Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />n <br />0 <br />firm policy �f nt�t l��ndir.� ��•yonr� t.hr svlid E=dg+� of the �rbanized z3r�a <br />until tmost o! th� �iy���sed land h��� bcyc•n dcv�lapeAd, t?if=y rnay wc�ll iind <br />that t}:�-:� rorn���titivc� po��tloz� wou�d br sc�ri�usly impairc�d. Oth€.3r <br />le���ders not adopting such pc��icaes would }�ave.i l�ss cott�p��tition in plaCir�g <br />th�ir m��tgage�s bc�y�t�d t}iF� "urb.�n lin�". 'I'��is in turn, n�ig��t encourage <br />rnore loans in t��a�e ar�.�as anti, Con��qUently, cyvc�n furthcr cncoura�qt� <br />d�velopm�nt th�rc.� bc�c<�us�� �f thc� favorable linancin� cUnditions. Onc• <br />lendcr statcd in �-�n int�rvicw t}�at th�ir firm did rnore than thr usual <br />amount of finan��n� in pirar�c��rin� areas becaus�.� thc�y cou�d get a highesr <br />ratc of rc.�turn c�ry th�i� mcan��y. <br />FHA anc� VA most li'�Ce�ly hav� a si�nilar relationship with somc of the <br />l�rgcr cu�t�rri �nci t:act b�aildcrs. Therc is certainiy validity to the ide3 <br />that an�r arganization is inter�.:sted in scli pt�rF�tu�tioa�. Conse �ue.n.xlY , <br />if F�YA �nd V.A we�e �oo stringent with thc�ir rc,�u,irements thcir clientele <br />builders mi ht t�e� gutastantiall reduced. This in turn, would presum- <br />a y mean ess nee or t�heir uperat�on. Sc�v�ral lender� in interviews <br />statcd that this was an important factc�r i�� viewing FHA's influ��ce and <br />operation�. <br />The lending insLitutions , and FHA and V'A in particular, have played a <br />ei ni�i icant rol� in allc�win the tract develo er the freedom� ruhich he <br />en'o s o ocatin in t�c� out in arcas. hes�e ins�it►�tions an agencies <br />in r�viewir�� mortgage app ications an m�rtga�� corrimitments have <br />sYressed the borrow�r's fin�r�cial situation, the individual house, and <br />the xmrnedia�c environme�t around the house. Genexally, tr�ey have <br />placecl rnu�h less ernphasis ov�r the �eneral l�catior� of the house �r <br />subdivision �xcept in the most extrem� 7ocational situations. In addition, <br />they h�.ve placed a�nuch less emphasis on the provision of public fa�ilities <br />�,s well as t}ic gc�nc�ral qu�.lity of development. In this regard, FHA ha5 <br />tended to be more �onservative about ��provyn� pione�rit�� subdivisions <br />than thc �IA , <br />In ev�luatit��; subeiivisions arid property, FHA in particular, goes through <br />a rather exhaustive process. A� a part of their location analysis tih�y <br />consider six major categories: <br />1, Pz-otection against iriharrnonious land uses. <br />2. Physical and social attractiveness. <br />3, Adequacy of civic, sacial, and commercial ceniers. <br />4. Adequacy of transportation. <br />5, Sufficiency of utilities and services. <br />6. Level of taxes and special assessments. <br />The FHA analyze the effect of envirpnmental forces upon the desirability <br />of the location in compaxison with all other competiti.v�e� locations in the <br />community an the rPla.tive campe�ative position o the location in the <br />total mar et o the community area. This statement represent� one of <br />the most significant aspects of the entire subdivision analysis system. <br />What th�s means is that when a propo�Ed subdivision is reviewed and <br />ana�yz�d, it is evaluated in relation to other competitive subdivisions. <br />31 <br />