" is inaccurate. The the United States Postal Service, the United States Patent and Trademark Office and United States Mint are self-funded agencies. Suggest change FROM: "The Federal Housing Administration is the only government agency that is completely self-funded.[5] However, although it claims to operate solely from its own income at no cost to taxpayers, there is an implicit guarantee that the taxpayer will help them in times of need." TO "While the Federal Housing Administration is self-funded[5] operating solely from its own income at no cost to taxpayers, there is an implicit guarantee that the taxpayer will help them in times of need."

April 1, 2013 and June 3, 2013 changes to FHA MIP policy
Shouldn't the article be updated in order to account for the changes that took place on 1 April 2013 and those to take place on 3 June 2013? Basuraeuropea (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Puff piece / political fluff
"The greatest effects of the Federal Housing Administration can be seen within minority populations and in cities. Nearly half of FHA's metropolitan area business is located in central cities, a percentage that is much higher than that of conventional loans.[14] The FHA also lends to a higher percentage of African Americans and Hispanic Americans, as well as younger, credit-constrained borrowers, contributing to the increase in home ownership among these groups."

This is an overwhelmingly positive section and not at all neutral point of view. This could be equally reworded to reflect the increased risk risky mortgages with low credit requirements pose to taxpayers. I suggest this section be rewritten in line with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/federal-government-has-dramatically-expanded-exposure-to-risky-mortgages/2019/10/02/d862ab40-ce79-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs) 02:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Notification: Housing in the United States
A request has been submitted to WikiProject United States for a new article to be created on the topic of Housing in the United States. Please join the discussion or consider contributing to the new article. Best regards, -- M2545 (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Racial question
"Between 1934 and 1968, African Americans received only 15 percent of all federally insured home loans" - is this really relevant, given that African Americans made up only 10% of the US population during that period? Presumably they made up a higher proportion of the low/middle income group that the FHA was supposed to help, but how much would that be? Can't seem to find a figure that would be correct. 109.79.30.104 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the only source I found for this date range, the figure is actually for  nonwhite applicants. This and other sources cite George Lipsitz, who gives the figure of  than 2 percent for the years 1934 to 1962. Lipsitz himself cites Jill Quadagno for these figures. A 1983 keynote address by Robert C. Weaver gives the figure of 2 percent for the years 1934 to 1960. Another article I found cites a 1975 book by Mark I. Gelfand, who gives the figure of less than 2 percent for the years 1946 to 1959. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)