Everyone loses under governor's plan for agency bonds

Let’s clear up a couple of things about private activity revenue bonds. And let’s try to do it with facts, rather than opinions that create a problem that doesn’t exist.

The story in the Sun Journal about Gov. Paul LePage's plan to halt bond packages for hospitals and colleges shows how opinions and facts can become confused. Gov. LePage’s spokesman is quoted as saying about independent agency bonds: “'The state Constitution is clear’ when it comes to bonds ... no loans larger than $2 million can be issued without voter approval.”

Well, the Supreme Judicial Court of the state of Maine disagrees. In fact, in the 1971 court case Maine State Housing Authority versus Depositors Trust Company, the court says, quite clearly, that the debts of MaineHousing (and this would be true for the other independent agencies) are not debts of the state. It also states that independent agency bonds are not required by the Constitution to go to the voters because they are not on the hook for paying them back. The court clearly has already ruled on the Constitution and it does not agree with the governor’s opinion.

Later, the governor’s office says “What drives the lower interest (rate for independent authorities) is ‘Maine’s good credit rating’.”

Well, actually, the opposite is true.

MaineHousing, for example, has a better credit rating than the state. In fact, MaineHousing is rated as a stand-alone entity, meaning it asks to be rated without considering its relationship to the state. Why? Simply put: The state’s lower credit rating would actually drag the agency down.

I’ve heard it said that these authorities need more oversight. Considering that they are all in better financial shape than the state, I wonder if we should set other priorities before questioning these highly rated entities.

I can’t help but think the new administration is attempting to politicize the work that these independent agencies do.

These agencies are independent of the state so they can operate more like the private sector and with as little political influence as possible. They are responsible for their own operations. They do not rely on the state. MaineHousing, as the example I know best, pays no salaries and no operating expenses with state money. It earns a spread through its lending practices or is paid fees by the federal government to run federal programs such as LIHEAP and Section 8.

The agencies at issue were created decades ago to achieve a public purpose using private methods. The only other choices are to spend taxpayer money to help home buyers, renters, hospitals, colleges and universities, towns and students, or to not assist them at all. Are either of those good for the Maine economy?

MaineHousing’s First Time Homebuyer mortgages are made by more than 30 banks and credit unions throughout the state. Those MaineHousing mortgages are always available and account for about 10 percent of all mortgages made on homes costing less than $275,000 — about 1,000 MaineHousing mortgages per year. That averages out to $120 million of single family mortgages each year.

Now it seems the governor could stop them completely.

Multifamily mortgages and the associated subsidy programs are run by open competition. In the past decade, MaineHousing has funded the construction or rehabilitation of 3,500 units. The National Association of Homebuilders estimates that 1.16 jobs are created for every unit of rental housing constructed. That’s a lot of jobs. MaineHousing has funded 250 or more units per year in the past few years. Can the construction industry in this state stand to lose that many jobs?

It seems everyone loses with the governor’s position on independent agency bonds. Maine people in general, but especially students, contractors, Realtors, banks, credit unions, developers, hospitals, colleges, universities, municipalities, businesses looking for loans ... the list goes on and on.

And what does it solve? A problem that doesn’t exist.

Investing in the future is prudent and makes good economic sense. It may make a better sound bite to say that everything will be paid for with cash, but how many of us could have bought our homes without a mortgage?

There is an appropriate place for debt. Maine is a leader in many areas nationally. Being the first to stop investing in the future should not be the next “first.”

Carol Kontos is an associate professor of English at the University of Maine at Augusta, the former Senate chairwoman of the Legislative Committee of Oversight for MaineHousing and the Finance Authority of Maine, and the current board chairperson of MaineHousing.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

The Maine State Ho sing Authority is an Instrumentality Of The S

Read the charter for the Maine State Housing authority- It is a corporation chartered by special act of legislation for the purpose of serving as an instrumentality of the state- so pray tell- how can it be an agency "independent of the state"?

Quote from the charter: “The Maine State Housing Authority is established and is a public body corporate and politic and an instrumentality of the State. [1987, c. 737, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §106 (NEW); 1989, c. 6, (AMD); 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD); 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD).]”

Further more it is chartered in violation of the Maine State Constitution Article IV, Part Third, Section 14 which prohibits the legislature from chartering corporations by special act of legislation with an exception for "municipal purposes".

Clearly "an instrumentality of the state" is not a "municipal purpose"

There is another exception for “objects that cannot be achieved any other way” but your opinion clearly refutes that as it attempts to portray the Maine Housing Authority as “an independent agency” rated as a ‘stand alone agency” , rated without consideration of its relationship to the state ( ie an instrumentality of the state as per its charter).

Furthermore there exists a vast network of corporate instrumentalites of the state. If the intent of the constitution was for there to exist such a vast network so prolifically legislated, then why doesn’t the constitution provide for an exception for “corporate instrumentalities of the state”? Perhaps because the intent of Article IV Part Third Section 13 & 14 is to prohibit exactly that. The exception for “objects that can’t be achieved any other way” being there to provide for the rare exception not for a vast network of corporate instrumentalities of the state, which once chartered portray themselves in all sorts of ways but the truth of the matter lies in the special acts of legislation that serve of the charter for the deeply entrenched network of corporate instrumentalities of the state- often with their own separate “fund” (capital) which are frequently filled with taxpayer dollars.

Is the point in portraying the Maine Housing Authority as an “independent agency” to make a claim that there are no taxpayer dollars funding it?

Just a couple of the paragraphs relating to financing from the charter:

B. Develop plans, finance, conduct and encourage in cooperation with other public and private national, state, regional and local agencies, research and demonstration of model housing programs, dealing with, but not limited to, planning, styles of land use, types of building design, techniques of construction, finance techniques, municipal regulations and management procedures; [1987, c. 737, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §106 (NEW); 1989, c. 6, (AMD); 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD); 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD).]
F. Act as the public agency of the State for the purpose of accepting federal funds or other assistance, or funds or other assistance from any other source, in relation to housing activity in those areas and for those projects authorized under section 4741, subsection 2 and other relevant provisions of this chapter; [1987, c. 737, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §106 (NEW); 1989, c. 6, (AMD); 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD); 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD).]

There’s more. What private sector corporation is privy to all the government funding - state, or federal?

Terry Donald's picture

Thank You

Thank you Ms Kontos for a factual easy ti understand explanation of a complex issue.
The trouble is us, WE elected a thoroughly unqualified Governor and he has installed an equally unqualified list of yesmen and women behind him to do his bidding.
His office issued this edict with no research, no hearings, no discussion. Hopefully there will be some legal challenge to put things back in order.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...