For RedliningAfter the Community Reinvestment Act was passed, bank regulators and bank trade groups opposed the act. According to Gregory D Squires’ book, he states that opposers argued that “the CRA objectives could be fulfilled through existing programs and regulations.” The government was also one who was interrelated with the redlining practice and enforced it in such a way. “The federal government’s policy was to quickly foreclose on low income borrowers, rather than provide them with counseling or refinancing support” (Squires, 1979). This shows us that it was the system that was creating corruption because they were the ones who were for redlining which in my opinion is ironic because I suppose that the Government was the one who was supposed to care for the people and make societies better places instead of downgrading them.
|
Against RedliningThose who were for greenlining, according to Squires, “were simply demanding that the banks that had taken their deposits re-invest those dollars in the community instead of giving them to white-suburban communities.” It is common sense; it is rational and logical to think that the banks that you deposit your money in are the same banks that will lend you a hand. As stated by Squires, “The local financial institutions have an obligation to their communities.—the people in the neighborhood are the principle depositors. When they cut off money from a neighborhood, and invest only in the suburbs, they are stabbing the community in the back. They are using the community’s money to make profits elsewhere while they discriminate against their own community.” I strongly agree with Squires statement because in the end communities were helping banks by trusting them with their money and in the end banks did not return the favor; instead they neglected them, which is truly unforgiving.
|