Also because it's, you know, mortgage fraud.
Incorrect. The issue at hand is anti-rental not fraud.
They are (ab)using their power of issuing Rental COs as a means of using the financing of the home as a way to block rentals despite that this is a matter not actually related to rentals.
Howell does not like how many homes are being rented to umm.... people who are "undocumented". They dislike this more than Jews moving in. Many young families are buying and then are renting out the property for 1-5 years before moving in, mainly for financial reasons but sometimes they are waiting for the area to get built up (yeah, it takes time for it to get built up if everyone does this).
They invented this new rule which is completely unrelated to rental laws as a means to prevent people from buying with this intention. It may not hold for the following reason. Say one purchases and lives in a home and then moves and rents out the property, there is no issue with the fact that the loan is a regular residential primary residence loan and not an investor loan. As long as that was the intent at the time of purchase. So they will have to clarify they that won't require investment loans in such a case. Ok, and for instance if one purchases and has every intention of moving in until after they close and after 3 months of planning their decorator advises them not to do the dream extension and instead wait. So they change their mind and would like to rent it out. Now what? Do they have to go back to the bank for permission to rent out the property? Perhaps. Is it the Townships business? Probably not.
This is a grey area. The difference monthly between a primary residence loan and an investment loan averages about .5% percent higher. Not mortgage fraud millions!