The Justice Department alleged that Chevy Chase violated the federal Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by declaring black areas off-limits for mortgage lending, a practice otherwise known as redlining. The complaint, filed together with a settlement in U.S. District Court in D.C., claimed that the bank underwrote approximately 97% of its loans from 1976 through 1992, in predominantly white areas.
"You can't be refused service, if there is no service being offered," said Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Deval L. Patrick.
The document makes it clear that the bank engaged in an illegal activity (red-lining), they got caught, and they settled the case with the government.
Nowhere does the document state that the bank was at any time before or after required to even loosen their lending standards in "black areas", let alone make "ultra high risk loans" as you have asserted.
I likewise find nothing in the second document you cited that proves your assertion.
I'm going to close this out with a tip - two years ago, Barry Ritholtz issued the following challenge:
"Well, its time to put up or shut up: I hereby challenge any of those who believe the CRA is at prime fault in the housing boom and collapse, and economic morass we are in to a debate."
The challenge is for any amount between $10,000 - $100,000.
In the two years since he issued that challenge, nobody has stepped forward to claim what should be an easy payout for those making the same argument as you.
Also, Deval Patrick is the Governor of MA, not the mayor.
The Justice Department alleged that Chevy Chase violated the federal Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by declaring black areas off-limits for mortgage lending, a practice otherwise known as redlining. The complaint, filed together with a settlement in U.S. District Court in D.C., claimed that the bank underwrote approximately 97% of its loans from 1976 through 1992, in predominantly white areas.
"You can't be refused service, if there is no service being offered," said Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Deval L. Patrick.
The document makes it clear that the bank engaged in an illegal activity (red-lining), they got caught, and they settled the case with the government.
Nowhere does the document state that the bank was at any time before or after required to even loosen their lending standards in "black areas", let alone make "ultra high risk loans" as you have asserted.
I likewise find nothing in the second document you cited that proves your assertion.
I'm going to close this out with a tip - two years ago, Barry Ritholtz issued the following challenge:
"Well, its time to put up or shut up: I hereby challenge any of those who believe the CRA is at prime fault in the housing boom and collapse, and economic morass we are in to a debate."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/100000-cra-challenge/
The challenge is for any amount between $10,000 - $100,000.
In the two years since he issued that challenge, nobody has stepped forward to claim what should be an easy payout for those making the same argument as you.
Also, Deval Patrick is the Governor of MA, not the mayor.