Source: United States Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
***Click here to download video. Click here for audio.***
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) at a Banking Committee hearing questioned Diane Yentel, President and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, about potential impacts of the Choice in Affordable Housing Act, legislation he introduced with Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) to improve the Housing Choice Voucher Program, the largest federal rental assistance program.
“We offer [Public Housing Authorities], opportunity to offer security deposit assistance to tenants and then a signing bonus to the landlord, as well, with a unit in an area that is in demand or in need– an area with less than 20 percent poverty with units in that area.
“Could you could you elaborate on the importance of legislation? How would the changes that are proposed in the bill specifically strengthen existing housing choice opportunities in the voucher program you were just talking about?” asked Senator Cramer.
“Thank you for reintroducing this important, bipartisan legislation. That bill would, as the name implies, increase the ability for tenants who have housing choice vouchers to choose where to live based on what’s best for themselves and their families. And it increases choice in a couple of ways. One, through increasing landlord participation in the program, which has been decreasing in recent years and is obviously an essential part of the program working,” responded Yentel. “So, the incentives you mentioned can increase landlord participation. The bill would also streamline and simplify some of the requirements around the program, especially the inspection process, which may also bring more landlords to the table. It also increases choice for the tenant by making the worth of the voucher more reflective of the local market where they want to rent through implementing small area FMRs. That would also be a significant change, an important change and improvement in the overall program.”
“When Senator Coons first came to me with it, I liked the idea of vouchers. I liked the idea of dealing with the demand side, but a demand side without a supply side with inadequate balance of incentives, really doesn’t do a heck of a lot of good. So, that was the balance I was trying to strike,” said Senator Cramer.
He also discussed the “very perverse” proposal by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which would increase upfront fees for individuals with credit scores over 680. The revenue would be used to reduce fees for high-risk borrowers.
“It’s so ironic to me, in their proposal, that somehow people with a higher credit score would be subsidizing people with a lower credit score, presuming that you’re helping people at the lower income level,” said Senator Cramer. “And I want to underscore it’s a proposal that incorrectly assumes people with a higher credit score are naturally people with more money. The two aren’t necessarily hand-in-hand if we’re going to have some sort of an incentive like that.
“First of all, it’s a really awful idea that you would punish the high performers this way. But it’s even crazier when you consider that the high performers are often times people like my parents were: never above middle class, but always paid their bills, had a great credit score by today’s standards, if they were alive today. The idea that, somehow, they would have to subsidize somebody who makes three times as much money, just because their credit score was better than that person, just makes zero sense to me. So, I hope they rethink this whole crazy proposal,” he continued.