If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   After years of eminent domain abuse to help corporations, some struggling communities are willing to use it to help the little guy   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 54
    More: Cool, San Bernardino, venture funding, rural-urban fringe, public-benefit corporation, Zillow, Financial Markets Association, development director, courthouse  
•       •       •

4185 clicks; posted to Business » on 02 Sep 2012 at 1:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-01 11:52:44 PM
The group from the East Coast, representatives of the mortgage finance industry, don't like this idea much at all.

I'll just bet they don't.
 
2012-09-02 12:54:53 AM
I don't see how they can make this idea work with standard mortgages without breaking the whole idea of a mortgage. BUT, I think this would work beautifully with abandoned houses, that the banks have foreclosed upon and allowed to fall into disrepair, and would also better under the purview of imminent domain. AND would provide a kick in the pants for the banks to stop foreclosing more properties than they can adequately keep maintained.

But the stated goal of just taking houses from the banks and saying 'here, have a house' to the mortgagee .... yeah, that's not going to work. It's one of those "sounds like a good idea, but isn't" sort of deals.
 
2012-09-02 01:05:46 AM

Sim Tree:
But the stated goal of just taking houses from the banks and saying 'here, have a house' to the mortgagee .... yeah, that's not going to work. It's one of those "sounds like a good idea, but isn't" sort of deals.


right now, houses are just rotting away to nothing. Banks ripped up mortgages, bundled them up into various 'financial instruments', and scattered them to the winds. nobody knows who owns what, the courts are taking forever to sort out the mess and NOBODY in D.C. wants to touch this issue with a 10 foot pole. I grant you - seizing these properties is not the ideal solution...but its an effective one. you take a rotting property that nobody can otherwise legally do anything with and you put someone into it who can pay property taxes and/or otherwise contribute to the economy and community and that gets you back on track.

the only people who lose in this situation are the people who caused it in the first place.
 
2012-09-02 01:15:26 AM

Weaver95: Sim Tree:
But the stated goal of just taking houses from the banks and saying 'here, have a house' to the mortgagee .... yeah, that's not going to work. It's one of those "sounds like a good idea, but isn't" sort of deals.

right now, houses are just rotting away to nothing. Banks ripped up mortgages, bundled them up into various 'financial instruments', and scattered them to the winds. nobody knows who owns what, the courts are taking forever to sort out the mess and NOBODY in D.C. wants to touch this issue with a 10 foot pole. I grant you - seizing these properties is not the ideal solution...but its an effective one. you take a rotting property that nobody can otherwise legally do anything with and you put someone into it who can pay property taxes and/or otherwise contribute to the economy and community and that gets you back on track.

the only people who lose in this situation are the people who caused it in the first place.


Hell those people already made their millions anyway so at worst they get what? a smaller bonus?

It's one of those things where if it helps the f'n economy get stabilized and to start growing again then sure. Why not? At this point it doesn't matter who caused anything or who made bad choices. If it is better for the us as a whole then just do it.
 
2012-09-02 01:54:37 AM
Lucky for these folks, the Supreme Court already ruled that local governments could seize just about anything for "public purpose," so there is no longer a requirement that seized property be used for public buildings or infrastructure.

Banks and commercial property developers wanted the Supreme Court to rule this way (which was received by many as a bad ruling), since they would be able to pressure governments to seize land and give it to developers, but now that it is being used against them, they get all upset. I don't feel bad for them.
 
2012-09-02 01:55:35 AM
Mortgages might soar 10% you say?! Well then the government should step in and offer loans at say 5.5% and the bankers can enjoy their steaming hot mug of NOTHING. If they complain, then we can conscript them, kick them out of an airplane over Iran with a random siezed weapon from a police armory, a box of random ammunition and a pack of Lucky Strikes so that they might go forth and freedom. (Parachute available for nominal additional service charge)
 
2012-09-02 02:01:43 AM

1000 Ways to Dye: Lucky for these folks, the Supreme Court already ruled that local governments could seize just about anything for "public purpose," so there is no longer a requirement that seized property be used for public buildings or infrastructure.

Banks and commercial property developers wanted the Supreme Court to rule this way (which was received by many as a bad ruling), since they would be able to pressure governments to seize land and give it to developers, but now that it is being used against them, they get all upset. I don't feel bad for them.


it will be very interesting indeed to see corporations try and stuff their genie back in the bottle.
 
2012-09-02 02:16:58 AM
The only problem they'll have is jurisdiction. They're seizing the mortgage, not the house. Where exactly do you file that? Particularly if you don't know who owns the goddamned mortgage? Servicers claim they don't own the mortgage, they just service it for the "investor".
 
2012-09-02 02:20:37 AM
Also, is it just me or does this seem like a reverse Robocop 3
 
2012-09-02 02:40:46 AM

Weaver95: Sim Tree:
But the stated goal of just taking houses from the banks and saying 'here, have a house' to the mortgagee .... yeah, that's not going to work. It's one of those "sounds like a good idea, but isn't" sort of deals.

right now, houses are just rotting away to nothing. Banks ripped up mortgages, bundled them up into various 'financial instruments', and scattered them to the winds. nobody knows who owns what, the courts are taking forever to sort out the mess and NOBODY in D.C. wants to touch this issue with a 10 foot pole. I grant you - seizing these properties is not the ideal solution...but its an effective one. you take a rotting property that nobody can otherwise legally do anything with and you put someone into it who can pay property taxes and/or otherwise contribute to the economy and community and that gets you back on track.

the only people who lose in this situation are the people who caused it in the first place.


If TFA is correct and there are a large number of people out there that are tired of President Obama not offering a systematic plan to deal with underwater homeowners (And before everyone starts hatin' on house flippers, they've apparently already got their comeuppance and are basically out of this system now), that could be a major outreach point for his administration. Plus, lots of local governments are sick of being forced to stand by powerlessly while this systematic pox festers (which is why the scheme in TFA exists to begin with) so he'd gain a swell of local support there as well. Sounds like a win to me!

Because the people are right - the banks come begging and get their goddamn trillion dollar bailout in a single day, while the people who were screwed by the banks are told to go pound sand for 4 years and counting? I dare say something stinks here.
 
2012-09-02 02:43:31 AM

1000 Ways to Dye: Banks and commercial property developers wanted the Supreme Court to rule this way (which was received by many as a bad ruling), since they would be able to pressure governments to seize land and give it to developers, but now that it is being used against them, they get all upset. I don't feel bad for them.


I kept asking Clarence why our world seemed to be collapsing and things seemed to be getting so shiatty. And he'd say, "that's the way it goes, but don't forget, it goes the other way too."
---Alabama Whorley
 
2012-09-02 02:45:22 AM

Tickle Mittens: Mortgages might soar 10% you say?! Well then the government should step in and offer loans at say 5.5% and the bankers can enjoy their steaming hot mug of NOTHING. If they complain, then we can conscript them, kick them out of an airplane over Iran with a random siezed weapon from a police armory, a box of random ammunition and a pack of Lucky Strikes so that they might go forth and freedom. (Parachute available for nominal additional service charge)


Hell, it's an opportunity for banks that didn't cause this crisis (or take a bail out) to step in with more affordable rates. Why do they hate the invisible hand of the free market?
 
2012-09-02 02:48:34 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Sim Tree: I don't see how they can make this idea work with standard mortgages without breaking the whole idea of a mortgage. BUT, I think this would work beautifully with abandoned houses, that the banks have foreclosed upon and allowed to fall into disrepair, and would also better under the purview of imminent domain. AND would provide a kick in the pants for the banks to stop foreclosing more properties than they can adequately keep maintained.

But the stated goal of just taking houses from the banks and saying 'here, have a house' to the mortgagee .... yeah, that's not going to work. It's one of those "sounds like a good idea, but isn't" sort of deals.


Plenty of legal precedence. At first, I thought it was a beautiful way for Kelo v. City of New London to backfire, then discovered Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff.
 
2012-09-02 03:13:31 AM

erik-k:
If TFA is correct and there are a large number of people out there that are tired of President Obama not offering a systematic plan to deal with underwater homeowners...

I wonder if these are the same people who feel they are taxed enough already, did build that bootstrappiness, and oppose the Kenyan's socialism?

Or different? People that actually DO believe it's the government's job to intervene for the common good when private industry screws the pooch...
 
2012-09-02 03:20:11 AM

wildsnowllama: Tickle Mittens: Mortgages might soar 10% you say?! Well then the government should step in and offer loans at say 5.5% and the bankers can enjoy their steaming hot mug of NOTHING. If they complain, then we can conscript them, kick them out of an airplane over Iran with a random siezed weapon from a police armory, a box of random ammunition and a pack of Lucky Strikes so that they might go forth and freedom. (Parachute available for nominal additional service charge)

Hell, it's an opportunity for banks that didn't cause this crisis (or take a bail out) to step in with more affordable rates. Why do they hate the invisible hand of the free market?


Who the hell would step in to that market with rates that didn't reflect the inherent risk of some bureaucrat or politician arbitrarily modifying the terms of the mortgage and reducing its principal?
 
2012-09-02 03:28:50 AM

erik-k: (And before everyone starts hatin' on house flippers, they've apparently already got their comeuppance and are basically out of this system now


Flippers might be out, but the non-flippers aren't. Any decent house out west has a good cash offer on the table from investors(occasionally foreign ones). They fix it out, rent it out, and they're willing to hold on for many years until housing recovers.
 
2012-09-02 03:55:23 AM
There has to be an average time before vacancy and vandalism takes place, depending on neighborhood.

/put HOA riders on all desolate rehabitable housing
//csb, refuse to live in HOA communities, end csb
///get off my lawn, i will not paint the brown spots green.
////penalties have interesting tax, liability, and wtf implications.
 
2012-09-02 04:52:22 AM

svenge: wildsnowllama: Tickle Mittens: Mortgages might soar 10% you say?! Well then the government should step in and offer loans at say 5.5% and the bankers can enjoy their steaming hot mug of NOTHING. If they complain, then we can conscript them, kick them out of an airplane over Iran with a random siezed weapon from a police armory, a box of random ammunition and a pack of Lucky Strikes so that they might go forth and freedom. (Parachute available for nominal additional service charge)

Hell, it's an opportunity for banks that didn't cause this crisis (or take a bail out) to step in with more affordable rates. Why do they hate the invisible hand of the free market?

Who the hell would step in to that market with rates that didn't reflect the inherent risk of some bureaucrat or politician arbitrarily modifying the terms of the mortgage and reducing its principal?


...
PNC?
 
2012-09-02 05:14:03 AM
I hate the idea that propping up the prices of homes is going to solve the crisis.

I like this idea, or the idea of severe taxes on bank-owned/foreclosed properties that remain vacant. If these homes remain vacant long enough, seize the property and sell to people who want a place to LIVE, not a place to f*cking FLIP.
 
2012-09-02 05:45:12 AM
I don't expect these plans to go anywhere. Still though if it does this just screws over and rubs it in the face of the people who were responsible and were choosing to wait until they could afford/home prices dropped. If you let enough morons fail then home prices will drop far closer to what they should be. I would much rather things work out for the responsible little guy that the irresponsible little guy.

Bank: I am offering you a mortgage you won't be able to afford when the full terms and conditions kick in at a specified time. I can also give you a mortgage based on your personally stated earnings, not that anybody with a central nervous system would believe your claims. I will take no responsibility to loaning money to people who clearly are exceeding their means by leaps and bounds. If the situation grows too intense I will expect the government to bail me out.
Buyer: Yes, I will take the mortgage you are offering though I clearly know I cannot afford it at this time though potentially if the wind blows just right I may be able to afford it if farts become currency. I also plan to call you the bank the standard list words of outrage and accept no responsibility when the inevitable happens. I also expect the government to step in to fix my problems with no consequences.
 
2012-09-02 06:03:53 AM
Forget it Jake, it's San Bernadino.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-02 06:45:43 AM

bhcompy: The only problem they'll have is jurisdiction. They're seizing the mortgage, not the house. Where exactly do you file that? Particularly if you don't know who owns the goddamned mortgage? Servicers claim they don't own the mortgage, they just service it for the "investor".


No, I think it's the property they are seizing. Usually they just have to post a notice for a certain amount of time and make a reasonable effort to notify the mortgage holder.
 
2012-09-02 07:15:47 AM

ScreamingHangover: Plenty of legal precedence. At first, I thought it was a beautiful way for Kelo v. City of New London to backfire, then discovered Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff.


"However, the aftermath of the Midkiff decision failed to achieve the stated purpose of the redistribution legislation which was incapable of creating new housing because it only transferred title from the land lessor to the lessee-homeowners who already occupied existing homes on the subject property. As soon as the former lessees acquired fee simple titles to their homes, those became attractive to Japanese investors and speculators who paid outlandish prices for those homes (largely located in the upscale Kahala and Hawaii Kai neighborhoods), causing a ripple effect throughout the island. Home prices on Oahu, far from falling as intended by the legislature, surged upward and more than doubled within six years.[1]"

This time, it will work!
 
2012-09-02 08:41:27 AM

This is an idea being peddled thruout California by a firm, Mortgage Resolution Partners, that (surprise) expects to make money on the privately-funded deal, and the cities are interested because they (surprise) would make money too. The plan is to seize performing (i.e. the owner is up to date on the payments) loans, not the 2-years-in-arrears loan on that unoccupied decaying pile of crap with the weeds. They'd take over loans they deemed 'underwater', cut the loan principle to the current property value, pay off the existing investors with that reduced sum, then sell the reduced loans to new investors.

Here's one description of how the process would work:

For a home with an existing $300,000 mortgage that now has a market value of $150,000, Mortgage Resolution Partners might argue the loan is worth only $120,000. If a judge agreed, the program's private financiers would fund the city's seizure of the loan, paying the current loan investors that reduced amount. Then, they could offer to help the homeowner refinance into a new $145,000 30-year mortgage backed by the Federal Housing Administration, which has a program allowing borrowers to have as little as 2.25% in equity. That would leave $25,000 in profit, minus the origination costs, to be divided between the city, Mortgage Resolution Partners and its investors.
 
Thing is, the owner is current on his payments, so they'd be seizing some investor's (probably not some eeeevil bank or finance company, because they sold off those loans right after they originated them, but perhaps your 401(k) or state employee pension fund) asset and screwing them out of their principle based on their diktat of what it's "really" worth. Maybe the owner fully intends to keep making the payments because he likes the house or has, you know, ethics, but that won't be taken into account.

This whole idea is a litigation magnet, and if they try it, there are going to be epic court battles before the determination of its legality is settled. Legality aside, just on the idea that you can take someone's financial asset at a price you set and sell it to somebody else, it stinks.
 
2012-09-02 11:18:34 AM
I wish that I had gotten a $750,000 mortgage in 2004. Unfortunately, I was raised to only buy things that I had already saved for and could afford.
 
2012-09-02 11:19:19 AM
All this shows is that in civilized society with established property rights even when the government can seize your assetts for no reason, at least it's a huge headache for them.
If the idea of random bureaucrats commandeering resources as they see fit is appealing, I suggest moving to Russia where I'm from so you can enjoy the fruits of redistribution firsthand.
 
2012-09-02 12:13:00 PM
This is a phenomenal way to guarantee lenders will not offer mortgages in your community ever again. I'm glad to see somebody trying to do something about underwater homes, but this is not a good thing.
 
2012-09-02 12:29:43 PM
I just don't see where this can end up well.

I say that, though, as a 'mortgage lender' myself (as well as a mortgage payer on my own house). I inherited my childhood home in a small town. I'm selling it on a 'contract for deed' to some kids who have turned out to be deadbeats (Paying me, taxes, and insurance is under $400 a month. Best deal they'll ever get in their lives and they're farking it up... hardcore deadbeats).

I don't think anyone is going to begrudge me my right to kick them the hell out at this point. Take back my family house and live there if I want to (which I don't).

Why should the contract of a mortgagor bank be any different?

Would it be different if it was a small Credit Union for retired nuns who was making the loan?

Would it be different if it was a small friendly farm-town bank making the loan?

Why is it different, then, if it's Bank of America? Or Deutsche Bank? Size?
 
2012-09-02 01:32:19 PM
Most banks, when confronted with a choice of zero and half.... will take half.

Granted, they don't want to take a loss, but I'd rather see banks take the hit at this point if it means getting rid of the bullshiat on the official record of a home value the banks want, and the reality of the value of a given property.

This is half the reason the housing market is still so crappy in so many places. That obscene valuation just isn't getting corrected. This is a way to make this shiat happen.
 
2012-09-02 01:57:00 PM
In San Bernardino County, more than half of all homeowners are underwater, and the foreclosure rate is three-and-a-half times the national average.

Jeezus. Remember folks: when you see that hockey stick in home prices like we did during the 2000's, might not be a good time to buy.
 
2012-09-02 02:08:46 PM

Cinaed: Most banks, when confronted with a choice of zero and half.... will take half.

Granted, they don't want to take a loss, but I'd rather see banks take the hit at this point.


The problem isn't the ones that aren't paying. The bank is getting 'half' either way (crammed down principal or a selling a foreclosed home in today's market). And they'd rather the current tenant stays (people in foreclosure destroy homes and smear poop on the walls, pretty much every time). They don't want to deal with the deadbeat any more, mind you, and the loan isn't readily sellable anymore (because you've got people with a history of failing to pay their bills), but conceivably some government agency could start taking on these bad obligations directly (as compensation for the bank taking a haircut on the loan).

The bigger problem is the millions of people who are paying. Well over half of mortgage-holders in even the most underwater markets are still paying their mortgage dutifully every month.

Start reducing principal on loans? Every. Single. Last. One. of those currently-paying home loans goes into default in order to get a cramdown on their loan's principal.

'Moral hazard', they call it.
 
2012-09-02 02:15:26 PM

Cinaed: Most banks, when confronted with a choice of zero and half.... will take half.


For the most part, banks don't own these loans. A bank may have originated them, but the loans were packaged and sold off long ago via entities like Fannie and Freddie, and the bank is just 'servicing' them, i.e. taking the payments and distributing them, and handling things like foreclosures. The people who will get stung by this proposal are the poor schmucks who bought those packaged loans, like your city or state's or company's retirement plan, or that couple down the street who rely on the payments for income for example.
 
2012-09-02 02:20:51 PM
I can't see any bank willing to provide a loan to that community anymore.
But it is nice to hear the banks squeal when the shoe is on the other foot.
 
2012-09-02 03:08:55 PM

jjorsett: Cinaed: Most banks, when confronted with a choice of zero and half.... will take half.

For the most part, banks don't own these loans. A bank may have originated them, but the loans were packaged and sold off long ago via entities like Fannie and Freddie, and the bank is just 'servicing' them, i.e. taking the payments and distributing them, and handling things like foreclosures. The people who will get stung by this proposal are the poor schmucks who bought those packaged loans, like your city or state's or company's retirement plan, or that couple down the street who rely on the payments for income for example.


If the investor's bought bonds from Fannie and Freddie, then the bond is guaranteed by the government (actually Fannie and Freddie but same difference now). Those investors would take no losses. That was the whole point of those entities.

The losses would come from those who bought private MBS, CDOs, etc that were generated by Wall Street. Those loans have no guarantee from the government. They might have some sort of CDS built into the product to make it seem less risky. So we would back to kicking AIG (or whomever was the sucker after AIGFP finally stopped being so gullible) in the nuts.
 
2012-09-02 03:21:28 PM

JBangworthy: This is a phenomenal way to guarantee lenders will not offer mortgages in your community ever again. I'm glad to see somebody trying to do something about underwater homes, but this is not a good thing.


I know who will offer loans: Credit Unions. They hold onto loans and actually vet the facts. You know, facts like a member being able to pay. They aren't just looking for a commission.

Amazing that banks failing to perform due diligence get a bailout but buyers are called irresponsible.
 
2012-09-02 04:37:40 PM

bhcompy: Also, is it just me or does this seem like a reverse Robocop 3


I tried that once and threw my back out. My girlfriend was pissed.
 
2012-09-02 06:45:48 PM
Seems like a pretty slippery slope. They're seizing a mortgage, ie. a financial asset, not the property itself. If they succeed in doing this, what's to stop them from exercising eminent domain on other financial assets?

What's to stop a officials in a financially-strapped city from using eminent domain to seize a portion of the 401ks belonging to every resident?
 
2012-09-02 08:06:53 PM

Weaver95: The group from the East Coast, representatives of the mortgage finance industry, don't like this idea much at all.

I'll just bet they don't.


farking them over so they can help people who bought homes they couldnt afford? I would be pissed too and if I were a resident I would be pissed, all it does is further drive down my home value and rewards people who got in over their heads.
 
2012-09-02 09:00:39 PM

arcas: Seems like a pretty slippery slope. They're seizing a mortgage, ie. a financial asset, not the property itself. If they succeed in doing this, what's to stop them from exercising eminent domain on other financial assets?

What's to stop a officials in a financially-strapped city from using eminent domain to seize a portion of the 401ks belonging to every resident?


What's to stop the government from outlawing racketteering or usury? These people perpetuated the institutional abuses that have people underwater to the tune of 1.2 trillion dollars. Not the people underwater, they didn't create or manage the out of control institutions. These people were not responsible stewards; I have no problem with government stepping in and ending their 1.2 trillion dollars of abuse. If they can't hack it, well, we can always just kill them for their trouble. It's a historically popular solution. In that light, they're getting off extremely easy.
 
2012-09-02 09:13:31 PM

arcas: Seems like a pretty slippery slope. They're seizing a mortgage, ie. a financial asset, not the property itself. If they succeed in doing this, what's to stop them from exercising eminent domain on other financial assets?

What's to stop a officials in a financially-strapped city from using eminent domain to seize a portion of the 401ks belonging to every resident?


What if this is a slippery slope? What of this jump starts our economy? Suddenly you'll see businesses popping up left and right. And then what?!
 
2012-09-02 09:43:29 PM

inglixthemad: JBangworthy: This is a phenomenal way to guarantee lenders will not offer mortgages in your community ever again. I'm glad to see somebody trying to do something about underwater homes, but this is not a good thing.

I know who will offer loans: Credit Unions. They hold onto loans and actually vet the facts. You know, facts like a member being able to pay. They aren't just looking for a commission.

Amazing that banks failing to perform due diligence get a bailout but buyers are called irresponsible.


My friend just got a mortgage he can't possibly afford last week from a credit union, so I'm getting a kick.

They loaned him the closing costs at 9.5%.
 
2012-09-02 10:47:06 PM
Ya know what? I'm at the point where I'm willing to say, "FARK THE INVESTORS."

Chopping up and selling mortgages is unethical and doing business in bad faith. Buying parcels of mortgages that have been chopped up as an investment is evil-by-proxy.

One contract, one owner. Sell off the contract? Fine. No adjustment of the contract or change of terms after sale - it's locked in to the original terms forever. FORRRRREEEEVEEEEERRRR!!!

Make your deals and honor them! Want to invest? Invest in the financial institution that originated the goddamn loan.

Sick of this shiat. It's crashed our economy more than once. We should know better.
 
2012-09-02 11:39:06 PM
This is not a power governments should have. Land taken by eminent domain should be strictly for public use, not to give to another private party. It's wrong when they give it to commercial developers, and it's wrong here.
 
2012-09-02 11:39:33 PM

svenge: wildsnowllama: Tickle Mittens: Mortgages might soar 10% you say?! Well then the government should step in and offer loans at say 5.5% and the bankers can enjoy their steaming hot mug of NOTHING. If they complain, then we can conscript them, kick them out of an airplane over Iran with a random siezed weapon from a police armory, a box of random ammunition and a pack of Lucky Strikes so that they might go forth and freedom. (Parachute available for nominal additional service charge)

Hell, it's an opportunity for banks that didn't cause this crisis (or take a bail out) to step in with more affordable rates. Why do they hate the invisible hand of the free market?

Who the hell would step in to that market with rates that didn't reflect the inherent risk of some bureaucrat or politician arbitrarily modifying the terms of the mortgage and reducing its principal?


Arbitrarily?
 
2012-09-02 11:40:57 PM

Here'sJohnny: All this shows is that in civilized society with established property rights even when the government can seize your assetts for no reason, at least it's a huge headache for them.
If the idea of random bureaucrats commandeering resources as they see fit is appealing, I suggest moving to Russia where I'm from so you can enjoy the fruits of redistribution firsthand.


keep spewing your propaganda, comrade. i had a BIL who's family had a large farm under your commie russian rule. almost all of the fruits of their labors were taken from them at the end of every growing season. they had to sell everything they had and risk their lives and freedom to go on a two year long trek that eventually got them to america.

i don't know of anyone willing to risk their freedom or their life to escape to russia from america, but maybe you can be the first, you red commie bastard.
 
2012-09-03 12:07:21 AM
And what happens when that obligation is forgiven. Is this considered a taxable event and the homeowner is subject to pay tax on the amount forgiven?
 
2012-09-03 12:21:55 AM

Sim Tree: I don't see how they can make this idea work with standard mortgages


Take a look at Bain v. MERS from the State et al for a better understanding. Basically, if MERS cannot identify the holder of the deed, it doesn't have the legal authority to assign a bank to handle the foreclosure. One idea being floated is to ask MERS to produce the actual physical document the borrower signed, and at the same time post a notice in the local paper announcing to the world the City's intention to take the property via eminent domain. If anyone produces the physical paperwork, the City calls everything off and is out of the picture. Here's MRP's FAQ page
 
2012-09-03 12:22:54 AM
From the State of et al? I really need to cut it down to one conversation at a time.
 
2012-09-03 12:46:20 AM

YixilTesiphon: ScreamingHangover: Plenty of legal precedence. At first, I thought it was a beautiful way for Kelo v. City of New London to backfire, then discovered Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff.

"However, the aftermath of the Midkiff decision failed to achieve the stated purpose of the redistribution legislation which was incapable of creating new housing because it only transferred title from the land lessor to the lessee-homeowners who already occupied existing homes on the subject property. As soon as the former lessees acquired fee simple titles to their homes, those became attractive to Japanese investors and speculators who paid outlandish prices for those homes (largely located in the upscale Kahala and Hawaii Kai neighborhoods), causing a ripple effect throughout the island. Home prices on Oahu, far from falling as intended by the legislature, surged upward and more than doubled within six years.[1]"

This time, it will work!


I live in Hawaii and am quite aware of the consequences. However, in this case, we're not looking at pieces of prime real estate and the precedent has been set. My point was that it's perfectly legal under imminent domain to seize the property.
 
2012-09-03 12:53:50 AM

ScreamingHangover: YixilTesiphon: ScreamingHangover: Plenty of legal precedence. At first, I thought it was a beautiful way for Kelo v. City of New London to backfire, then discovered Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff.

"However, the aftermath of the Midkiff decision failed to achieve the stated purpose of the redistribution legislation which was incapable of creating new housing because it only transferred title from the land lessor to the lessee-homeowners who already occupied existing homes on the subject property. As soon as the former lessees acquired fee simple titles to their homes, those became attractive to Japanese investors and speculators who paid outlandish prices for those homes (largely located in the upscale Kahala and Hawaii Kai neighborhoods), causing a ripple effect throughout the island. Home prices on Oahu, far from falling as intended by the legislature, surged upward and more than doubled within six years.[1]"

This time, it will work!

I live in Hawaii and am quite aware of the consequences. However, in this case, we're not looking at pieces of prime real estate and the precedent has been set. My point was that it's perfectly legal under imminent domain to seize the property.


Not only is it perfectly legal, but I'd argue it serves a public good. I think there is a public good in stabilizing neighborhoods, stabilizing home prices, and allowing people to participate in the local economy thereby increasing local tax revenues.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report