U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

74–873 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 112–461 

SAVING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS FROM 

FORECLOSURES 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF FORECLOSURES AND SOLUTIONS TO 

THEM, THEIR EFFECTS ON NEW JERSEY NEIGHBORHOODS, SUCH AS 

DECLINES IN HOME VALUES, CRIME, AND DISPLACED FAMILIES; AND 

DISCUSSING STEPS TAKEN TO HELP END THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS 

FEBRUARY 10, 2012 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

( 

Available at: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

KAY HAGAN, North Carolina 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

DWIGHT FETTIG, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE, Republican Staff Director 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

RIKER VERMILYE, Hearing Clerk 

WILLIAM FIELD, Legislative Assistant 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

MICHAEL PASSANTE, Subcommittee Staff Director 

JEFFREY R. MURRAY, Republican Subcommittee Staff Director 

(II)
C O N T E N T S 

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2012 

Page 

Opening statement of Chairman Menendez .......................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Jerry Green, Assemblyman and Speaker Pro Tempore, New Jersey General 

Assembly ............................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Sharon Robinson-Briggs, Mayor, Plainfield, New Jersey ..................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Krishna Garlic, Chief Executive Officer, Brand New Day ................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Wayne T. Meyer, President, New Jersey Community Capital ............................ 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Phyllis Salowe-Kaye, Executive Director, New Jersey Citizen Action, and 

Former member, Consumer Advisory Council, Federal Reserve Board of 

Governors .............................................................................................................. 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Alan Mallach, Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution ..................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

(III)

(1) 

SAVING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS FROM 

FORECLOSURES 

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met at 11:01 a.m. at Black United Fund 

Health and Human Services, 403 West Seventh Street, Plainfield, 

New Jersey, Hon. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROBERT MENENDEZ 

Senator MENENDEZ. Good morning. As Chairman of the Senate 

Banking Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development, let me call this Congressional field hearing to 

order. 

Let me first thank the Black United Fund for hosting this field 

hearing, an incredible organization that has assisted over 700 community-based organizations, and their mission touched upon 16 of 

the 21 county Health and Human Services agencies that have received their support and whose goal is to enable individuals to help 

themselves create a better sense of self-worth and a better selfidentity and ultimately self-sufficiency. We thank them for hosting 

us. 

I just had the privilege of meeting over 100 of the young students 

who are taught here every day in the preschool program and they 

had a lot to say. They were a happy group, so started my day exceptionally well. 

It is good to be home in New Jersey to welcome all of you to this 

discussion on how we save our neighborhoods from the problems of 

foreclosure, how we can help homeowners deal with foreclosure and 

communities deal with the blight of foreclosed properties. 

Let me begin by looking back to a time when I was growing up 

in New Jersey. It was and still is a place where people work hard 

to build a better life for themselves and their families. The economy was expanding. We enjoyed a vibrant, prosperous manufacturing base that provided jobs that turned into lifetime careers for 

millions of Americans. The middle class was thriving, and it was 

everyone’s dream to own a home. And buying a home was a personal accomplishment, a family triumph. It was a time in America 

where Government and the economy supported a growing middle 

class, banks were more local, not global like they are today, a time 
2 

when they had a stake in each mortgage in the community they 

served and they knew their customers personally. 

Times have changed, and some say the old American dream no 

longer exists. But I think they are wrong. I believe that America’s 

middle class spirit, that hope for a better life, is still alive in the 

hearts of every family here in Plainfield and across the country. 

So today’s hearing is about more than numbers and statistics, 

more than the fact that 1 of every 10 homes in Plainfield is in foreclosure. It is about values, about people and families and our communities and what we can do to help. It is about finding opportunities to mitigate the foreclosure crisis. But most of all, it is about 

hope, hope for Plainfield, for New Jersey, and for every American 

family and neighborhood that has been hit hard by the mortgage 

crisis and struggling to stay above water. 

Having said that, today, we will be hearing from six witnesses 

on how to best alleviate the burden of foreclosures and how we can 

mitigate the impact of foreclosures on our neighborhoods. Today, I 

hope to hear not only how we can streamline the process and make 

it as fair and as painless as possible for homeowners, but how we 

can help communities like Plainfield deal with the vacant houses 

that exist, whether that be incentives for conversion to rental or, 

in some cases, where there are other resources for the community 

that would make sense. 

Today, I would like to hear outside-the-box ideas on what creative solutions our witnesses may have and what the possibilities 

are. We have already made some inroads, but there is much more 

we can do. 

As Chairman of the Subcommittee, I have held multiple hearings 

to find ways to get the housing market back on track and create 

jobs. We have investigated bank practices to hold them accountable, sought ways to expand programs to help struggling homeowners deal with an overly cumbersome and complicated process. 

I have worked to bring home millions of dollars to the Garden 

State for the construction of affordable housing units throughout 

the State and supported legislation to create a Homeowner Advocate to be a one-stop-shop for homeowners looking for help. 

Most importantly, I have supported efforts to hold banks and the 

Government more accountable for their actions and to protect 

homeowners from predatory practices, lender indifference, and untimely and unreasonable demands that make a bad situation worse 

for families already struggling. 

And looking forward, I have proposed my own comprehensive action plan that will address all aspects of the housing market, and 

I will also be working with President Obama to put his housing 

plan into action, both of which will help New Jersey families stay 

in their homes, and I hope our witnesses will touch on aspects of 

this plan in the course of their testimony today. 

I also wanted to mention that the settlement between the State 

Attorney Generals and big banks came out yesterday, so this hearing is very timely. While the $26 billion settlement helps homeowners, it is a long way from healing the grievous wounds left by 

the crisis and deceptive mortgage practices. When I think about 

$700 billion nationwide underwater, $26 billion may be welcome, 

but it is not even 10 percent of that challenge at the end of the 
3 

day. There is still more that can be done to help homeowners who 

were wronged by the foreclosure crisis and will also provide, I hope, 

greater stability to the housing market and improve the overall 

economy. 

Specifically, we cannot address the basic foreclosure issues for 

families if we do not first eliminate arbitrary barriers imposed by 

lenders that prevent homeowners who are underwater from refinancing at a fair interest rate. That is one of the first things we 

need to do. And while we have eliminated many of the barriers already, more needs to be done and we look forward to working with 

the Administration to do just that, to make sure that all responsible homeowners who should be able to take advantage of our historically low interest rates but unfortunately are not allowed in 

many cases to do that. This was the subject of a hearing yesterday 

in Washington of the full Banking Committee and it is something 

I look forward to continuing to pursue. 

I look forward to working with the President to help families 

here in Plainfield and across the Garden State by establishing a set 

of fair national foreclosure standards to ensure that no bank—no 

lender is allowed to foreclose on a home without following proper 

procedures and producing proper documentation. Nor should they 

be able to foreclose on a property without making every effort to 

modify mortgages so a family has a reasonable expectation of having the chance of staying in their home. 

Homeowners should have the benefit of a single point of contact 

for loan modifications to ensure continuity and certainty in finding 

their way through what is inevitably, no matter how many safeguards we implement, an emotionally difficult process, and my office has dealt with this many times in our assistance to homeowners working with lenders on loan modifications, and very often 

that process moves from one person to another to another and creates an incredible challenge to that family trying to modify their 

loan. 

I also believe there should be limits, reasonable limits on foreclosure fees and that there should be a fair appeals process for 

those denied loan modifications to ensure that families get a fair 

shake, not just a quick rejection. 

Fraud and homeowner abuse through service errors is also a 

problem we must address. Miscommunications, illegal robosignings, which have sometimes resulted in wrongful property loss, 

are simply unacceptable. 

Because the process has proven to be so cumbersome, and many 

times so callous, I strongly support foreclosure counseling to help 

guide homeowners to their options to keep their homes or make a 

smooth transition to the next option. In fact, that is why I joined 

with others to send a request to Senate appropriators requesting 

a restoration of funding for HUD’s Housing Counseling Program 

that was eliminated in the fiscal year 2011 budget to avert a Government shutdown, and while we did not get all of it back, we got 

most of it, and that is certainly an important outcome, because in 

my view, cutting housing counseling funding is a huge mistake 

when we have record numbers of foreclosures and we know that 

homeowners who get housing counseling advice are much more 

likely to get a modification and stay in their homes. 
4 

We also need to help neighborhoods recover from foreclosed properties, because the consequences are not just to the families, of 

course, in the first instance, who face this incredible challenge. But 

when you have a foreclosed property and that property remains vacant, mayors face the challenges of that reality, the attraction very 

often for it to become a challenge, a nuisance in the community. 

And when multiple properties are foreclosed, it devalues the values 

of other properties in the neighborhood and sends a spiral downwards in terms of property ratable basis. That is a challenge. So 

we have requested $215 million for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation to rehabilitate and preserve existing buildings, 

and why I support that Neighborhood Stabilization Program to rehabilitate foreclosed homes. 

Clearly, here in Plainfield and in every community, foreclosed 

properties are having challenging effects, not only for the families 

who have to move but for their neighbors. Sales of these properties 

at bargain basement prices depress the value of neighborhood 

homes, are often vandalized, become eyesores, and attract crime. 

This begs the question of how we can quickly and easily turn foreclosed homes into one option, being rental properties. I believe we 

also need to have a discussion about what other opportunities there 

exist. 

Last, I am introducing today legislation that seeks to create another opportunity for families under shared appreciation mortgage 

modifications. We need to help homeowners who are underwater 

through no fault of their own but can be responsible borrowers. Because they owe more than the house may be worth, they are more 

likely to allow the property to go into foreclosure or walk away 

completely. They need help and hope for a solution that allows 

them to remain in their home. 

That is why I have introduced the American Homeownership 

Preservation Act of 2012. Most banks still will not reduce the 

amount that homeowners owe on their loans, so I believe we need 

to use shared appreciation mortgages, which is a creative way to 

reduce mortgage debt that is both fair to the homeowner and the 

lender. Under the proposal, for homeowners who have lost their 

jobs or experienced a hardship, banks would be required to reduce 

homeowner mortgages to 95 percent of loan-to-value ratio over 3 

years and immediately lower the homeowner’s payments, provided 

the homeowner continues to make reduced payments. In exchange, 

investors or lenders would get a share of any appreciation in the 

home’s value when the home is later sold or refinanced, equal in 

percentage to the amount of principal they reduced the home by in 

the first place. This approach provides hope for families who have 

seen the value of their home plummet, through no fault of their 

own, so that they can remain in their homes if they can still responsibly make payments. 

And this is not some academic idea hatched in a laboratory. This 

modification has already been tested by private companies and it 

works. In fact, there is a homeowner here today who received this 

mortgage modification and is still in their home because of it. Mr. 

Igor Etienne would be more than happy to speak with any members of the press or anyone who wants to understand how it works 
5 

in real practice. He is in the audience and we appreciate his willingness to speak to anyone at the conclusion of this hearing. 

The Shared Appreciation Mortgage Modification Act of 2012 is 

only one tool needed among tools that I have been encouraging. All 

options should be on the table. I hope we will hear many more 

today, because doing nothing about foreclosed properties, doing 

nothing to help communities like Plainfield through this crisis is 

simply not an option. It is unacceptable for me for homeowners to 

wait for years for the market to hit bottom. Some suggest that it 

has. But it seems to me that we just cannot wait for the market 

forces to take place. We need and can do much more. 

So let me introduce our witnesses for today. Let me welcome Assemblyman Jerry Green, who is currently serving his 11th term in 

the New Jersey Assembly. As Speaker Pro Tempore, Assemblyman 

Green serves the 22nd Legislative District, which includes this 

great community. He is also Chairman of the Assembly Housing 

and Local Government Committee and we look forward to his testimony and his initiatives. 

Let me welcome our host Mayor, Sharon Robinson-Briggs, the 

Mayor of Plainfield, who has represented the city in so many capacities and is the past President of the Board of Education here 

in Plainfield and the past President of the Plainfield Branch of the 

NAACP. Thank you, Mayor, for hosting us here. 

Krishna Garlic is the Chief Executive Officer of Brand New Day, 

a nonprofit Community Development Corporation which provides 

programs and services for individuals, families, renters, homeowners, micro-businesses, and supporters of low-to-moderate income population in New Jersey. We look forward to her insights. 

Phyllis Salowe-Kaye is the Executive Director of New Jersey Citizen Action. She leads the largest HUD-certified counseling agency 

in New Jersey that is helping thousands of borrowers to navigate 

the complexities of saving their homes, and we appreciate Phyllis’s 

testimony at my last field hearing in Hackensack last year. 

And Mr. Wayne Meyer, who is the President of New Jersey Community Capital, a nonprofit community development institution 

that provides innovative loans, grants, and equity to organizations 

that support housing and sustainable community development ventures that increase jobs, improve education, and strengthen neighborhoods. 

And finally, let me welcome Professor Alan Mallach, who is a 

Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Board Member 

Emeritus of Housing and Community Development Network of 

New Jersey. He is a widely known and respected advocate, speaker, and writer on housing and urban policy issues. 

So my thanks on behalf of the Committee to all of you. We are— 

as you may see, we have a Senate recording of the testimony that 

is taking place. There are Senate Banking Committee staff here. So 

your testimonies will be fully included in the record. We ask you 

to summarize them in about 5 minutes so we can have some conversation and the testimony will get wide dissemination among 

Members of the full Banking Committee, as well. 

So with that, Assemblyman Green, I know you have a schedule 

that may bring you to Trenton, so we are going to ask you to start 

off. 
6 

STATEMENT OF JERRY GREEN, ASSEMBLYMAN AND SPEAKER 

PRO TEMPORE, NEW JERSEY GENERAL ASSEMBLY 

Mr. GREEN. Well, first of all, Senator, I want to—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. If you would use the microphone for the Senate stenographer. 

Mr. GREEN. First of all, I want to congratulate you for bringing 

this meeting together. It is long overdue. Some of the topics that 

you have touched on here in the State of New Jersey, as Chairman 

of Housing and Local Government, we have begun to move in that 

direction. Currently, we have some proposals together with the 

Senate, working with Senator Lesniak that deal with foreclosure 

and we are hoping and confident that the Governor and his office 

will work with us. So today’s meeting and your approach is something that publicly I want to acknowledge is well overdue and is 

needed. 

What I have found last year when I dealt with some of these 

housing issues was a lack of communication with Washington, 

Trenton, and even local, and we have tightened that up. I had the 

ability as chairman when we were talking about affordable housing 

to go around the whole State and hold such meetings, and we realize that there is a shortage of housing, but also there is a shortage 

of dollars. And there are municipalities in the State that have 

money already set aside for some of the things that you and I are 

talking about. 

So what we plan on accomplishing with this new bill is that we 

would like to work with the Governor to tie in foreclosure. We feel 

it is important that we keep a family in a home, because once they 

lose their home, they become not only a problem to the community, 

but the home itself becomes a problem, and this is workable. 

Our policies in the past dealing with housing are not working. 

For the last 25 years, we have not seen anything accomplished. We 

are not talking about a lot of new homes. We are talking about affordable housing. Because here in my district, even in the city of 

Plainfield, we have enough housing. It is the question, how do we 

keep people in the housing? 

So it is important as I listen to your remarks that we include the 

banking industry, we include Government, and we include the community, because at the end of the day, the bottom line is that these 

people have to have someplace to live. 

So I do not want to get too far into what I consider negotiation 

that is going on with the front office with foreclosure, but I am confident within the next couple of weeks the Senator and I will make 

an announcement, and I am so happy to be able to go back and report to the Committee that you are a step ahead of us, and we are 

just so happy that we have a Senator that really understands these 

issues, because these are human issues. We are not talking any 

longer about poor people. We are talking about middle-income people who have lost their jobs and cannot afford the mortgage that 

basically they were put into. 

So we are not looking to hurt the bank. We are not looking for 

Government to bail out. But I am hoping that this year, with the 

budget, we do not have to have that as a line item. What we need 

to do is make sure that dollars that are set aside for housing go 

toward the project that you are talking about this afternoon. 
7 

So I am looking forward to questions from the community and 

I look forward to this dialogue with you because it is obvious that 

you are going to be a very important part of how New Jersey moves 

their housing industry. 

You can look at some of our urban communities, like Camden 

and others, and it is obvious their problems are a lot more serious. 

But as I had staff give me the numbers here in Plainfield, it is 

workable. It is doable. What I see was 5, 6 years ago, people put 

in positions that even the realtors and the bank realized these people could not survive. We cannot allow that to happen in the future. So we have to have policies set in place that banks cannot 

take advantage of a community, because at the end of the day, 

what happens is what has happened in Plainfield. Right now, the 

bank owns about 125 homes. Right now, we have over 500 homes 

on the books that could go either way. Again, this cuts across the 

whole particular city. It is not just one part of the city anymore. 

But also, I would like for you to make sure in your approach to 

this whole issue that we do not have people take advantage of the 

system. Whatever dollars come in, we want to make sure those dollars go directly to the families to help them bring down their mortgages, give them another life, not have loose policies like it has 

been in the past where gimmicks are put together and at the end 

of the day the public gets hurt and we are right back where we 

started from. 

So again, I am happy to be here with you today and I am confident over the years you and I will work closely together. And I 

am confident before Ray and I roll out our foreclosure bill, that we 

would love to sit down with you to make sure we are on the same 

page. Thank you. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. 

Mayor Briggs. 

STATEMENT OF SHARON ROBINSON-BRIGGS, MAYOR, 

PLAINFIELD, NEW JERSEY 

Ms. ROBINSON-BRIGGS. Good morning to everyone and welcome 

to the city of Plainfield. I am Sharon Robinson-Briggs. To Senator 

Menendez and Assemblyman Green as well as all of the dignitaries 

here on the panel, as well as to Ms. Sondra Clark who welcomed 

us here to this facility and to—I see members of the Plainfield 

Housing Authority, HUD, Faith, Bricks and Mortar, and the school 

district and One Stop and many of our partners, Union County, 

representatives here—I want to put on the record very briefly, Senator Menendez, that, first of all, Senator Menendez is not a stranger here to the city of Plainfield. He has come here often to discuss 

many pertinent issues and ideas affecting not just the people in 

Plainfield, but throughout the entire State of New Jersey, the 566 

municipalities. He even came to my church with my pastor who is 

here today, Reverend Tracy Hill Brown from the Fellowship Ministries. You may remember her, as well, Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I cannot forget her, Mayor. 

Ms. ROBINSON-BRIGGS. I know. Me, either. 

Senator MENENDEZ. She gave me a blessing from the pulpit, 

so—— 

Ms. ROBINSON-BRIGGS. Oh, excellent. She does that. 
8 

Senator MENENDEZ.——and we wish her well. 

Ms. ROBINSON-BRIGGS. Thank you so very much. 

And I will not forget, to all the elected and appointed officials 

who are here today. 

I am Sharon Robinson-Briggs. I am here representing and wearing different hats. I am Mayor of the city of Plainfield. I am also 

here as a member of the Plainfield Area NAACP, also, under the 

leadership of Peter Briggs, and also here as an Executive Member 

of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities. Mayor Ondish 

is the President and Bill Dresser was the Executive Director. Also, 

as a member of the New Jersey Urban Mayors Association under 

Mayor Wayne Smith, who is the President. 

But finally and maybe in this particular case maybe the most important reason why I am here today, I am sitting here as a homeowner in the city of Plainfield, County of Union, State of New Jersey, 216 Pemberton Avenue, for the record. As a homeowner, I 

have to say that it has been pretty tough, pretty, pretty tough to 

maintain a mortgage on property these days. 

Now, I think one of the biggest problems is that, or the tie-in to 

the foreclosure problem is that it is directly related to employment. 

You know, we have many people, not just in Plainfield but throughout the State, who have either been laid off, fired, and/or have been 

asked to take a reduced salary. Now, a reduced salary is one thing, 

but it does not equate to what is going on in the household. The 

expenses are not being reduced, as we all know. So, therefore, 

there is this unequal situation that is going on. I can tell you that 

even within my own household, my husband, who was making one 

salary which was wonderful, has been greatly decreased and I 

think that that is something that has happened across the board. 

And it is not due to anything that employees or residents have 

done. It is just the economy. 

For instance, in the city of Plainfield, we lost in the last few 

years, our biggest employer, Muhlenberg Hospital, that went down 

from a full-service facility to a satellite facility, and we had 1,100 

employees at Muhlenberg and we do not have that kind of staff 

there. Many of those individuals resided here in the city of Plainfield or in Union County, and, of course, without a job, it is pretty 

tough to make the mortgage demands. So, again, I think that the 

foreclosure rate is really, really tied to employment and this economy. 

I would like to speak for a moment with regard to—and I thank 

banking officials for being here—because I think that we need to 

be able to work closely together, municipalities and banking officials, because there is the modification process, but it really takes 

too long for homeowners to go through that process. Oftentimes, I 

have been meeting with families who say that it has been 4, 5, 6, 

7, 8 months to get a final decision as to whether or not they have 

qualified for the modification. 

I would like to throw out to the banking world, and I know that 

they are proactive and they want to help people stay in their 

homes and that is all of our option at this point. That is what we 

all would like to see happen. But I would like to ask if banking officials can please take this information, as well as our legislators, 

back to their bodies and discuss the possibility of forgiveness of 
9 

monies, back monies that are owed on loans, maybe up to 3 

months, or either put that on the tail end of a loan and allow people to be able to start over, because assessing extra fines and 

things of that nature is not helpful to homeowners and I am sure 

that banks do not really want to be landlords and/or property owners. 

We have several properties in the city of Plainfield that have 

been foreclosed upon. Unfortunately, we do not have any way to 

help the folks who have been displaced because there is not money 

available to them. People are kind of camping in with other family 

members and doing things of that nature. 

But in Plainfield, I am going to tell you briefly what we have 

done to try to assist homeowners is to work with organizations and 

facilities such as the Housing Authority, such as HUD, such as 

Faith, Bricks and Mortar and other certified counseling facilities so 

that they can educate our community, and we have been having 

housing seminars. So we are going to continue in that vein. 

But thank you again, Senator Menendez, for bringing this issue 

to the forefront because it is very vital to the community of Plainfield. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mayor. 

Ms. Garlic. 

STATEMENT OF KRISHNA GARLIC, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, BRAND NEW DAY 

Ms. GARLIC. Good afternoon. I am grateful that the Senator has 

made this venue available to call attention to the unfortunate situation that families are still losing their homes and many are sitting 

in limbo for years not knowing their fate. 

Take, for example, Regina, who came to Brand New Day for help 

with her mortgage. She had heard about the HAMP program and 

her mortgage was with one of the larger banking institutions. Her 

mortgage payment was $1,200 a month and she was current until 

she lost her job unexpectedly. She was unemployed for 3 months 

before finding employment significantly less than her previous job. 

Unemployment and under-employment are the number one factors 

facing customers who come into our office today. Brand New Day 

worked with Regina to submit her modification request. 

After 90 days, she was approved for a trial modification, and the 

next 120 days were spent resubmitting documents, numerous 

phone calls, and lots of tears as she waited for her permanent 

modification. Six months of waiting to find out the fate of her home 

ownership status and the memories of sacrifices she and her husband had made to purchase a home for their family were all flooding her with emotions. Thoughts of where she and her family 

would live if the loan was not approved, where she and her—where 

her children would go to school. Where would they play? Where 

would they raise their children? After all, she and her husband had 

children in this house, this neighborhood, these neighbors. 

Another 30 days went by before she was scheduled to meet with 

her counselor. It has now been over 8 months and still no resolution. She was saddened to hear during her appointment that the 

request had been denied. The counselor advised her not to give up, 

because in New Jersey, we have other programs. The State’s medi-
10 

ation program would give her an opportunity to speak directly to 

the bank and make her case. Together with the counselor, the mediation application was prepared and submitted. More waiting. Regina’s mediation date was scheduled for 2 months out, but at least 

she could sleep sound at night knowing that the sheriff would not 

show up at the door to remove her family while waiting for her mediation date. 

A week before the mediation date, Brand New Day worked with 

her to update all of her paperwork and send it in to the bank in 

preparation for the mediation process. So Regina found herself 

frustrated and confused when the lender’s attorney reported to the 

mediation unprepared and requesting that the process be continued. 

On many occasions, cases at mediation are continued two and 

three times, leaving homeowners in their houses but uneasy, insecure, and full of anxiety. In addition, while decisions are prolonged, 

fees and interest continue to accrue, making negotiations with 

lenders even more difficult. It is our recommendation that fees and 

interest be suspended during the foreclosure modification process. 

In addition, the process would be simplified and more effective if 

counselors had direct access to the person who has the power to negotiate and make the decision regarding the modification. 

Regina finally, after an unsuccessful mediation process, said that 

she would pursue a short-sell and put her house on the market. At 

that point, she felt hopeless and believed that this was her only option. The home stayed on the market for many months with no 

offer. There were so many homes on the market that at that time 

and in her neighborhood, there was extremely low demand. She finally got an offer much less than what she owed to the bank, in 

fact, $70,000 less. The offer was submitted to the bank and Regina 

found herself yet again playing the waiting game. She waited for 

months with no response from the bank to approve the short sale. 

The housing counselor at Brand New Day told Regina not to get 

frustrated. There is a program called Cash For Keys that we can 

negotiate on your behalf if you decide that you want to move out. 

Regina was desperate. She and her housing counselor made arrangements for the exchange. Unfortunately, the cash arrived 

many months after she had moved and the funds could not be used 

to help with her relocation expenses. Banks should be required to 

give the cash within 30 days of the homeowner vacating the property. 

Regina and her family are now renting an apartment in another 

town and another community. The children are now attending 

school at a new school and have made new friends. There is a 

greater distance between where she lives and where she works. 

The family would have been better served if they could have remained in their house as tenants. Banks should be encouraged to 

allow homeowners to lease back the properties after foreclosure so 

they can maintain stability for their family and avoid vacancy in 

our neighborhoods. 

In closing, Regina’s story can be multiplied by thousands across 

the State and millions across the country. Many of the current Federal and State programs could be more useful if guidelines were 

less restrictive. There are so many people that need help and their 
11 

situations are so different that we spend numerous hours as counselors trying to determine who qualifies for what program and trying to qualify the unqualifiable. 

In addition, our counselors are an invaluable part of the process 

in aiding a family from the first late payment through resolution, 

which could mean a loan modification but also could be 

transitioning into a new living situation. Funding for housing counselors has been significantly cut in the State and Federal budgets, 

and as demand continues and in many cases increases, we need 

dollars to pay salaries and related costs. Banks should be responsible to assist with the cost of healing our communities. 

So I want to thank you for your attention to this important matter and ask the Senator that you continue to have conversations 

and dialogue with housing counseling agencies as we try to help 

families in New Jersey. Thank you. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Meyer. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE T. MEYER, PRESIDENT, NEW JERSEY 

COMMUNITY CAPITAL 

Mr. MEYER. Senator Menendez, good morning, and thank you for 

the opportunity to speak with you today about New Jersey Community Capital and the role we play in saving New Jersey’s neighborhoods from foreclosure. More importantly, thank you for your tireless efforts to advance a comprehensive housing plan designed to 

keep people in their homes, to fill vacant homes, and to save our 

neighborhoods. 

Senator, you mentioned at the beginning that the central part of 

New Jersey Community Capital’s work is to try to create comprehensive sustainable neighborhoods through housing, education, 

early child care, business development, and the like. But what is 

clear to us in our work throughout the State is that without a 

healthy housing market, it is almost impossible to create those 

neighborhoods of choice. And the foreclosure crisis, as enormous as 

it is, places pressure on the abilities of neighborhoods to become 

good places to live, work, and raise a family. 

This crisis really requires interventions and strategies across the 

mega-community approach, within the Government, philanthropic, 

private, nonprofit sector. And I would like to talk today a little bit 

about some of the programs we are using at New Jersey Community Capital that are really designed to help, along with your housing work plan, Senator, keep people in their homes, prevent foreclosure, and save neighborhoods. 

The first is a financing program. As a Statewide CDFI, we have 

seen the lack of financing to groups around the State as a real barrier for them to acquire and redevelop properties, and to put them 

back into productive reuse. And so vacant homes, which drain the 

life out of neighborhoods at a time when there is a need for affordable housing, remain vacant. 

At New Jersey Community Capital we are implementing a new 

creative fund. We call it the Neighborhood Prosperity Fund, which 

is designed to lend to groups around the State who can meaningfully acquire properties, redevelop them, and put them back into 

productive reuse. And this is a problem that has been going on for 
12 

years, because a lot of mainstream financial institutions have really stopped directly lending to groups that have real strategies to acquire and redevelop properties. 

Another area where it has been very difficult, because it is so difficult to qualify for mortgage financing and there is such a demand 

for housing, is to provide financing to groups to rent out these 

houses. In New Jersey Community Capital, we have been trying to 

provide what we call mini-permanent rental financing. Again, there 

is demand for affordable housing but a lack of capital to fill houses, 

and this financing is a really important component of the work. Financing is key, clearly. It continues to be an issue. 

The second program is around the acquisition of properties on a 

meaningful scale. It is clear to us that the one-off property acquisition is not enough to really save neighborhoods. Not only is it not 

enough, we cannot rely on Government subsidy as the sole source 

to rebuild neighborhoods. So one of the initiatives that we have developed in New Jersey Community Capital is to establish a subsidiary called Community Asset Preservation Corporation which is 

designed to purchase in bulk both nonperforming mortgages and 

REO properties and then work with various groups, both community development groups and mission-based for-profit groups, to try 

to keep people in their homes through modifications of mortgages, 

trying to stabilize tenant situations. We really feel that this is a 

promising aspect of the work. 

One of the difficulties and challenges that we have had, and we 

are starting to make more progress on it, is getting the financial 

institutions to deal with us on a meaningful basis to acquire properties and to establish rational values for these properties. We really believe that early intervention is so important, and if the financial institutions were more willing to work with us, we would be 

able to gain control and access to these properties more quickly. 

And finally, Senator, we are working on a program with our 

State housing mortgage finance agency to use some of the Hardest 

Hit Funds. We are using some Hardest Hit Funds that were provided by U.S. Treasury. And the idea behind this program is precisely part of your work plan about helping underwater home buyers and keeping people in the homes. Every week in this country, 

every single week, billions of dollars of mortgages are traded, including here in New Jersey. And so we want to create a fund that 

is designed to acquire owner-occupied mortgages in targeted neighborhoods and then begin a process of working with the individual 

homeowners, like with our counselors like Krishna and Phyllis, to 

redevelop individual program plans so that we can meaningfully 

write down these mortgages to a point where they are consistent 

with the values of the house and with the borrower’s income. 

We believe that with this program, we could probably save 2,000 

homeowners over the next 6 years. So we are looking forward to 

continuing to develop that program and implement it in 2012. 

Senator, again, thank you for this opportunity here today to 

speak with you. It is critical that we save our neighborhoods from 

the detrimental impact of foreclosures. I believe that we can make 

more of a difference, but it is going to require both a financial and 

real estate capacity at a greater scale than has ever existed, and 

it is also going to require a major shift in thinking and behavior 
13 

by all of us to really implement these initiatives. So thank you 

again. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you for the insights. 

Ms. Salowe-Kaye. 

STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS SALOWE-KAYE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY CITIZEN ACTION, AND FORMER MEMBER, 

CONSUMER ADVISORY COUNCIL, FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD 

OF GOVERNORS 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE. I would like to thank Senator Menendez for 

bringing Congress to Plainfield, New Jersey, today. I have been the 

Executive Director of New Jersey Citizen Action for the past 25 

years and I served as a board member of the Federal Reserve’s 

Community Advisory Council for 3 years. 

New Jersey Citizen Action is the State’s largest HUD-certified 

housing and foreclosure counseling agency and we are a leader in 

innovative projects and programs that benefit New Jersey’s families, individuals, and seniors, and the kinds of things that Krishna 

talked about before, we see those cases in our seven offices 

throughout the State, including the one that is located right here 

in Plainfield, New Jersey. 

Keeping families in their homes when reasonable loan modifications are possible and the reform of the broken loan servicing industry should be the number one priority for Congress. Along with 

that, we need to be figuring out a way, and Wayne talked a little 

bit about it, to preserve already existing housing that has either 

become vacant or has the possibility of becoming vacant. We need 

to find ways to keep folks in those homes so that we can preserve 

our neighborhoods in New Jersey. 

Policy makers need to apply strong mandatory standards for loan 

modifications. It would go a long way for the uncertainty that counselors face when the result of a modification depends on the person 

that they are talking to on the phone and the mood they are in 

that day. 

There must also be an end to the loan servicing abuses and poor 

business practices that contribute to unnecessary foreclosures. Do 

not be fooled by the AG announcement that was announced yesterday, and announced as probably the best thing since sliced bread. 

The devil is in the details. The programs have not been set up from 

that. The implementation of those programs has not been determined. And finally, the enforcement is being left to the lenders, to 

the banks. It is like the fox is guarding the chicken coop. So we 

really need to examine that and not rest on our laurels that billions 

of dollars are targeted to help a very, very small percentage of families and no one is going to jail right now. 

Lowering and reducing principals is also an essential part of 

keeping folks in their homes, and there must be a way to mandate 

that these principals be written down so that homes can remain affordable and the mortgages can be sustainable. Senator Menendez’s 

program, his Shared Mortgage Appreciation Modification Act, is an 

example of a program that would work, should be supported, and 

it should be passed quickly by Congress. Acume Bank is a national 

financial institution that has been doing this for many years. They 

have 8,000 foreclosed loans in New Jersey and they found out a 
14 

way to be profitable and do mortgage reductions. So we need to 

make sure that that happens and we need to all get behind this 

bill and Congress needs to pass it very quickly. 

Treasury’s Hardest Hit Fund has some excellent State and local 

programs. New Jersey’s Homekeeper Program, which provides direct mortgage assistance to folks who are unemployed or under-employed, really needs to be expanded and marketed widely. Congress 

needs to support large-scale models like the Resolution Fund that 

Wayne discussed by allowing organizations themselves to apply for 

these Hardest Hit Funds or other TARP types of dollars instead of 

just permitting the housing and mortgage finance agencies to access these funds. And as long as the Hardest Hit Funds are being 

recycled, as in the Mortgage Resolution Fund, Congress should not 

have a sunset on these funds. Additionally, incentives need to be 

set for servicers and banks to ally themselves with these kinds of 

nonprofits and the same should be provided in bulk REO programs. 

Finally, HUD certified counseling agencies need to be funded to 

capacity. Every single program that has been discussed here today 

requires a counselor for a home buyer to navigate this process, and 

to have cut these funds is disgusting and we all have to get behind 

this and make sure that funds are available to properly counsel 

every single person who is facing foreclosure in New Jersey. Thank 

you. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. 

Professor Mallach. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN MALLACH, NON-RESIDENT SENIOR 

FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 

Mr. MALLACH. Thank you, Senator, and I am delighted to be 

here. 

I would like to start by just seconding what Phyllis said. The settlement may help, but again, the devil is in the details. But I think 

legislation such as the bill that you have introduced on shared equity mortgage modifications could make far more difference in the 

long run that the settlement that was announced yesterday, which 

could help but, again, is far from a solution. 

So I would like to talk very quickly about four things that I think 

are really critical. First, and I will just second what people have 

said, we need to reduce the number of homes that go into foreclosure. Until that happens, we are not going to be able to stabilize 

our neighborhoods. We are not going to be able to stabilize our 

housing market. And we are not going to be able to help the people 

who need that help. And I think the Federal Government has a 

critical role in this area. We need legislation to address the issue 

of principal reduction, to facilitate short-sales and deeds in lieu and 

provide alternatives to foreclosure. 

And in that light, I think one of the ironies of this huge situation 

is that Federal agencies control over half of the mortgages in this 

country and the mortgages that are in trouble, and yet consistently, FHA, Fannie, Freddie, the Federal Housing Finance Agency 

have been more a part of the problem than they have been a part 

of the solution, and I think this is something where if the Administration is unable to bring these agencies into the tent, as it were, 

I think Congress should look at what actions it can take to change 
15 

the ground rules under which these agencies operate so that they 

can, indeed, be part of the solution. Notably, they are not part of 

the settlement that was approved yesterday. 

Second, people have to be able to stay in their homes. When 

homes become vacant, especially in inner-city areas, they quickly 

become uninhabitable. I think there is—Congress enacted the Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act a little more than 2 years ago. 

That was critically important, but it needs teeth. 

Along those lines, I would second, I think it was—I forget who 

among this group said it—a responsible homeowner who is in the 

foreclosure process but has maintained their home should have the 

right to stay in that house after foreclosure as a tenant unless 

there is a buyer who actually wants to move in and occupy that 

house. That is a win-win for the family, for the lender, even though 

they do not seem to appreciate it, and above all, for the neighborhood. There is a bill that has been in Congress, it was introduced 

by Senators Grijalva and Kaptur—Congress members Grijalva and 

Kaptur, I am sorry—and it has not gone anywhere, but I think it 

really should be addressed. 

Third, ensure that properties are properly maintained, both during the foreclosure and after. New Jersey is the only State in the 

country that has a State law that puts the clear obligation on the 

lender that has initiated foreclosure to maintain the property during the foreclosure process. There are a number of cities that have 

done it elsewhere under their home rule powers, but I think this 

is something, again, Congress could look at, making it very clear 

that lenders that initiate foreclosure have the legal obligation to 

maintain those properties if the owners are no longer available or 

accessible. 

And second, throughout this country, particularly in inner-city 

areas, lenders initiate foreclosures and do not follow up or drag it 

out. In many States, in many cities, lenders, literally, they start 

the foreclosure, they hope to pick up some money from the borrower at the last minute, and then they walk away and never perfect the foreclosure. We need legislation that is essentially a ‘‘use 

it or lose it’’ bill. If a lender simply starts the foreclosure but does 

not pursue it responsibly in a timely fashion, the foreclosure should 

be voided and, in some fashion, either the owner should be allowed 

to stay as the owner or the responsibility for foreclosing should go 

to a nonprofit or a public agency that can do it responsibly and get 

that property out of the limbo that it is sitting. 

Then, finally, we need to put more properties back to productive 

use and make sure there are ways for families to buy houses, that 

there is access to mortgage funds. This, of course, goes to a huge 

issue that Congress is dealing with, is what is the future of the 

American mortgage industry going to look like. Are we going to 

have a situation in this country going forward where responsible 

home buyers of all income groups will be able to get mortgages, or 

are we going to have a situation where mortgages, unreasonable 

terms with unreasonable downpayments, are simply no longer 

going to be available to people of low, moderate, and middle income. 

And then finally, just above all, I think this is a crisis. I mean, 

I have spent a lot of time traveling around New Jersey and around 
16 

the country, in cities, in urban areas. There are neighborhoods 

across this country that are falling apart, that are collapsing from 

foreclosures, market collapse, declining public services, the economy. If we do not do something and do something quickly to deal 

with these issues, one harvest of our inaction will be the collapse 

and abandonment and impoverishment of literally hundreds of 

inner-city neighborhoods and hundreds of thousands of lower-income families. 

Thank you. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. Thank you all for 

your testimony. There were a lot of great insights here and I want 

to follow up on several of them. 

Assemblyman, you talked about—and I do not want to get into 

your negotiations—but what is the hope of your goal at the end of 

the day in terms of the legislation that you and Senator Lesniak 

are pursuing in broad terms? Do you think that the amount of 

monies that will be coming under the settlement to New Jersey can 

be a source for some of what you earlier said you wanted to accomplish? 

Mr. GREEN. Senator, I think that would go a long way toward 

strengthening the pot. As you know, over the last 25 years and basically this last 2 years under Christie’s administration, we all 

have agreed that housing policy in the State of New Jersey needs 

to be changed. Currently, I have a bill that has the support of all 

the people in the building industry, the nonprofits, in terms of how 

we can answer that. Unfortunately, the Governor has another idea. 

So I am hoping that maybe we can meet each other halfway rather 

than have the court tell us what to do. 

Meanwhile, in this last 2 years, the crisis of foreclosure has come 

up, and what we are trying to put together, without getting too far 

into the negotiations that are going on, is that some of these dollars that are actually sitting in suburban communities that can be 

used, not for affordable housing now, for foreclosure, and some of 

the other dollars that are generated through the ability of builders 

and other entities bringing money to the State, we take that money 

and use that for foreclosure. 

Right now, Senator, foreclosure is at the front and the bottom 

line is that we cannot continuously go back to Washington because 

you are doing the best you can. We cannot go back to the taxpayers. So any dollars that we can generate that can go toward 

helping a family, helping a bank, we need to make that our top rod. 

There are going to be people in the building industry who we 

would like to put back to work. We are going to have people in the 

community that feel we need to be building more units. But you 

need to deal with your current crisis, and that is the crisis that you 

are talking about today. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And in that respect, Ms. Salowe-Kaye mentioned the New Jersey Homekeeper Program, which is based on 

Federal dollars. Has the State committee had an opportunity to 

have any hearings on that yet? 

Mr. GREEN. No, we have not. The hearings that I held last year, 

Senator, were basically dealing with affordable housing. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I see. 
17 

Mr. GREEN. We are hoping that the different groups that we 

have met with without having hearings, including groups of her 

sort, you know, my House, the Senate, has reached out for them. 

So in the past, I was able to reach out for everyone when I was 

moving my bill, but unfortunately, it did not happen with the front 

office. But the question you are asking me is that we are reaching 

out now before we finalize this so everybody can be on the same 

page. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Ms. Salowe-Kaye, I want to ask you about 

that program because I am a little disappointed that, so far, only 

54 homeowners—— 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE. A slow start. I think as a—well, it was even 

less last year, so we are better now than we were last year. As a 

result of Krishna’s counselors, my counseling staff interacting with 

the Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency, they have actually 

changed some of the requirements of that program in order to be 

able to expand the number of people that qualify for it. Fifty-four 

is not a good number. There are many, many more applications 

that are in. Folks need—the way it works is homeowners have to 

apply directly online at HMFA’s Web site into a portal and then 

they eventually get assigned to one of our agencies or another. 

There are other certified agencies here. 

There is a lot of time there, but a bigger problem is the actual 

marketing of the program. It was announced a couple of years ago 

as we have got $48,000 for 2 years if you lost your job. This was 

before the program was even set up. Now the program is set up. 

There are requirements. Everybody does not qualify. But there 

really needs to be aggressive marketing and outreach on that program. 

The counseling agencies are being inundated by people who have 

applied and then get sent to us. It is what happens after that when 

we submit it, which takes a long time, and how many counselors 

there are to put through all the people that should qualify. We do 

not market the program, because if we marketed—I mean, we do 

not have to market the program because we do not have enough 

counselors to serve the people that are coming through now. 

So they need to market it, provide counselors—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. So if we marketed it and had a lot more influx, how would we meet the challenge of—— 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE. At least people would get into the portal and 

they would get into the queue and they would eventually get seen 

by one of our agencies that are up here and out there today. But 

a lot of people do not even know that it exists, and some people 

come to us first or your agency first and they think we can get 

them in. So the State really needs to market it. They need to increase the number. 

I mean, we used to—in the old days—we now are all paid by a 

fee-for-service. For every one you put in, you get this, that, $100 

here for an intake. We used to get capacity grants that actually 

paid us money for counselors. We have had to let—we do not get 

that anymore. All we get is a fee for everyone we put in at each 

part. 

So unless somebody is—this money, the hope would be that some 

of this white bread money, you know—sliced bread money, not 
18 

white bread money—you know, we are going to get a bunch in the 

State. There are a lot of places that it should go to and a lot of programs. But some of it has to be put into actual capacity building 

of the already existing counseling agencies, not setting up new 

agencies. We do not need any more new agencies. We have tried 

and true agencies that work. We need to be able to maintain our 

staff and deal with what is going to come. We have not peaked yet. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I agree with you on that, which is why we 

fought the House provisions that eliminated all the funding and got 

a fair amount restored—— 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE. But the State used to fund this, too. 

Senator MENENDEZ.——but we need to do more. 

I just want to make sure that, after having fought at a Federal 

level for the equivalent of what we call here the New Jersey 

Homekeeper Program—— 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE. A great program. 

Senator MENENDEZ.——that it is—I am glad to hear it works, if 

we can get it working—— 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE. It works if we can move people through, and 

it works as a result of the counselors saying—— 

Senator MENENDEZ.——so something we need to pay attention 

on. Maybe the Assemblyman can help us with that, too. 

Mr. GREEN. With all due respect, Senator, this last 2 years, as 

you well know, the Department of Community Affairs has changed 

hands. We now have a new Commissioner. Unfortunately, the other 

Commissioner was setting everything up and this is like starting 

all over again. I feel that you need to put some safeguards in when 

Federal dollars are sent to New Jersey that those dollars go directly to where they need to go, and number two, we have the staff 

to make sure the job is getting done because that is the problem 

we are running into, exactly what she is telling you today. It just 

seems like it is not on—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I know I wrote several letters to the 

New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency saying you 

have the slowest start in the Nation, so we need to get it going, 

because we fight for Federal dollars and then we want to see it effectively used here on behalf of people. So I hear some of your suggestions and am going to follow up on it. 

Ms. Garlic, I heard your story, which is, of course, of one of your 

clients, which is pretty telling of the challenges. It is your experience—she did not end up with a successful modification, but is it 

your experience that when you have a mortgage counselor with a 

client, they are more likely to succeed than not? Would that be 

true? 

Ms. GARLIC. No, that would definitely be true, and I think kind 

of the message in this story is that, emotionally, going through 

foreclosure is a very stressful time for a homeowner. And so when 

the banks are taking a very long time to make a decision regarding 

a modification, and if you go through the 90-day trial and then the 

additional time to wait and then all of the programs that we have 

in place and the time it takes for people to be able to move through 

these programs, that there are a number of people who will end up 

with a successful modification, but then there are a number of people who have to look at alternatives. And the counseling agency 
19 

does not walk away from a person if a loan modification is not 

what happens at the end of the day. We will stay with someone all 

the way through whatever their transition is. 

And so when we talk about being fairly compensated for the 

work we do, you know, that is a part of the work that we are not 

compensated for. It is something—when you talk about being able 

to really support us from an organizational perspective and be able 

to support the folks that we are paying, we are there with the person through the entire crisis, whatever that means, and we need 

to be able to be supportive for that work. 

Senator MENENDEZ. One of the suggestions you have that is of 

interest to me, that the counselor have direct access to the lender. 

Can a borrower not give you some power of attorney—— 

Ms. GARLIC. Yes—— 

Senator MENENDEZ.——or some authorization to do that—— 

Ms. GARLIC. Absolutely. 

Senator MENENDEZ.——or is it still an impediment? 

Ms. GARLIC. So, really, what the problem is is that the person 

who the counselor may be speaking to on the phone is not the person who is going to make the decision about whether that loan 

modification is approved or not. And so you spend your time, or the 

counselor spends their time on the phone, and I think Phyllis said, 

what mood is the person in today? How are you going to apply the 

guidelines today? And so really wanting to be able to have access 

to someone who is going to make the final decision. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Phyllis. 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE. The thing about that is the counselors, at a 

counseling HUD agency, we all have the secret super-duper numbers that the person in the street does not have. 

Ms. GARLIC. Right. 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE. So we actually get to what they consider to 

be the best—that the lender considers the best person, and we even 

have people above that if it is really outrageous. If it gets to 

Krishna or I as a problem, you know, we have somebody we could 

pick up the phone and call. 

The problem is that on the final workout, it is the investors, because the loan has been sliced and diced so many ways that the 

secret super-duper person is not the person who signs off on the 

modification. They have to go back and talk to whoever loans the 

loan and we never see those people. The only time we have a connection is when we show up in a mediation in court and the lawyer 

is on the telephone. So we never even see their face. 

Ms. GARLIC. Right. 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE. That is the process of the State mediation 

program. So it is not that the lender—I mean, we have got better 

numbers than somebody—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Right. 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE.——who just calls those numbers that are in 

the newspaper today. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So just for the record, when you are talking 

about mortgages that have been aggregated, then securitized, sold 

in the marketplace, and which then has all different investors in 

it, and hence the slice and dicing of that—— 

Ms. GARLIC. Right. 
20 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE. Right, and that is the majority of the—I 

mean, those are the ones that are the hard ones. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Is that, in part, why you talked about aligning servicer standards with—servicers’ incentives with seeking remediation and—— 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE. Yes, and actually, you know, the President 

has, just in his recent announcement, he talked about—and we 

have not seen the details of it yet—sort of mandating that those 

servicers, the Freddies and the Fannies and whoever else is owning 

these loans, that they comply and come to the table. But unless 

there are standards and that we all know it, we are spinning our 

wheels because, I mean, 8 months is a short amount of time for a 

client—— 

Ms. GARLIC. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE.——and they all stay on our books—— 

Ms. GARLIC. Right. 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE.——and 936 days in New Jersey to go from filing of a foreclosure until the sheriff comes. That is about the average length. We are the longest in the country. And so we have to 

stay with that client—— 

Ms. GARLIC. That is right. 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE.——for 936 days, unless they leave and we 

cannot find them. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Mayor, I know you want to say something. 

I also want you to, while you are making your comment, I want 

to ask you a question as a prelude to going on to Mr. Meyer, and 

that is give us a real life consequence of multiple foreclosures in 

a community. What are your challenges as Mayor? 

Ms. ROBINSON-BRIGGS. Thank you, and that is sort of where I 

was headed, Senator. First, thank you for your bill. I also wanted 

to acknowledge something that one of the panelists said in reference to money needing for counseling. That is an absolute true 

statement because people need to be apprised of their rights, they 

need to understand what the process is, if they are in foreclosure 

and going through foreclosure. 

To your question, Senator, I can tell you that foreclosures not 

only affect the household or the homeowners who are suffering 

through their foreclosure, it also affects their neighbors, because 

now once that property is foreclosed on, their property more than 

likely is boarded up and in a neighborhood next to houses that are 

not foreclosed upon. But if those families in that block that they 

have a foreclosed property there, if they want to sell their property, 

their value has been diminished and so, therefore, they are probably on the bad side of a loan. So they are trying to sell their property and the value has gone down and the amount of money that 

they would need to satisfy their loan is not going to be available 

to them because of this foreclosed property right in their block. 

And then, of course, on a municipality level, if you have foreclosures in any municipality, that brings down your tax rateables 

and it also brings down many of your property values in the city 

or any city throughout the State of New Jersey. 

So it has been a real downfall. Foreclosures not just affect, again, 

the family that is going through it, but it affects everybody, whether you know it or not. 
21 

Senator MENENDEZ. Has it been your experience that a finalized 

foreclosed home, now with no family inside, does it stay vacant a 

long time? 

Ms. Robinson-Briggs. Yes. We have many vacant properties in 

the community, the city of Plainfield, and that lends an opportunity for crime, for vagrancy. In fact, I think we did have a property in Plainfield that there was a fire for that very reason. And 

I did hear reference to the fact that when there is a foreclosure, 

that banks should maintain the properties, and I would hope that 

they, from this point forward, will be encouraged, please, Senator, 

to do so, because we have had properties that we basically have to 

put liens on and financial institutions are not upkeeping with now 

their properties. So we need them to do that so that our property 

values will be maintained at a certain level. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Mr. Meyer, I wanted that as a prelude to 

some of your comments about acquisitions of property at scale. 

There have been some suggestions at some of our hearings that we 

look to create tranches of properties sold to potential investors with 

an understanding that they move into a rental prospect for a period of time. Is that something that, in your experience, you would 

find desirable? If so, how should that be structured? Do you have 

any ideas in that regard? 

Mr. MEYER. Yes, Senator. Before I answer, if I could just build 

on the Mayor’s question—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Sure. 

Mr. MEYER. Some of the neighborhoods where we have studied, 

once the property goes through full foreclosure, they normally sell 

at 60 percent of what an average median sales price would be in 

a lot of these areas, so the foreclosure has a really devastating effect in terms of pricing for a particular neighborhood. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I guess anyone else in the neighborhood 

looking at that sales price could use it as comparables to file a tax 

appeal. 

Mr. MEYER. That is one way to look, but it is still—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Not that I want to create that movement, 

but it is a reality of a possibility. 

Ms. ROBINSON-BRIGGS. Right. 

Mr. MEYER. That is right. But to answer your question, Senator, 

yes, we believe that a bulk acquisition of REO properties for a rental program is a strategy that we should be actively pursuing, because again, we see a demand for housing. We see a demand for 

affordable housing, rental housing. But the reality is that we need 

to get control of these properties. 

I will give you an example of one we are working on. We are in 

the process of acquiring roughly 40 mortgages from a major financial institution. They are all in targeted neighborhoods. They are 

nonperforming mortgages. Twenty of the people are still in their 

homes, owner occupied. The pricing on these mortgages are less 

than 20 cents on the dollar at this point in time. The banks will 

not write down the mortgages because of moral hazard issues, 

which does not make sense to me if they are willing to sell it to 

us for 20 cents on the dollar. 

But the reality is, if we get control of these properties, we can 

not only work with the homeowners who are in there and write 
22 

down their mortgages, because we would not have to worry about 

investors since we would be the owner of the mortgages. But also, 

it gives us an opportunity for early intervention, to be able to get 

control of these properties when they become vacant, to be able to 

develop some other strategy to fill vacant houses. But when you 

wait, as in New Jersey, 800 days to go through a foreclosure crisis, 

nothing good happens and time is the enemy. So that is why it is 

so vital to get these properties—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Your answer gives me rise to two questions. 

It seems to me that, first of all, the biggest holder is, I think you 

mentioned, is the Federal Government and, therefore, all of us as 

taxpayers through Fannie and Freddie, about 50 percent of all 

mortgages. 

Mr. MEYER. Right. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And one of my challenges, and maybe, Professor, you want to talk about this or have a comment about it, is 

I have been pushing Freddie and Fannie to, in one case, allow refinancing to take place, because you are either going to preserve 

your corpus by foreclosure or refinancing. And it seems to me the 

point you just made, I do not quite understand if you are going to 

foreclose and then sell at 60 percent, why would you not readjust. 

Moral hazard is also for those who created the lending products 

and drove people to mortgages they should have never been. That 

is a moral hazard, too, in my view. 

So the question is, should we not be also having the major institutions that are the backers of over 50 percent of all the mortgages 

in the country allow refinancing to take place as one element at the 

end of the day, of permitting a responsible borrower at present 

rates to be able to stay in their home and create a good foundation 

of a marketplace. Is that something that is desirable? 

Mr. MALLACH. Absolutely. I would just like to add to Wayne’s 

point in terms of bulk sales, that I think I am very comfortable if 

New Jersey Community Capital buys a pool of mortgages and is responsible for those houses. I am scared as to what might happen 

if Fannie and Freddie start doing bulk sales to people who have not 

been thoroughly vetted as responsible landlords and owners and 

are not absolutely locked into maintaining all their properties. 

I mean, we have got a lot of history in this country already with 

bulk sales, of people buying distressed properties, triaging them, 

cherry picking them, walking away from thousands of properties, 

and ending up making neighborhoods worse. So I think the idea of 

bulk sales can work, but it can only work if it is done extraordinarily carefully to make sure that the properties get into the 

right hands on the right terms. 

And along those lines, I think, to my mind—and again, sometimes I just wonder who is doing the thinking for some of these organizations. From a standpoint of long-term financial stability and 

liquidity, for Fannie and Freddie to reduce principal and refinance 

at reasonable levels makes more sense for their long-term balance 

sheets than to foreclose. It may not make more sense for their balance sheet in this year’s budget, which seems to be the only thing 

that is on the table, but it makes far more sense, and again, from 

the standpoint of stabilizing the housing market, keeping people in 
23 

their homes, stabilizing neighborhood property values and so forth, 

and it will end up having far more positive impact. 

Senator MENENDEZ. That is one of my challenges with Mr. 

DeMarco, because his idea of conservatorship is, I think, outside of 

where we need to be. I am wondering if any of the panelists who 

may have read this—but it is pretty remarkable to me. NPR and 

ProPublica had a story that I pursued yesterday. Maybe the reason 

that they are not allowing refinancing to take place is because they 

have actually taken positions in the marketplace where they, in 

fact, are betting that their owners, their homeowners and their borrowers, are going to be stuck in the higher interest rates. 

It boggles the imagination why you would make an investment 

decision that you can affect the outcome of and not want that decision to pay off. Why would you make a bet that you do not want 

to pay and, therefore, very well affect your policy decisions, which 

would, therefore, be to let us not allow them to refinance because 

I bet that they will be more likely to be in the higher interest rates 

than a refinance rate. Why would I not want my bet to pay off? 

Am I missing something there? 

Mr. MALLACH. It is unbelievable. I would just add along similar 

lines that the lawsuit that DeMarco brought against the city of 

Chicago, which enacted an ordinance holding lenders liable to 

maintain properties during foreclosure, the lawsuit was brought 

saying that, in their judgment, Fannie and Freddie have no legal 

obligation to comply with local ordinances requiring them to take 

responsibilities for their properties. 

Now, it is conceivable that he may be right on the law, that it 

is preempted by Federal law. But it is appalling from a policy 

standpoint that the Federal Government would take the position 

that they have no obligation to maintain the properties which they 

are legally responsible for. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I agree. Let me go back to Mr. Meyer a moment, then I see the Assemblyman wants to say something. Going 

back to Professor Mallach’s question, which I have raised, as well, 

in terms of putting tranches of properties together to get the REO 

moved and get people for affordable housing rental and also remove 

that element of the housing market so you might get some upward 

mobility, it is important that the conditions of how that is done, because working with organizations like yours or Brand New Day or 

Citizen Action, that brings a certain reality of community-based 

understanding of the properties involved. But if it is just done 

strictly on an investor basis without those connections, is that not 

a challenge? 

Mr. MEYER. It very much is, Senator, and that is one of the 

things with the model that we have developed through the Community Asset Preservation Corporation, is to try to acquire these properties in bulk and then develop different exit strategies, as appropriate, and the primary one is to work with our community development partners and to work with municipalities, and in certain 

cases work with mission-based for-profits that we have vetted that 

we feel that they are aligned to the work that we have been able 

to do. And we have done that in some of the work that we have 

done before. 
24 

And the other part, Senator, which I think is really important 

and I cannot stress it enough, is that with dwindling public resources available, with housing production subsidies going down, it 

is vitally important that we figure out ways that we can gain positions in these properties to still be able to achieve our goals of decent housing and neighborhood stability. And by being able to purchase properties, in bulk, on a meaningful scale, in which you 

achieve a certain amount of discount, a certain level of price adjustment, it serves almost as an acquisition subsidy that allows you to 

develop these different exit strategies without the heavy use of 

Government subsidy. 

So that is why we think it is an important opportunity, as this 

program is designed to do that, that it be taken into consideration 

and to work with organizations like New Jersey Community Capital, Brand New Day, New Jersey Citizen Action. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. MEYER. If I can just add one other point to your point about 

DeMarco, I had heard the same thing, and when I was talking to 

somebody about it, they said, well, the Federal Housing Finance 

Agency, as the conservator of Fannie and Freddie, has to maximize 

value to the Government. And I found that to be astonishing that 

they would, in essence, bet against their own portfolio. But I think 

it speaks to the challenge of being able to engage with them and 

meaningfully write down programs. 

The Homekeeper Program is a tremendous program for the unemployed and the under-employed, but the reality is that in a lot 

of these neighborhoods—a lot of them—50 or 60 percent of the 

houses are underwater, and the amount of their values are 140 

percent of the mortgages. I mean, that is not close. So you need to 

write down these mortgages if we are going to have any chance to 

be able to do that. 

So I think from a policy standpoint, I still believe that we have 

to come to that realization in a lot of these ways here if we are 

going to really start turning the corner on this problem. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I agree that it is the role of the conservator 

to try to preserve as much of the Federal money that exists, but 

if you are going to, at the end of the day, by taking a view that 

refinancing is not an option, then you are going to end up with 

more foreclosures, and if they are going to sell it to you for 60 percent of original value, that is a dramatic drop in the conservator’s 

portfolio, as well. Would it not be better to refinance, have a responsible borrower, keep, maybe even join, have the conservator 

join in shared appreciation mortgages maybe so that the Federal 

output is further preserved? 

It seems to me that taking the view—and this is where I do not 

know if I am missing something—but taking the view that only— 

that conservatorship and preserving the largest corpus of the Federal investment can only come by either payment or foreclosure 

misses a tremendous opportunity to preserve—— 

Mr. MEYER. Senator, I totally agree with you. 

Senator MENENDEZ. OK. 

Mr. MEYER. I think you are so right about that. And I will give 

you a real life example here in New Jersey. We were working with 

one of the GSEs. We put an offer in to purchase 29 properties in 
25 

a very specific neighborhood. We could not come to agreement with 

them on the final price and we ended up purchasing 10 of the 29. 

We said to them, listen, what is going to happen here is these properties are not going to move in any event. So a couple of months 

later, they dropped in price, back to the price where we had offered 

to them. As they start putting more houses on the inventory, they 

have to put them at a lower value because those houses dropped 

and the cycle continues. 

So to me, sometimes some rational pricing where they can move 

properties to an organization, a re-use strategy, benefits them in 

the long run, because when the next houses they have to put on 

that particular market come out to play, there is at least some momentum or at least some intervention going on that can help stabilize the neighborhoods. 

But it is crazy to me to hold property out and keep dropping 

prices when you could have sold them a couple of months earlier 

and still achieved the same price. 

Senator MENENDEZ. You mentioned financing as a challenge. I 

know that one of the things that we did in the Small Business Act, 

although it is meant for different purposes, is I have a billion-dollar 

set-aside for full faith and credit of the United States for CDFIs. 

What would you envision the type of help necessary on the financing side, or what conditions would you need to see taking those 

tranches of property and having responsibly placed back in the 

marketplace—— 

Mr. MEYER. Senator, your work on that has been nothing short 

of outstanding. I really mean that. It is a game changer for CDFIs, 

that particular bill, and I can give you a couple of very clear examples of what we think we would do with that type of money. 

The first is that it would give us an opportunity to develop some 

patient capital that we can use to acquire these properties in bulk 

and then put financing on them to rent them to people for a number of years, because there is a clear, clear gap in terms of our ability to do that. That is number one, and I think that that is a huge 

opportunity. 

I think, second, with regard to working with, for example, the 

Mortgage Resolution Fund, as we acquire properties and we reset 

the mortgage, we have to find a permanent financing vehicle for 

them. I could very easily imagine how the CDFI Fund, the bond 

program, could serve as that alternative financing where we would 

actually acquire some of those mortgages until they become stabilized and have gone through modification periods and then find 

an exit strategy for them. 

So those are just two examples, Senator, that I really believe 

would go a long way in terms of helping with this housing problem. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Assemblyman, do you want to—— 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. I just want to follow up on that issue pertaining 

to putting packages together and allowing the financial institutions 

to gain control. I know during the course of my career in the last 

30 years, I have been able to see how this hurts the community 

rather than help the community. So I would be against any financial institution packaging and being able to give lump sums of 

property for them to control. As we all know—well, I cannot say 

all of us remember in the 1980s when you were paying almost 17 
26 

percent for money. Well, that was a reason why you were paying 

17 percent, because of the fact that the financial institutions were 

basically in control. 

And I do not want them, Senator, to get back into that kind of 

control because I was blessed enough to be advisor to one of the 

banks here in Central Jersey, and within 10 years, they have gone 

from, we are not going to invest in urban communities, we do not 

see a future. Now, all at once, they want to do more than finance 

refrigerated cars. They want to finance in the community because 

they see a future. 

And they used to use the word ‘‘landbanking.’’ Now, I use the 

word ‘‘housebanking,’’ because of the fact that with all of these different programs, with the ability for the Government to step in, it 

is going to come back. But I want it to come back in a way where 

organizations that are next to me are in control of it and not the 

banking institutions who basically control the market in terms of 

what the community basically can look like in terms of putting dollars in that community. Once you give that control to them, then 

it is like anything else. They make a fortune for 20 years, then we 

have a downsize like we had for the last 3 or 4 years. 

So when we start talking about packaging housing together, then 

I am confident that I would support any nonprofit organization 

being in control of that. But to give this back to the banking industry, who I consider the moneymakers, it would be devastating. 

Their record so far has proven to me this is all about making 

money, even what is going on right now. This is all about a handful 

of bankers getting together and poor people being able to be used 

to the point that at the end of the day, your salary goes toward 

meeting your needs and paying a mortgage, and you cannot even 

pay that today. 

So, to me, as far as I am concerned, I have no problem with nonprofits being in control over any type of packaging. But once we get 

to the financial institution, I am hoping that you will study that 

very hard to make sure that they do not control those dollars. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate your concern, and that is 

why I raised the question earlier when we were talking about, I 

think Professor Mallach raised the red flag and it is one that I 

have raised and I think Mr. Meyer has it on tack, that if we were 

to do tranches of properties with investors, it really has to have a 

connection at the end of the day with community-based entities 

who understand the community, know the nature of the market, 

know the nature of the demand for the housing, and can appropriately deal with it. So I think that will be a critical part of it. 

I would like to just maybe finalize, Professor, on something you 

said which I would like to get your ideas for the record. There are 

those who suggest that we should eliminate Fannie and Freddie, 

have them dissolve and no longer have a Federal role. If that were 

the case—I have my own views on this, but I do not want to prejudice the record. So if that was the case, what do you believe would 

happen? 

Mr. MALLACH. Well, what I believe would happen is if you look 

from a straight business standpoint at the low downpayment, longterm, fixed-rate mortgage, it does not make sense. No bank—no 

banking system that I am aware of in the world provides low down-
27 

payment, fixed-rate, long-term mortgages unless there is some form 

of Government or quasi-Government or some backup behind those 

mortgages to create a secondary market and secure their value. 

I think if we do not have Fannie and Freddie or some kind of 

equivalent system, I think we will end up with a mortgage system 

that simply will not serve very large parts of our population because it will require much larger downpayments than many people, 

especially moderate-income home buyers, can afford. It will put a 

premium on interest rates if you want a term that is, say, longer 

than 10 or 15 years. And it will be almost entirely focused on adjustable interest rates because the idea of locking in a fixed interest rate for a long term, unless it is at an extremely high rate, will 

simply not be attractive to the lending industry. 

So I think the notion that has been raised by some people that 

we can privatize the mortgage industry and that, ultimately, the 

private sector will come back and offer the same product without 

any need for Government intervention. It is a pipe dream, Senator. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate that, because I think 

Fannie and Freddie have to be reformed, but they do not have to 

be abolished. 

Mr. MALLACH. Reformed big time. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Yes. They followed the market and that is 

not something we needed them to do. But I think that without a 

Fannie or Freddie, I would have never, at the end of the day, 

bought my first home, and a lot of responsible borrowers, who are 

still responsible borrowers today, would never have purchased their 

home. 

And so I look at that and I look at the present concern that we 

are having with Federal regulators considering setting a downpayment standard of 20 percent across the board, which the Center for 

Responsible Lending shows that such a role could push 60 percent 

of all creditworthy borrowers out of the market and disproportionately affect African American and Hispanic families who can be 

very responsible borrowers, but not if you insist on 20 percent 

down, especially in a housing market in Northern New Jersey, for 

example. It would just be, I think—a combination of eliminating 

Fannie and Freddie and having that would just make it an impossibility at the end of the day. 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE. Yes. I just—I want to make sure that we 

leave people with the knowledge that there are lenders in New Jersey who are making first-time mortgages to homeowners at 30-year 

fixed rates with only 3 or 5 percent down with proper counseling, 

and they are actually holding those mortgages in portfolio in order 

to get home buyers to get those first houses. There are not a lot 

of banks, but they certainly—we have enough of that product for 

our clients, but that does not diminish the need for what Alan was 

saying. So I want folks to know that there are those mortgages 

that are long-term, 30-year fixed rates, no points, no private mortgage insurance, that somebody can come into a HUD counseling 

agency and get information about that are 3 percent. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And I think the Professor’s remarks are that 

without a Fannie or Freddie, you would not have that at scale, to 

the scale that exists—— 

Ms. SALOWE-KAYE. Right. That is a problem. 
28 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, my thanks to all of you for some very, 

very worthwhile and helpful insights. We will share this with the 

rest of the Committee. 

Let me bring the hearing to a close. I want to thank all of the 

witnesses for their written and oral testimony, which will continue 

to be part of the Congressional record. 

I want to thank the Black United Fund Health and Human Services for so generously hosting this hearing, and particularly its 

President and CEO Sondra Clark for hosting us. We appreciate it. 

It seems to me that after hearing the testimony, it should be 

clear that there is a great deal the Government can do beyond 

what we are—where we are at to help foreclosures by keeping people in their homes with mortgage modifications, refinancing, by reducing the huge numbers of foreclosed property for sale that are reducing home values, and by dealing effectively with restoring vacant homes that are blighting neighborhoods. If we take those 

steps, which I look forward to pushing in the Senate, we can make 

for a much better day in America. 

Thank you all for your testimony. The record will remain open 

for 1 day so that any Members who read it may, in fact, have— 

or, actually, maybe until next week, until next Wednesday, so that 

any Member who reads the testimony may have any questions. If 

you do get a question from a colleague, please respond to it as 

quickly as possible. 

And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements supplied for the record follow:] 
29 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JERRY GREEN 

ASSEMBLYMAN AND SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

NEW JERSEY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

FEBRUARY 10, 2012 

Good Morning, my name is Assemblyman Jerry Green, Speaker Pro Tempore 

(22nd District). We are all too well aware of the impact that the mortgage foreclosure crisis had on families around the country and here at home. As Chairman 

of Housing and Local Government, I have been on the forefront of New Jersey’s 

housing crisis looking for solutions that address the housing issues faced by the people of our State. 

While measures have been put in place over the last few years by the legislature 

to help families struggling to pay their mortgages keep their homes, the current economic climate is making it almost impossible and is forcing many families to default 

on their mortgages. We reportedly have more than 100,000 homeowners currently 

dealing with foreclosures in New Jersey. These families, despite their financial 

struggles, still need a place to live. 

The crisis not only affects families, but entire communities. As these homes are 

foreclosed, they become nuisances for residents, municipalities and law enforcement. 

Abandoned properties are a major problem, particularly in our urban communities. More than unsightly, they attract trespassers and squatters and serve as havens for drug use and sales, prostitution, and other criminal activity. Adding insult 

to injury, as they erode from neglect, they drag down the property values of other 

homes in the neighborhood. 

I am in the beginning stages of establishing open communication with the Administration via legislation that will establish the ‘‘NJ Foreclosure Relief Corporation’’. 

This bill provides a practical solution for residents who have limited financial means 

and are in need of affordable housing, and for communities that are dealing with 

the blight, reduced property values and illegal activity that is synonymous with vacant properties. 

Interestingly, the current economic climate, despite the hardships it has created, 

also presents our State with a unique opportunity to help. This bill will take advantage of the excess of vacant foreclosed residential properties and historically low interest rates in order to address one of the most pervasive problems New Jersey 

faces, the creation and preservation of housing for individuals and families of limited means. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHARON ROBINSON-BRIGGS 

MAYOR, PLAINFIELD, NEW JERSEY

FEBRUARY 10, 2012 

1. Housing Profile 

• Plainfield is predominantly an owner occupied city with: 

• 43 percent of the owner occupied home values ranging from $300K to 

$499,999. 

• 32 percent the owner occupied homes purchased or refinanced between 2005 

and later. 

• 26 percent of the owner occupied homes purchased or refinanced between 

2000 and 2004 

• 46 percent of the owner occupied homes paying at least 35 percent of their 

monthly income toward housing costs. 

• Housing Market 

• Number of foreclosures 125 (source is Trulia) 604 (RealtyTrac—includes notices of default, frclsr action and bank repossessed) 

• Median home value $305,700 (2010 U.S. Census). 

• Recent (wow) sales price increased by 9 percent (Trulia) 

• Demographics 

• 50 percent Black and 40 percent of Hispanic ethnicity (includes black and 

white populations). 

• Median income: $52,056 
30 

2. Foreclosure impacts (Center for Responsible Lending, 11.11 Report) 

People: 

1. African Americans and Latinos have a 

• higher percentage of higher-rate loans 

• likely to have ‘risky’ loans 

• almost twice as likely to lose home through foreclosure than whites. 

2. Studies indicate that the foreclosures affect: 

• physical health of families 

• creates insecurity in children, affecting 

• behavior, cognitive development, academic performance and more. 

• Family’s financial well-being 

• Inability to ‘tap’ equity for new business 

• Pay for higher education 

• Retirement 

• Removes cushion for unexpected hardships, including 

• Loss of job, divorce, medical expenses 

• Removes family’s main ability to transfer wealth to next generation. 

Community: 

When inadequately secured and maintained, foreclosed properties can lead to increased crime, pest infestations, disorder, and violence. Municipalities impacted by 

foreclosures face a troublesome combination of decreasing property tax revenues 

combined with increasing costs of responding to foreclosure-related problems. 

1. Costs to neighborhood and taxpayers 

• Abandoned properties impact home values and weaken future home buyer 

sales. 

• Abandoned properties create opportunities for crime. 

2. Study indicates that an average of $5,400.00 is spent by a local government 

to ‘maintain’ an abandoned foreclosed property in code compliance. (Chicago 

Foreclosures, Agar and Duda 2005) 

The Remedy(ies) 

• Housing Mortgage Data Act (HMDA) data indicates that more than 20 percent 

of mortgage holders in the United States owe more on their loan than their 

home is worth. 

• Between predatory lending practices, the packaging and sale of questionable 

mortgages by Wall Street and the loss of home value, the most effective tool 

to relieve distressed mortgages and prevent foreclosure is to forgive some mortgage debt owed by struggling borrowers through ‘‘principal reduction.’’ 

• the recent foreclosure settlement between banks, States and the Federal Government would require the banks to pay $25 billion to participating States as 

a result of their failure and omissions to execute foreclosures properly. 

• this agreement has far-reaching potential, because it attacks the fundamental 

engine that defies an abatement to the foreclosure crisis: exaggerated home values, beyond the amount of the loan. 

• A reduction in principle translates to a reduction in monthly mortgage payments, making the mortgage affordable and preventing a foreclosure. It also has 

the potential to 

• Re-adjusts the housing market, potentially increasing the volume of housing 

sales and their sales price. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KRISHNA GARLIC 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BRAND NEW DAY

FEBRUARY 10, 2012 

Good afternoon, 

It is with mixed emotions that I stand here to address you today to discuss the 

continued foreclosure crisis in our State. I am grateful that the Senator has made 
31 

the venue available to call attention to the unfortunate situation that families are 

still losing their homes and many are sitting in limbo for years not knowing their 

fate. 

Take for example, Regina, who came to Brand New Day early 2010 for help with 

her mortgage. She had heard about the HAMP program and wanted to see if she 

qualified. Her mortgage was with one of the larger banking institutions. Her mortgage payment was $1,200 a month and she was current in her payment until she 

lost her job unexpectedly. She was unemployed for 3 months before finding employment at significantly less than her previous job. BND worked with her to submit 

her modification request. After 90 days she was approved for a trial modification 

and the next 120 days were spent resubmitting documents, numerous phone calls 

and lots of tears as she waited for a permanent modification. Six months of waiting 

to find out the fate of her home ownership status and the memories of sacrifices 

she and her husband had made to purchase a home for their family were all flooding her with emotions. Thoughts of where she and her family would live if her loan 

was not approved; where would her children go to school, who would they play with, 

what neighborhood would feel safe to raise her children. After all, she and her husband had chosen this house, this neighborhood, and these neighbors. Another 30 

days went by before she was scheduled to meet with her counselor at BND; it has 

now been over 8 months and still no resolution. She was saddened to hear during 

her appointment that her request had been denied. The counselor advised her not 

to give up because there were other programs that existed in New Jersey. The 

State’s mediation program would give her an opportunity to speak directly to the 

bank and make her case. Together with her counselor, the mediation application 

was prepared and submitted. More waiting. Regina’s mediation date was scheduled 

for 2 months out but at least she could sleep sound that the Sheriff would not arrive 

at the door to remove her family while waiting for her day at mediation! A week 

before the mediation date BND worked with Regina to update all of her paperwork 

and send it to the bank in preparation for the mediation process. Regina found herself frustrated and confused when the lender’s attorney reported to mediation unprepared and requesting that the process be continued. On many occasions cases at 

mediation are continued two and three times, leaving homeowners in their houses 

but uneasy, insecure and full of anxiety. In addition, while decisions are prolonged, 

fees and interests continue to accrue making negotiations with the lender even more 

difficult. It is our recommendation that fees and interest be suspended during the 

foreclosure modification process. In addition, the process would be simplified and 

more effective if counselors had direct access to the person who has the power to 

negotiate and make the decision regarding the modification. 

Regina finally decided after an unsuccessful mediation process that she would 

pursue a short sale and put her house on the market. At this point she felt hopeless 

and believed this was her only option. The home stayed on the market for over 8 

months with no offer. There were so many homes on the market at that time and 

in her neighborhood that demand was extremely low. She finally got an offer at 

much less than what she had hoped. In fact the short sale offer was $70,000 less 

than what she owed to the bank. The offer was submitted to the bank and Regina 

found herself yet again playing the waiting game. She waited 3 months for an answer on the short sale before deciding to simply give up and move on. The housing 

counselor at BND told Regina about ‘‘cash for keys’’ where the bank would offer Regina cash to move out. Regina was desperate and she and her counselor made arrangements for the exchange. Unfortunately, the cash arrived many months after 

she had moved to her new home and therefore wasn’t able to use it to help with 

relocation expenses. Banks should be required to give the cash within 30 days of 

the homeowner vacating the property. 

Regina and her family are now renting an apartment in another town and community. The children are now attending a new school and had to make new friends. 

There is a greater distance between where she lives and where she works. The family would have been better served if they could have remained in the home as tenants. Banks should be encouraged to allow homeowners to lease back the properties 

after foreclosure so they can maintain stability for their family and avoid vacancy 

in our neighborhoods. 

In closing, Regina’s story can be multiplied by the thousands across the State and 

millions across the country. Many of the current Federal and State programs could 

be more useful if the guidelines were less restrictive. There are so many people that 

need help and their situations are each different and unique however numerous 

work hours are spent trying to determine what programs a person may qualify for 

and in many cases trying to qualify the unqualifiable. In addition, our counselors 

are an invaluable part of the process in aiding a family from their first late payment 

through resolution which could be a loan modification or transitioning into a new 
32 

living situation. Funding for housing counseling has been significantly cut in State 

and Federal budgets and as demand continues and in many cases increases, we 

need dollars to pay salaries and related cost. Banks should be responsible to assist 

with the cost of healing our communities by paying fees for foreclosure counseling. 

There has been a lot of discussion across the State and country regarding a fee 

agreement however it has not manifested in large scale corporate accountability 

that reaches the local nonprofits. 

I want to thank you for your attention to this important matter and ask that you 

continue to have open dialogue with counseling agencies to strategize solutions that 

help families like Regina’s maintain the American dream. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WAYNE T. MEYER 

PRESIDENT, NEW JERSEY COMMUNITY CAPITAL

FEBRUARY 10, 2012 

Senator Menendez and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today about New Jersey Community Capital (NJCC) and 

the role we play in saving New Jersey’s neighborhoods from foreclosures. 

My name is Wayne Meyer. I am President of New Jersey Community Capital, a 

nonprofit Community Development Financial Institution or CDFI. New Jersey Community Capital is the only CDFI headquartered in New Jersey which serves the entire State. Being a State-wide organization, we gain valuable insights into the difficulties and challenges experienced by our borrowers, mostly nonprofit community 

development corporations (CDCs). Through our innovative lending strategies, we are 

able to bolster the important work of these organizations, which are trying to save 

and stabilize neighborhoods ravaged by the continuing foreclosure and credit crises. 

Low-income communities throughout the State are in great peril and other, seemingly stable, low-to-moderate income communities are also on the precipice of rapid 

decline. However, CDCs alone will not save our neighborhoods and communities. 

This can only be done through comprehensive, innovative and integrative initiatives 

which require collaboration from every sector—Government, private, philanthropic, 

nonprofit and civil. 

The Problem 

The foreclosure crisis is changing the landscape of many New Jersey communities. 

Tens of thousands of foreclosed properties sit vacant, creating health and safety 

risks for these neighborhoods, of no use to the countless New Jerseyans seeking 

homes they can afford. Similarly, hundreds of thousands of homeowners are underwater and drowning fast with mortgages greater than the values of their homes. 

And with foreclosure filings continuing to increase, this crisis has yet to run its 

course. 

Our Solutions 

We appreciate Senator Menendez’ proposed Shared Appreciation Mortgage Modification Act and we support the Senator’s advocacy for experimenting with different 

approaches to disposing of foreclosed properties. 

The scale of the foreclosure problem is so large, however, that we believe that additional strategies need to be part of the solution. In the interest of time, allow me 

to highlight some of the most promising and effective programs we have designed 

to date, which we feel are key to saving our neighborhoods from foreclosures. 

The CAPC Model 

NJCC has a proven model that we believe can be used in regions throughout the 

country. This model does not require public subsidy. We have developed a bulk purchase strategy in which we purchase, rehabilitate, and return foreclosed homes to 

productive and equitable reuse while strengthening and revitalizing the surrounding 

communities. 

NJCC is employing this proven model through its subsidiary, the Community 

Asset Preservation Corporation (CAPC). CAPC is a statewide nonprofit real estate 

organization that acquires nonperforming residential mortgages and real-estate 

owned (REO) properties in targeted New Jersey communities through discounted 

bulk purchase arrangements. CAPC then returns these properties to productive use 

through a combination of strategies. 

CAPC first tested its model in 2008 with an innovative initiative called Operation 

Neighborhood Recovery (ONR). As part of ONR, CAPC worked with a partnering 

CDC to acquire a pool of 47 nonperforming mortgages, primarily located in distressed northern New Jersey neighborhoods, at a deep discount. The first trans-
33 

action of this kind in the Nation, ONR has successfully maintained these properties 

while developing mixed-market disposition strategies that support community stabilization goals. Since acquisition, the partner organizations have cleared title to 44 

of the properties and conveyed over 23 of the properties to community developers 

for return to productive use. While the financial success of this model was built on 

efficiencies of scale and internal cross-subsidization, the goal of neighborhood stabilization was achieved through strong partnerships with local CDCs who were willing to purchase and rehabilitate ONR properties located within the communities 

they serve. 

In 2010, CAPC merged with NJCC, which was the lead funder of ONR. As a wholly owned subsidiary of NJCC, CAPC benefits from NJCC’s statewide reach, robust 

balance sheet, and existing relationships with many public, private, and nonprofit 

organizations. Now a statewide organization, CAPC continues to pursue a mixedmarket approach to the acquisition and disposition of nonperforming mortgage and 

REO properties. This approach relies less on public subsidy and more on internal 

subsidies and efficiencies of scale to create affordable housing. Pivotal to this approach is NJCC/CAPC’s ability to provide key real estate services that are crucial 

to this model. These services include realistic transaction pricing based on local 

market knowledge; experience structuring and completing bulk purchases; demonstrated property maintenance capacity; real estate brokerage capabilities; existing 

and varied partnerships that support and encourage joint ventures; and flexible financing through NJCC, for such crucial needs as predevelopment loans and lines 

of credit. 

Since inception, CAPC has acquired properties through four bulk transactions and 

other acquisition strategies. CAPC continues to work with local CDCs to convey 

these properties and has also begun to directly secure or rehabilitate homes. 

The goal of CAPC is to successfully intervene in the reclamation and recovery of 

500–750 residential units over the next 5 years, leveraging over $40 million in total 

development costs by acquiring pools of nonperforming residential mortgage notes 

or foreclosed bank-owned residential properties. The elements of CAPC’s approach 

include bulk purchases; a value assessment model based on costs and likely sales 

of each property (exit strategy); proactive asset management; nontraditional financing strategies; and a mixed market disposition strategy built upon various exit options. 

The specific goals of the CAPC are to: 

• Rapidly and at a meaningful scale acquire property that is at some point along 

the foreclosure track 

• Preserve the assets and financial integrity of at-risk resident homeowners 

• Maintain properties to preserve their value and minimize neighborhood harm 

• Re-convey property to appropriate agents to be put back into productive use in 

an equitable manner 

• Provide capacity building assistance to partner community development organizations 

The elements of the CAPC model enable thoughtful and strategic intervention in 

ravaged neighborhoods. By critically analyzing the housing stock and foreclosure 

data for targeted communities, CAPC is able to identify properties which—once rehabilitated—will have an immediate impact on the local real estate market and a 

stabilizing effect for that particular block. CAPC is able to do this thanks to its 

ground-up valuation methods and its collaboration with local CDCs, which have an 

intimate knowledge of the area and its residents. By developing and furthering relationships with NJCC’s clients, CAPC is able to help these clients conceptualize and 

actualize proficient redevelopment projects with lasting effects. 

The CAPC disposition model pools REO assets, allowing nonprofits like NJCC and 

CAPC to enter into joint ventures with institutions such as the FHFA and the Enterprises to decide how best to manage and sell these assets. This effort can be augmented by leveraging private sector capital, to allow for bulk acquisition of REO assets from banking institutions and other private sellers. 

It is important to note that this model does not rely on public subsidy. The model 

relies on discount prices for the bulk purchase of REO properties, due to economies 

of scale that result from partnerships. Prices would be set by the market with no 

further discount required. In this model, a portion of the properties would include 

properties unlikely to sell for a profit as well as other properties that may sell at 

a higher price, perhaps at market rate. The economies of scale, combined with the 

model’s mixed-market disposition exit strategy, allow for cross-subsidization among 

properties in a bulk purchase portfolio, allowing some properties to be sold or rented 

as market-rate properties and others as discounted, affordable housing. This also 
34 

provides cash to allow debt to be drawn down earlier, which helps ensure the model’s financial sustainability. 

The demand-side valuation model is driven by the exit strategy, a deep understanding of local markets and a close working relationship with other mission-based 

organizations. Through this model, CAPC will group properties by key indicators 

such as unit type, lender, and location, among other characteristics, and work with 

its local partners to assist in determining the most viable disposition and exit strategy for each property. No less than two exit options will be selected for each property, including: rehabilitation and conversion to affordable rental; rehabilitation and 

sale or lease-to-sale; sale of property to nonprofit CDCs; sale of property to select 

for-profit, mission-based affordable housing developers; sale of property directly into 

the market (select private investors); demolition of property; and conveyance of 

property to land banking. 

Expanding the Model Through the Neighborhood Prosperity Fund 

As an experienced CDFI and active lender for community development projects, 

NJCC has witnessed the increasing shortage of accessible, flexible capital to help 

meaningfully preserve and revitalize New Jersey’s neighborhoods. Insufficient liquidity and capital are tremendous impediments to achieving neighborhood stability 

and change. The foreclosure and credit crises have placed even seemingly stable 

communities on the precipice of rapid decline. However, NJCC believes those impediments can be resolved through targeted and strategic investments in communities. 

The development of the Neighborhood Prosperity Fund (NPF) by NJCC allows us 

to expand the scale of our interventions by offering a dedicated, durable, and permanent source of lending capital for: 

1) acquisition and rehabilitation of foreclosed/abandoned properties, including the 

bulk purchase of REO properties at discounted prices; 

2) medium-term financing for the lease or lease-purchase of completed units that 

currently cannot be sold to low/moderate income households. 

The NPF provides financing for high-impact community developers to invest in atrisk neighborhoods. These funds are recycled to continually acquire, renovate, and 

place troubled properties back on the market. The NPF provides flexible forms of 

capital through lines of credit to community developers to acquire, renovate, and return to equitable reuse houses in at-risk low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. 

These dynamics are critical to the sustenance of communities, as they become less 

reliant on tenuous public subsidy, even as NPF investments generate both public 

and private funds that far exceed their initial value. 

Besides the severe shortage of mortgage and project financing for community 

housing developers, many families lack the credit or savings necessary to purchase 

a home in today’s lending environment. This creates a large backlog of homes on 

the market and increases the likelihood that sponsors of Neighborhood Stabilization 

Program (NSP) projects will be holding for-sale properties in their inventory far 

longer than anticipated. This necessitates the provision of flexible, affordable minipermanent financing options for developers, which are not readily available in the 

current environment. The NPF will enable these community builders to tackle this 

problem of market absorption through medium-term financing for the lease or leasepurchase of the vacant and foreclosed structures they have placed back into equitable reuse in neighborhoods where home ownership is not currently a viable disposition strategy. 

Even prior to the current financial crisis, mainstream financial institutions were 

limiting the financing they provided to CDCs and other nonprofit developers. Larger 

regional and national banks have not had an appetite for the smaller transactions 

undertaken by CDC real estate developers, while local financial institutions have 

often lacked an understanding of the community development finance market. The 

advent of the economic crisis further limited the number of mainstream lenders willing to tackle this work, leaving CDFIs as the primary source of capital for nonprofit 

and mission-driven developers working in New Jersey’s at-risk communities. In fact, 

NJCC has often been the primary source of capital for community development 

projects, particularly those that are affordable housing and NSP-related. 

NJCC continues to innovate, adapting our neighborhood stabilization initiatives 

to meet the current needs of distressed neighborhoods. Our responses are designed 

to bring meaningful change to these localities on a scale large enough to restore normally functioning markets. We still believe that the strategic acquisition and redevelopment of pivotal properties is critical to preserving and revitalizing vulnerable 

urban neighborhoods. Accomplishing this, however, requires both financial and real 
35 

estate capacity at a greater scale that what has existed to date. It also requires a 

major shift in thinking and behavior by stakeholders at all levels. 

The NPF funds provide financing to high-impact community developers that demonstrate the financial and real estate capacity to implement neighborhood planning 

and stabilization strategies. NJCC awards the funds to projects that are tied in with 

a comprehensive, strategic plan for long-term neighborhoods stability. 

It provides flexible forms of capital through lines of credit to these nonprofit and 

mission-driven developers to acquire and build/renovate homes in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The fund leverages both current and future Federal 

neighborhood stabilization funding, providing financing that is flexible, cost effective 

and of the magnitude and scale necessary to assist in the transformation of neighborhoods. The NPF funds are recycled to maintain the continual acquisition, renovation, and disposition of troubled properties. 

The NPF is capable of bringing about transformative neighborhood change and is 

critical to reducing the complexity, delay, and cost associated with traditional acquisition, development and construction lending, and to leveraging public funds. The 

NPF serves as an important model for a scaled response to the foreclosure crisis and 

beyond and as an effective tool for the revitalization of distressed communities that 

are suffering from vacant and abandoned properties. 

Helping Keep Families Out of Foreclosure-Creating a Mortgage Resolution 

Fund 

NJCC is working to create a mortgage resolution fund as a powerful vehicle for 

foreclosure intervention and neighborhood stabilization. This mortgage resolution 

fund would use a bulk purchase strategy to acquire pools of delinquent mortgages 

on owner-occupied properties in high-impact areas, and will subsequently evaluate 

each mortgage and corresponding property to create an individualized action plan 

for each homeowner. These plans fall into three categories: 1) the affordable restructuring of the mortgages to preserve home ownership; 2) rent-to-purchase options 

through a temporary third-party owner; or 3) transitional support to new housing 

for owners who cannot sustain their tenure in the foreseeable future. 

It is our strong belief that this mortgage resolution fund would be different from 

other public or private programs currently operating in the market. It would be geographically targeted areas for bulk mortgage note purchases to maximize its impact 

on neighborhood stabilization. The program would be consumer-centered and provide direct services to the homeowner in a holistic manner. It would offer a permanent solution for the homeowner and the neighborhoods by permanently modifying 

and reducing the loan principal upon successful completion of a trial modification 

period. Since it would not be a subsidy program, we believe it would play a critical 

role, given the shrinking public sector resources available for this work. 

We estimate that we would need a $100 million over 6 years in order to create 

a fund capable of acquiring 2,000 owner-occupied properties. While such a target 

would significantly reduce the number of families struggling with foreclosure, it also 

shows how difficult and time- and labor-intensive our combined efforts will need to 

be to help solve this crisis. 

Conclusion 

Once again, I would like to thank the Chairman and the Members of the Subcommittee for their time and attention to this critical issue of saving our neighborhoods from the detrimental impact of foreclosures. I once again would like to acknowledge Senator Menendez’ leadership in helping residents of our at-risk communities all across our State. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS SALOWE-KAYE 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY CITIZEN ACTION, AND FORMER MEMBER, 

CONSUMER ADVISORY COUNCIL, FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF GOVERNORS

FEBRUARY 10, 2012 

Good Morning. I’d like to thank Senator Menendez and the Committee Members 

for holding these hearings today in Plainfield, New Jersey. My name is Phyllis 

Salowe-Kaye. I’ve been the Executive Director of New Jersey Citizen Action (NJCA) 

for the past twenty 5 years. I am also a former member of the Consumer Advisory 

Council, constituted by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. As the State’s largest independent citizen watchdog coalition, New Jersey Citizen Action works to protect and expand the rights of individuals and families and to ensure that the needs 

of people—rather than the interests of those with power and money—are served. 
36 

Through education, research, organizing and outreach our campaigns promote economic, social, racial, and political justice. 

As the State’s largest HUD-certified Housing and Foreclosure Counseling agency 

and a leader in innovative projects and programs, I appear before you to offer remarks about how we can save our neighborhoods from foreclosure. 

Keeping families in their homes when reasonable loan modifications are possible, 

and the reform of the broken loan servicing industry should be a priority for Congress. The Center for Responsible Lending’s Lost Ground, 2011 Report finds that 2.7 

million people who received mortgages between 2004 and 2008 have already lost 

their homes to foreclosure and an additional 3.6 million households are still at immediate, serious risk of doing so. According to Amherst Securities, we may have a 

stunning 10 million more foreclosures ahead of us. 

Many of these foreclosures can be prevented if policymakers stop relying on voluntary efforts and instead require servicers to make reasonable modifications on 

mortgages that have a good chance of success. 

Policymakers should apply strong, mandatory standards for loan modifications. 

While States can require loan servicers to take specific steps to avert foreclosures 

prior to foreclosure (‘‘loss mitigation’’), there is an urgent need to establish national 

loss mitigation standards. These standards should target appropriate levels of debt 

(i.e., the debt-to-income-ratio) for eligible homeowners and bar unreasonable fees. 

Some effective State-loss mitigation efforts and future settlements and consent orders between banks and regulators offer examples of standards that could apply to 

servicing nationally. 

Additionally, eliminating the barriers to homeowner refinancing and streamlining 

the refinancing process as outlined in S–170, the ‘‘Helping Responsible Homeowners 

Act of 2011’’ (Boxer/Isakson), would allow homeowners to take advantage of our historically low interest rates and prevent banks from refusing to refinance underwater 

homeowners. This legislation must be supported and passed. 

There must also be an end to the loan servicing abuses and poor business practices that contribute to unnecessary foreclosures. Federal regulators should prohibit 

common servicer abuses, including misapplied payments, illegitimate fees, failure to 

pay escrowed taxes and insurance, force-placing overpriced insurance, obstructing 

refinances and modifications and improperly pursing foreclosures when at the same 

time working with borrowers on loan modifications. New York’s recent laws and regulations provide a useful framework that should be examined. 

Lowering mortgage balances (principal reductions) is an essential tool for stopping 

the foreclosure epidemic. Housing experts are reaching a consensus that we need 

mandated principal reductions for many underwater borrowers at imminent risk of 

foreclosure to stabilize the housing market. Modifications that reduce principal and 

are Net Present Value (NPV) positive to investors would enhance income streams 

for investors and servicers, while keeping families in their homes and prevent further foreclosures from flooding an already saturated housing market. Given the high 

share of loans held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Agency 

(FHA) must permit meaningful principal reductions on loans that are at imminent 

risk of foreclosure. 

Shared appreciation mortgages are an excellent tool to redirect principles that will 

allow mortgages to become affordable and sustainable. Ocwen Financial Corporation, one of the country’s largest independent mortgage servicers, has adopted 

shared appreciation (equity) mortgages as a creative way to do principal reductions 

for homeowners for use in its Loan Modification Program. A shared appreciation 

mortgage is a mortgage in which the homeowner agrees to pay a stated percentage 

of the property appreciation to the lender at the time the house is sold. In return, 

the lender agrees to reduce the principal and change the interest rate of the loan 

to one that is below the prevailing market rate. 

Ocwen currently has about 16,000 loans in New Jersey. Eight thousand are currently in foreclosure and the bank is aggressively working with these homeowners 

to modify the loans and reduce the principals. Ocwen is a company that is doing 

principal reductions throughout the country and has found a way to make a profit. 

The other large banks and servicers paused to foreclose on millions of homeowners, 

should be required to modify loans and write down principals in a similar manner. 

No more than 5 percent of the security agreements (PSA’s) have language that limits or prohibits principal reductions. The others are silent except to say that whatever solution is taken should benefit investors. This benefit to investors can be calculated by using the NPV (net present value), which is what Ocwen does. Ocwen 

has made use of principal reductions on a large scale. It is essential to require the 

U.S. Treasury, SEC, OCC or whichever the correct regulator is to issue guidance 

dispelling the notion that the PSA precludes principal reduction except where explicitly stated. 
37 

It is also important to set a NPV calculation standard similar to Ocwen’s (though 

that might be proprietary) so that everyone is ‘‘singing from the same score.’’ If that 

seems to intrude on the ‘‘rights’’ of lenders or be too hard to pass, establish the 

standard anyway and give borrowers the right to demand a re-evaluation using that 

NPV. Senator Menendez has proposed a bill that would establish a pilot program 

at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA to offer shared appreciation mortgage modifications to underwater or delinquent homeowners. The ‘‘Shared Mortgage Appreciation Modification Act of 2012’’ must be supported and passed quickly to help homeowners remain in their homes. It should be offered only in instances of foreclosure 

prevention because in other contexts it can become another exotic tool that can 

harm homeowners. 

To get banks to agree to reduce the principal they would be entitled to a fixed 

percentage of the value when prices finally increase and the home is sold. But a 

cap should be established so that the servicers can’t recoup more than they write 

down plus some foregone interest. 

The Federal Government has established numerous programs to stop foreclosures 

and save our neighborhoods. Some work, others don’t. Just last week, President 

Obama outlined a series of proposals to help homeowners, including a plan requiring Congressional support that would enable responsible homeowners who are current on their mortgages to refinance into lower rate loans, even though their homes 

are underwater. We strongly urge Congress to support this plan so that responsible 

homeowners can take advantage of currently low interest rates. This will enable 

them to put more money in their pockets and make their homes more affordable. 

The Treasury’s Hardest Hit Fund has funded some excellent State and local programs. New Jersey’s Homekeeper Program, which provides 2 years of funding for 

unemployed or underemployed homeowners, should be expanded and heavily marketed. Congress should support nascent large scale models like the Mortgage Resolution Fund (MRF), a public, private, nonprofit partnership, by allowing the organizations themselves to apply for Hardest Hit Funds or other TARP type dollars, instead of just permitting the HFA’s to access these funds. Also, as long as the Hardest Hit Funds are being recycled as in the Mortgage Resolution Fund, Congress 

should not sunset their use. Additionally, incentives should be set for servicers and 

banks to ally themselves with MRF type nonprofits (e.g., MRF and NCLR) and the 

same should be provided in the bulk REO programs being initiated. 

Finally, Congress should fund more HUD-certified housing counseling and legal 

aid assistance for homeowners at risk of foreclosure. Studies have shown that homeowners who receive counseling are less likely to default on their loans. Every successful loan workout that prevents an unnecessary foreclosure helps homeowners, 

their communities and our economy as a whole. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN MALLACH 

NON-RESIDENT SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

FEBRUARY 10, 2012 

Chairman Menendez, honorable Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify before you on the effects of foreclosures on neighborhoods in New Jersey and elsewhere in the United States, and 

to suggest Federal and State legislative efforts that should be pursued to help mitigate the foreclosure crisis and stabilize our neighborhoods. You are hearing today 

from a number of individuals who are pursuing important strategies to address this 

problem. I will try to add a broad perspective on this issue, based on my work as 

researcher and advocate in New Jersey and elsewhere over the past many years. 

Just as there is no one reason for the foreclosure crisis, there is no one way in 

which that crisis affects neighborhoods, and no one strategy that can be put in place 

to fix the problem. Furthermore, we should not think of mitigating the foreclosure 

crisis, which still rages, and stabilizing neighborhoods as separate matters: the two 

are totally interwoven with one another. This is particularly true in urban neighborhoods that are already hard-pressed by unemployment and other ills. 

As borrowers default, and foreclosure proceedings begin, maintenance declines. 

Many borrowers leave their homes, or walk away from investment properties. In 

New Jersey, where foreclosures can take 3 years or more, houses and small apartment buildings can sit empty for years before title passes to the lender, deteriorating and blighting the neighborhood. As vacant and abandoned properties increase, the neighborhood’s quality of life deteriorates, and its attractiveness to home 

buyers declines. Meanwhile, with more REO properties coming on the market, and 

fewer home buyers being able to qualify for mortgages, the market further deterio-
38 

rates; abandonment grows, crime may increase, property values decline, and increasingly the only buyers are low-end and speculative investors. Breaking this vicious cycle demands action at all stages in the cycle. 

We should focus on four distinct areas—not as separate actions or strategies but 

in an integrated, comprehensive way. While many areas I will touch on are traditionally matters of State law, the need for consistent, overarching, national ground 

rules in this area is compelling and a matter of urgent public interest. As Congress 

showed when it enacted the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act in 2009, it is capable of acting to fill the gap between inadequate State laws and what needs to be 

done. 

• First, reduce the flow of homes into foreclosure. 

Until we significantly reduce the number of new foreclosures, and the number of 

REO properties, neighborhood stabilization will remain a moving target, constantly 

beyond our reach. For all of the many programs and initiatives of the past few 

years, that goal still appears far away. I believe the Federal Government needs to 

play a stronger, more constructive role than it has in the past. Convoluted programs 

that prolong the agony, short-term temporary assistance programs, and similar efforts may help some people, but too few, too slowly. A more aggressive, systematic 

approach is needed; the White Paper just issued by the Federal Reserve Board offers a number of useful suggestions that could be pursued in developing such an 

approach. 

This is both an administrative and a legislative responsibility. Federal regulators 

should use both carrots and sticks to encourage greater principal reduction in mortgage modifications, facilitate short sales and deeds in lieu, to maximize alternatives 

to foreclosure. The Federal Government should provide additional support for foreclosure counseling, and provide direction to the States to follow best practices in designing and conducting mediation and other foreclosure intervention programs. The 

Administration could lead the way through its control over the GSEs as well as 

FHA, something which has yet to happen. Congress can play a valuable role by putting constructive pressure on the Administration to treat the GSEs and FHA not 

as burdens or no more than bottom-line entities, but as powerful tools that can be 

deployed to tackle the mortgage crisis; if existing statutes are an impediment, Congress should change the ground rules the FHFA uses to regulate the GSEs. 

• Second, keep people in their homes 

If the foreclosure process itself is the first step in neighborhood destabilization, 

the second is the extent to which it leads to houses becoming vacant, and particularly in urban neighborhoods, abandoned, a process that often results in houses 

being damaged beyond repair. Congress took an important step in this respect in 

2009 when it enacted the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act. That Act should 

be revisited, first, to expand tenant protection to reflect the protections afforded tenants under New Jersey law; and second, to find out whether it is indeed being followed, and if necessary—as I expect will turn out to be the case—put teeth in it 

to make sure. With respect to homeowners, the goal should be to make sure that 

a house that goes through foreclosure is empty for no longer than a house that is 

sold in the normal course of events. Fostering more short sales and deeds in lieu 

is an important step in that direction, but the next major step should be to protect 

homeowners in foreclosure by allowing responsible homeowners who have maintained their property in good condition during the foreclosure process to remain in 

their homes as tenants, paying a fair market rent, until or unless a new buyer 

wants to move into the house. This should be a no-brainer. It preserves families, 

helps stabilize neighborhoods, and preserves the value of the property better than 

if the property is vacated after the sheriff’s sale. Representatives Grijalva and Kaptur introduced legislation that would achieve that goal, but it remains bottled up. 

It should be given a chance to work. 

• Third, ensure that properties are properly maintained both during and 

after foreclosure 

In New Jersey and many other States properties can sit vacant for years before 

lenders gain title through sheriff’s sale. In 2010, the New Jersey Legislature passed 

a State law making lenders legally responsible for maintaining properties that become vacant after the initial foreclosure filing but before the sheriff’s sale. I believe 

New Jersey is unique in terms of State law, although some cities, particularly in 

California, have passed local ordinances along similar lines. Congress should consider legislation that would establish such legal responsibility as a national mandate and strengthen the ability of local governments to enforce that responsibility. 

The extent to which lenders simply walk away from low-value properties, particularly in distressed areas like Cleveland and Detroit, has been widely recognized. In 
39 

other areas, they may not walk away, but may slow down the process to ration the 

flow of properties into REO status. Both of these practices harm the families involved, the neighborhoods and the housing market generally. Simply stated, lenders 

should not be allowed to initiate foreclosures unless they are prepared to see the 

process through in a timely fashion and take full responsibility for the property. If 

they are unwilling to do so, they should release the mortgage, or convey it to an 

entity that has the borrower’s interest at heart. While individual States could enact 

such legislation, the likelihood of all 50 doing so is remote; this is another area 

where Federal legislation would be valuable. 

• Fourth, make sure that REO and other vacant properties are quickly 

put back to productive use 

While high-value REO properties in strong housing markets usually sell quickly, 

many REO properties elsewhere languish, some to be bought by low-end speculators, and others to remain vacant. Meanwhile, other properties in the same hardhit neighborhoods are falling vacant for many other reasons. Making sure REO 

properties are restored to productive use not only requires that the lenders who control these properties are motivated to do so, but needs a pool of responsible, capable 

people ready to buy them. In some cases they could be home buyers, in other cases 

responsible investors, or contractors willing to put them back into shape, and in still 

others, nonprofit corporations and CDCs. 

In addition, municipalities need stronger tools, such as the ability to create municipal land banks, to gain control of other vacant properties and put them back to 

use. Such legislation has been enacted in Michigan, Ohio and New York. In New 

Jersey, the Housing & Community Development Network has helped draft a bill 

that has just been introduced. The Federal Government should support such efforts, 

and ensure that Federal programs are designed to work in tandem with local land 

bank efforts. 

Coupled with legislation to motivate lenders to complete foreclosures and put REO 

properties on the market, we need programs to make it easier and more financially 

feasible for people to buy properties, either to occupy as homeowners, to rent out, 

or to fix up and put back on the market in move-in condition. This demands two 

things. 

First and foremost, we need a system that provides access to capital on reasonable 

terms for responsible individuals and businesses ready to acquire, occupy, rent out 

or fix up REO and other distressed property. In the short run, this should be clearly 

defined as part of the mission of the GSEs and FHA. In the long run, we need to 

get away from the rhetoric that has come to surround the question of the Nation’s 

future mortgage finance system, and come up with a model for a mortgage system 

that appropriately balances risk management and public policy goals. If we are to 

continue to provide home ownership opportunities to hard-working Americans, Government will inevitably have to play an important and ongoing role. 

Second, in weak market areas, where the cost of fixing up houses exceeds their 

market value, we need to look at incentives such as tax credits to motivate responsible landlords, developers and contractors to invest in those areas, to help those 

areas get back on their feet. 

Finally, I’d like to come back to a point I made earlier. Yes, there are many dimensions to this problem which demand different strategies and programs, but they 

have to be connected, not handled—as is too often the case today—as separate, unrelated, activities. Moreover, many programs—housing programs as well as other 

public efforts—that we do not associate with foreclosure prevention or neighborhood 

stabilization affect the future of the same neighborhoods. 

The Administration and Congress should take a close look at current Federal programs—in housing and elsewhere—and asking whether the way they are designed 

and their funds allocated works to sustain neighborhoods, or whether some programs are indifferent to, or in some cases, even inimical to the future of urban 

neighborhoods. 

Communities need to be encouraged to develop comprehensive strategies, to get 

everyone involved around the table to work together, to make sure that foreclosure 

prevention, and keeping houses occupied and maintained, and restoring vacant 

houses to productive use are all part of a multifaceted effort to stabilize and reinvigorate our older neighborhoods, towns and cities. Both Federal and State governments should be their partners in that effort.