RC Blog

Still alive: Housing Trust bill and ban on insurers using credit scores

posted by Cydney Gillis on Wednesday, February 3 at 7:38pm

A bill that would have raised a $100 million bond for the Housing Trust Fund, the state’s main source of construction funding for affordable housing, died Monday in the House when Rep. Mark Miloscia’s (D-Federal Way) HB 2906 didn’t make it out of committee. But on Wednesday the legislation was reborn as House Bill 3177, a new bill put forward by Rep. Sharon Nelson (D-Maury Island).

Even though Tuesday was the cutoff for House bills to make it out of their policy committees, Nelson is hoping to buy extra time for the effort by getting the bill referred to one of the House’s fiscal committees, which have until Feb. 9 to vote out legislation. The $100 million bond would be paid back by adding a $62 fee when existing mortgage loans change hands. Without the new revenue, housing advocates say, low-income housing production in the state will come to a halt in the coming year, as the $100 million allocated to the Housing Trust in 2009 is already committed to projects.

The Senate Committee on Financial Institutions, Housing & Insurance also passed a version of the bill sponsored by Sen. Joe McDermott (D-West Seattle), SB 6817, to the Ways & Means Committee on Wednesday. Another bill that would have required banks to give homeowners on unemployment a one-year pass before foreclosure—SB 6694—didn’t make the cut, however, ending hopes this session for stopping foreclosure actions.

The debate over insurance companies using credit scores, education or income levels to set insurance rates is also still alive: Senate Bill 6252, a bill sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Seattle) to ban the practice, made it out of the Labor, Commerce & Consumer Protection Committee on Wednesday.

Comments

Why is it that when any law is proposed that would effect people based on individual choices of responsibility (in this case having a decent credit score), the first thing out of the mouth of the left is that “it discriminates against minorities?” It is called individual responsibility for a reason.  If I decide to opt-out of the “credit-card spending spree frenzy” that the rest of America has gotten itself into, why should I not benefit from a law that may lower my premiums due to my INDIVIDUAL choice of being responsible and making sure that I don’t live beyond my means and keep a decent score?

Credit cards suck | submitted on 03/08/2010, 10:58pm