Comment on Kirk Mcclure's “The low‐income housing tax credit program goes mainstream and moves to the suburbs”

Abstract

As McClure's article notes, the Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program has indeed gone mainstream. Given the tarnished reputation of many other federal low‐income housing programs, this is good news. It is also surprising in some ways considering the many programmatic flaws inherent in the LIHTC program.

As a point of departure, I look at why McClure and others are able to describe the program in a positive light despite its many flaws. I attribute this to the unique political culture of the United States, for which the LIHTC program is well suited. In addition, it sidesteps one of the thorniest problems that have bedeviled low‐income housing programs—the spatial isolation of poor minorities. Until the LIHTC program explicitly addresses this issue, however, any praise must be tempered by a great deal of caution.     

PRIVATIZATION OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES

Florida is a state in flux in terms of its child protective services organization. The Department of Children and Families has suffered numerous failures in protecting children in its care. Publicity surrounding these defects have led to major overhauls in the agency itself, as well as a concerted effort to move forward toward privatization of virtually all services currently administered by the department. Many of the initial attempts at privatization have already failed; others have had to be revamped to allow for unforseen problems. It is appallingly true that Florida, like any other state with serious issues in child protective services, has an absolute obligation to search for the "miracle cure" for its ailments. But only serious attention to the mistakes of the past and the will to correct them will allow Florida to finally put its children first in its citizens' hearts and minds, where they belong.     

Court of Appeal hears 'huge money' divorce case involving offshore trusts

On 7 March, Mr and Mrs John Charman's ‘huge money’divorce reached the Court of Appeal. Last year insurance magnateJohn Charman was ordered by the High Court to pay his formerwife £48 million in what is thought to be the biggestdivorce award in legal history. (See Trusts & Trustees,Volume 12, Issue 9, November 2006, High-value divorces and trusts,p 22, by James Freeman of Speechly Bircham LLP). James Freeman, family law solicitor at City law firm SpeechlyBircham LLP (tel. 020 7427 6584), commented on the case:

TheCourt of Appeal will rule on how parties with unusually highwealth, including offshore trust assets, should be treated ondivorce.