BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
                              LOU CORREA, CHAIRMAN
                                             


          Bill No:        AB 1084
          Author:         Davis
          Version:        As Proposed
          Hearing Date:   June 28, 2011
          Fiscal:         Yes
          Consultant:     Donald E. Wilson




                                 SUBJECT OF BILL  
          
          Limited equity housing cooperatives (LEHC)  
           
                                   PROPOSED LAW  
           
           1.  Allow the California Department of Veterans Affairs to 
          fund LEHC loans through the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program.

          2.  Proposed amendment - Close the 1978 Cal Guard Home and 
          Farm fund and transfer the money to the CalVET fund.

          3.  Proposed amendment - Adds an urgency clause.
                                         
                          EXISTING LAW AND BACKGROUND  
          
          1.  In 1921, California chose to forego a wartime bonus for 
          World War I veterans and, instead, established a home loan 
          program to encourage home ownership.  

          2.  The latest generation of veterans was unable to take 
          advantage of this program until 2009 when the Federal 
          Government finally updated the federal law concerning the 
          Cal-Vet Loan Program.  

          3.  Up until the renewal of the law, demand for the Cal-Vet 
          home loan program has dwindled as veterans loans had not 
          offered the benefits it once did.  As a result of the 
          ability to find better opportunities outside of the CDVA, 
          demand for the program dwindled.  Loans fell from 2,752 in 
          fiscal year 2000-01 to 954 in 2001-02.  The program failed 









          to break 1,000 loans again in 2002-03.  In the same year, 
          home improvement loans issued fell to 148.

          4.  Further problems for the program were that housing 
          prices in California were quickly outdistancing loan limits 
          under the program.  The California Department of Veterans' 
          Affairs (CDVA) thought it had solved the problem of 
          continually returning to the legislature for renewed 
          maximum loan values by tying the Cal-Vet loan limit to the 
          Federal Fannie Mae Limit (SB 1893, Johannessen, 2002.)

          5.  As home prices increased over the years, the Cal-Vet 
          program had to continually request increases for the 
          maximum allowed home loan amount in order to offer usable 
          loans for California priced property.  Eventually 
          California home prices far outdistanced the rest of the 
          nation and the Cal-Vet program had to continually request 
          increases for the maximum allowed home loan amount in order 
          to offer usable loans for California priced property.  
          Assembly Bill 1439 of 2005 (Assembly Veterans Affairs 
          Committee), finally fixed the loan limit amount for homes 
          to 125% of the Fannie Mae home loan limit.  Farms were 
          fixed to 150% of the loan limit.

          6.  In anticipation of the 2009 Federal Law change, SB 1572 
          of 2008 (Wyland) was put on the ballot as Proposition 12, 
          which authorized an additional $900 million dollars to the 
          Cal-Vet fund.

          7.  Equity housing cooperatives have traditionally not been 
          allowed to have loans associated with them.  Even though a 
          veteran might own a home within the cooperative, the 
          cooperative itself is a corporation that retains rights 
          over the property.  Since technically the veteran is not 
          the full owner Cal-Vet has not been able to give loans to 
          veterans entering into these agreements since the veteran 
          is not an owner with right over his property.

          8.  Limited equity housing cooperatives (LEHC) have a 
          non-profit as the corporation and are meant to help those 
          with fewer financial means to get into a cooperative.

          9.  Since Vietnam it was discovered that many veterans may 
          not be ready to pick up where they left off when they left 

                                      Page 2









          civilian life.  Many veterans who returned home from 
          Vietnam were found on skid rows across America a decade 
          after the war and then diagnosed with post traumatic stress 
          disorder (PTSD).  The lack of diagnosis and treatment for 
          PTSD condemned many to a life most would choose not to 
          follow.  Many have committed suicide or gotten into trouble 
          with the law.

          10. Veterans returning home now not only have PTSD but also 
          traumatic brain injury (TBI) and both have the potential to 
          put veterans who are returning home now in the same 
          position as many of those who returned from Vietnam.  
          Veterans' advocates have vowed to not let the same thing 
          happen to this generation.

          11. Veterans returning home now that are getting in legal 
          trouble or facing substance abuse problems are usually 
          those suffering from PTSD and/or TBI and veterans advocates 
          are hoping to find some form, or forms, of traditional 
          housing to help veterans that are going through treatment 
          or have recently finished treatment and are attempting to 
          fully integrate into civilian life.

          12.  Advocates believe that one way to encourage home 
          ownership for those returning to a full civilian life is to 
          allow the Cal-Vet program to give loans to veterans who 
          would like to buy into LEHC.

          13.  In 1978 the state passed the National Guard Members 
          Farm and Home Purchase Act.  This fund is unused.

                                         


                                    COMMENT  
          
          1.  When Proposition 12 was passed in 2008, it was believed 
          that the Cal-Vet program would need to return to the ballot 
          in 2014 or 2016.  This bill would not affect that timeline: 
           the housing market has decreased demand for loans in spite 
          of the 2009 change in the Federal Law.  Additionally, home 
          prices have dropped significantly since the last 
          authorization, which should allow the previous 
          authorization to last longer.

                                      Page 3










          2.  CDVA has a good track record of low defaults on these 
          loans.  The obvious question would be, will entering this 
          market increase defaults by loaning to higher risks 
          individuals.  However the department states that its 
          position does not change in these transactions.  In the 
          LEHC scenario the department is still loaning to a veteran 
          who is expected to pay back the loan, but the risk is 
          shouldered by the non-profit.  If the home needs to be 
          sold, the VA loan is paid off.

          3.  Some properties that have common areas, such as condos, 
          would normally not be able to be fully funded by a Cal-Vet 
          loan by Qualified Veterans Mortgage Bonds (QVMB) or other 
          restricted funds.  Cal-Vet can only finance the living 
          space of the veteran with those bonds.  In an LEHC, the 
          non-profit can help make up the difference that Cal-Vet 
          cannot cover for common spaces.

          4. The Federal Home Loan Bank Board has a program to 
          support low-income housing with a forgivable $15,000 loan 
          for those buying into co-operative housing.  The loan is 
          forgiven at a rate of $3,000 per year in order to encourage 
          tenants to stay at least five years.

          5.  CDVA has an unused fund from 1978 of $5.4 million in 
          the California National Guard Members' Farm and Home 
          Purchase Act.  Since these funds are not QVMB funds, they 
          could be used to help veterans get full loans for 
          transitional housing in cooperatives with common areas.  
          These dollars would make up the difference of the five or 
          ten percent that Cal-Vet cannot presently cover and allow 
          veterans to purchase a home without the uncertainty of 
          whether or not a non-profit could come up with the money to 
          cover the difference or whether or not a veteran got the 
          $15,000 forgivable loan.

          6.  According to CDVA, "The Calvet program did not charge 
          any direct or administrative costs to administer the Cal 
          Guard program.  The remaining funds in the Cal Guard 
          program are the result of the Calvet Farm and Home loan 
          program (1943 Fund) incurring all the admin costs over the 
          last 33 years on behalf of the Cal Guard program without 
          being reimbursed for the work performed.  Calvet has the 

                                      Page 4









          authority to charge the Cal Guard program for 
          administrative costs but, to date, has not done so."

          7.  The urgency statute is intended to get this money to 
          veterans who are returning, or have already returned, home 
          and need this help now.  This bill does not differentiate 
          among veterans.  National Guard veterans in need of 
          transitional housing would qualify as a veteran for this 
          money.


                                     SUPPORT  
          
          AMVETS, Department of California
          California Association of Veteran Service Agencies (CAVSA)
          Swords to Plowshares
          Vietnam Veterans of California

                                      OPPOSE  
          
          None received























                                      Page 5