The Federal District Court in Oakland has ruled that the FHFA must conduct a rulemaking procedure re: PACE, finding in favor of Sonoma County’s motion (supported by the State of California). The existing July 6th FHFA statement does, however, remain in effect. The Court rejected the FHFA’s claim that it had acted on July 6th in its conservator role… as the conservator of Fannie and Freddie, the FHFA’s action are not subject to court challenges, so that’s good news. We’ll have more information on how you can formally comment on the FHFA “rule”… presumably the July 6, 2010 statement. Under it’s rulemaking procedures, the FHFA is required to address comments and explain and justify its rules… details can be found here. And the text of the Court’s ruling is here…PACE Ruling….
Sonoma County Commercial PACE Experience WEBINAR on February 15th at 3pm est – noon on the west coast…. Sponsored by PACENow and the Sonoma...

[...] a “valid public purpose.” In turn, the State of California sued the FHFA and more recently, the Federal District Court in Oakland ruled that the FHFA may not unilaterally issue directives, but instead must go through the proper [...]