Business

Minority Banks Shut Out of Federal Tax-Credit Program

Published

11 years ago

July 14, 2015

Oakland Post

Industrial Bank’s Georgia Avenue branch in Northwest D.C. (Courtesy photo)

Special to the NNPA from The Washington Informer

Minority-owned banks are crying foul about the federal government snubbing them for tax credits they say could generate economic development in the nation’s most needy communities.

The Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, an arm of the Treasury Department, issued in June $3.5 billion in New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) allocation to 76 entities across the country to spur economic development.

However, none were awarded to the nation’s minority banks, despite those institutions claiming the longest track records of deploying capital in the nation’s most underserved areas.

“The NMTC program has great potential to be part of a comprehensive economic solution in America’s inner cities, most of which still have not recovered from the Great Recession,” said Preston Pinkett, CEO of City National Bank and chairman of the bankers association. “But the groups best equipped to make those investments, minority banks — many of which have been in service for over 100 years — have largely been shut out of the NMTC program. We need our CDFI Fund to do more; we need a real change that will allow us to receive allocations so we can use these resources to improve our communities.”

The federal tax-credit program provides a tax credit to investors who invest in projects or small businesses in those communities by funneling their investments through the recipients of tax credit allocation.

According to the CDFI Fund’s Award Book, only six awards — less than 8 percent — went to minority-controlled entities of any kind, and those groups received only $165 million, under 5 percent of the total dollar amount of allocation.

“The absence of a single minority bank raises much concern,” said Michael Grant, president of the National Bankers Association. “In 2009, the General Accounting Office issued a report detailing the disparity in NMTC awards to minority entities. The numbers have actually gotten worse, not better.”

A 2009 study by the Government Accountability Office indicated that only about 9 percent of minority entities were successful when applying for NMTCs, while non-minority entities had three times the success rate, winning 27 percent of the time. According to GAO, although the program is highly competitive, minority entities have less than a one in three chance of any other type of entity to receive an award.1 Minority banks have had even lower success rates than minority entities overall.

“By our estimates, less than 2 percent of the $450 billion in NMTCs issued over the past 12 years has gone to minority banks,” said Doyle Mitchell, CEO of Industrial Bank of Washington, D.C. and former chairman of the bankers association. “Some of our banks have been deploying capital in the poorest neighborhoods in America for over 100 years, and we think the CDFI Fund should review the program to ensure that applications by minority and other small CDFI banks are evaluated on criteria that reflects their position as regulated institutions operating in distressed areas, which is significantly different from non-regulated or larger institution applicants.”

Alden McDonald, CEO of Liberty Bank in New Orleans, said the imbalance would be even more pronounced had it not been for funds his bank received after Hurricane Katrina.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Rushing the Corner Office: This MBA Program Is for NFL Stars

Don't Miss

Why Media Shouldn’t Buy Big Coal’s ‘Energy Poverty’ Argument

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of July 22 – 28, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of July 22 – 28, 2026

Published

13 hours ago

July 27, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Business

Starting This Summer, California Car Buyers Can Get an Instant $3500 Off the Cost of Electric Vehicles

OAKLAND POST — Beginning later this summer, eligible Californians can receive a $3,500 rebate on new zero-emission vehicles with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of up to $50,000. Buyers purchasing qualifying used electric vehicles priced at up to $25,000 can receive a $1,750 rebate. The rebate will be applied directly at participating dealerships, allowing buyers to receive the discount immediately instead of waiting for reimbursement.

Published

1 day ago

July 26, 2026

bpusa-syndication

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

California residents purchasing their first zero-emission vehicle will soon be eligible for an instant rebate of up to $3,500 under a new state program aimed at making electric vehicles more affordable.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 168 on July 16, creating the MyFirstEV program as part of California’s 2026-27 state budget. The initiative dedicates $135.5 million in state funding for point-of-sale rebates, which participating automakers will match dollar for dollar. State officials said the combined investment will provide $270 million in savings for first-time electric vehicle buyers.

Beginning later this summer, eligible Californians can receive a $3,500 rebate on new zero-emission vehicles with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of up to $50,000. Buyers purchasing qualifying used electric vehicles priced at up to $25,000 can receive a $1,750 rebate. The rebate will be applied directly at participating dealerships, allowing buyers to receive the discount immediately instead of waiting for reimbursement.

“With our new instant rebate program for electric vehicles, we’re making it easier for families to drive clean, breathe clean, and keep more money in their pockets,” Newsom said in a statement.

The MyFirstEV program is part of a broader $600 million investment in California’s clean transportation economy included in the state budget. The funding package also provides $150 million for the Community Air Protection Program, $19.8 million for the Clean Cars 4 All program for lower-income residents, $35 million for clean off-road equipment through the Air Quality Improvement Program, $135.5 million for the Clean Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project, and $130 million for the Carl Moyer Program to replace older heavy-duty engines with cleaner alternatives.

According to the governor’s office, the transportation investments are funded through Cap-and-Invest revenue and smog-abatement fees while maintaining a balanced state budget.

California continues to expand its zero-emission transportation network. The state surpassed 2.5 million cumulative zero-emission vehicle sales earlier this year, exceeding its original goal of 1.5 million sales by 2025. Officials also reported that California has more than 200,000 public and shared electric vehicle charging plugs statewide, in addition to an estimated 800,000 home charging stations.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

Business

Surveillance Pricing Fight: State Senate Debates Bill Banning Retailers from Using AI to Set Prices Based on a Buyer’s Profile

OAKLAND POST — Currently, there is no precise public data quantifying how many Black residents in California are actively affected by surveillance pricing. However, because the practice leans heavily on ZIP codes and localized demographic tracking, algorithmic pricing models frequently result in higher costs for Black and non-white communities compared to others, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital space

Published

1 day ago

July 26, 2026

bpusa-syndication

By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media

Surveillance pricing—the algorithmic practice of using personal data to determine individualized costs for goods and services—is widespread in California, according to Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego). He warns that this system is actively impacting consumers across the state, and Black Californians could be specifically targeted.

Ward’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2564, the Surveillance Pricing Act, aims to prohibit businesses from using this practice.

“Surveillance pricing is a growing phenomenon that a lot of people don’t realize is already happening,” Ward told California Black Media (CBM) at the State Capitol on June 29.

On June 22, the bill passed out of the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee with a 5-2 vote and was re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary for consideration. On May 27, the Assembly voted to advance AB 2564 with a 42-21 vote.

Currently, there is no precise public data quantifying how many Black residents in California are actively affected by surveillance pricing. However, because the practice leans heavily on ZIP codes and localized demographic tracking, algorithmic pricing models frequently result in higher costs for Black and non-white communities compared to others, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital space.

Justin Brookman, a public-interest lawyer, supports AB 2564. His organization is an official sponsor of the bill. He advocates on behalf of Consumer Reports.

“We found that people shopping for the exact same item at the exact same time, and the exact same store, were getting different prices. In some cases, up to 23% higher,” Brookman said. “So, one person looking at a jar of Skippy peanut butter, it was $2.99. Another person, same exact time, it was $3.69.”

AB 2564 is primarily opposed by a coalition of corporations and technology industry associations. They argue that the bill’s language is overly broad, outlaws common consumer-friendly discounts, and creates costly litigation risks for small businesses.

Chamber of Progress – a tech industry association that lobbies for public policies that expand digital commerce and technological advances – says that banning data-driven personalization would wipe away targeted digital coupons that families count on to prolong their budgets.

In a March 18 written letter to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, Robert Singleton, senior director of Policy and Public Affairs for California and the U.S. West at the Chamber of Progress, urged the body to oppose AB 2564.

“We share the legislature’s concern about affordability,” Singleton wrote. “The cost of living is the top issue facing American families, and we understand the impulse to ensure consumers are getting a fair deal. But this bill risks backfiring on the families it aims to help.

Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City) supported and voted for the bill in the Assembly on May 27, but she still has questions about a “litigation risk” that could be costly.

“Every business or retailer that is spending their time battling courts is spending resources, which drives the cost up for everyone,” said Wilson, a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC).