On 8/15/2013 4:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


wrote in message
...


I could have sold my house for $750k but I was never confused that it
was really worth that much.

----------------------------

We bought a house in Florida in November, 2001 for $465K.
Sold it in November, 2005 for $1M minus $10K as an adjustment for some
minor roof damage from Hurricane Wilma.

A few months later the housing bubble burst.



Congrats, I'll bet that 10k was like a tiny pimple.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:16:39 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

I've lost about $140,000 in my home value, no one seems to be running my
way to compensate me for my loss.

Hell. my house is down about $300,000 from it's top market value.

Is that the real value or just what some fool might have paid in the
middle of the bubble?

I could have sold my house for $750k but I was never confused that it
was really worth that much.

Real estate out in the Bay area is an extreme. You don't get much out
there for $500k

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:16:39 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

I've lost about $140,000 in my home value, no one seems to be running my
way to compensate me for my loss.

Hell. my house is down about $300,000 from it's top market value.

Is that the real value or just what some fool might have paid in the
middle of the bubble?

I could have sold my house for $750k but I was never confused that it
was really worth that much.

Real estate out in the Bay area is an extreme. You don't get much out
there for $500k

Actually there is a lot here for less than $500k that are in nice areas.
My area has houses for $600k, and we are one of the more upscale areas in
the Bay Area.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:16:39 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

I've lost about $140,000 in my home value, no one seems to be running my
way to compensate me for my loss.

Hell. my house is down about $300,000 from it's top market value.

Is that the real value or just what some fool might have paid in the
middle of the bubble?

I could have sold my house for $750k but I was never confused that it
was really worth that much.

Real estate out in the Bay area is an extreme. You don't get much out
there for $500k

I understand that. Around here things were nuts for a few years with
ridiculous prices but the 1300 sq/ft house that sold for $455k at the
height, just went for $370k so it is recovering. I think the buyers
are nuts but that is another issue.

A relative has a house in Walnut Creek that at rock bottom was still
very close to a million $$, and wasn't that great. I mean, nice house
and all, but I was shocked at what a million doesn't buy you out there.
I didn't care for living there, too crowded. But that's just me.

On 8/15/2013 3:29 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:16:39 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

I've lost about $140,000 in my home value, no one seems to be running my
way to compensate me for my loss.

Hell. my house is down about $300,000 from it's top market value.

Is that the real value or just what some fool might have paid in the
middle of the bubble?

I could have sold my house for $750k but I was never confused that it
was really worth that much.


It was worth that much, because that is what someone would have paid.
If you sold and rebought last year, it would be real money in the bank.

F.O.A.D. wrote:

City Uses Eminent Domain to Rescue
Homeowners from Predatory Lenders, and
Wall Street Freaks Out



The little city of Richmond, California has taken steps to do what
other cities have so far only dreamed of: take on the mortgage
industry to protect its residents. Other municipalities have
considered using the same option as Richmond, but have backed off in
the face of threats and bullying by the corporations and trusts that
hold their citizens’ mortgages.

In an innovative step, Richmond is using eminent domain–a weapon
that’s usually wielded to build sports stadiums and highways in
low-income neighborhoods–to buy underwater mortgages and refinance
them to keep residents in their homes. Richmond is the kind of
community–low-income, with a large minority demographic–that is
typically targeted for predatory lending practices. Many residents
have ended up with mortgages that are three or four times the current
worth of their homes.

Last month, the city sent letters to lenders and mortgage servicers
offering to buy 626 underwater mortgages at the current fair market
value. If the companies refuse, the city will use eminent domain to
seize the mortgages. Refinancing will then be offered to homeowners
via a contract the city has with Mortgage Resolution Partners, a
private investment firm in San Francisco. After refinancing for a
price that’s close to market value, residents will suddenly have a
small amount of equity in their homes rather than being tens of
thousands of dollars underwater–plus, the city can stop a persistent
hollowing out of its population.

On Wednesday, mortgage-bond trustees from Wall Street companies filed
a lawsuit in federal court against the city of Richmond to try and
halt the process. In a laughable statement, a lawyer for some of the
mortgage investors, John Ertman, wrote in an email:

Mortgage Resolution Partners (MRP) is threatening to seriously
harm average Americans, including public pension members, other
retirees and individual savers through a brazen scheme to abuse
government powers for its own profit.

Apparently, ‘brazen schemes to abuse government powers for profit’ are
the sole province of Wall Street–in Ertman’s not-so-humble opinion.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)–a federal regulatory
agency–immediately chimed in on the side of Wall Street, saying it
might insist that Fannie Mae (FNMA), Freddie Mac and the Federal Home
Loan Banks “limit, restrict or cease business activities within the
jurisdiction of any state or local authority employing eminent domain
to restructure mortgage loan contracts.”

The threat that mortgage companies would either forbid the financing
of homes or raise the interest rate to prohibitive levels in
communities that use eminent domain has so far caused other localities
to back off of similar plans. However, Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin
will not be dissuaded from this path. After the companies’ lawsuit was
filed, she said:

“We feel strongly that we’re on legal ground. We’re not afraid of
going into the courtroom. We believe our legal reasoning will prevail.”

While the Wall Street corporations are trying to argue that this use
of eminent domain is not for the good of the whole community, but
rather the gain of specific individuals, the benefits to the community
are clear. Among other things, stopping foreclosures would allow
property values to rise and would stop a drain of the tax base.

John Vlahoplus, an officer for MRP, addressed the threat presented by
the FHFA, saying:

“The FHFA was created to be independent of the mortgage industry
that it regulates. But instead it has been in bed with the mortgage
industry for over a year to oppose this solution to the mortgage crisis.”

Some local governments continue to evaluate the use of eminent domain
as an option, such as North Las Vegas, Nevada, and El Monte,
California. But as Amy Schur, of the national movement Home Defenders
League said:

“Our local electeds can’t do this alone, they need the backup
support from their constituents. That’s what’s been the game changer
in this effort.”

If it only took one David to fell the original Goliath, surely
millions of constituents can fell the opposition of the current
Goliath–otherwise known as Wall Street.

http://tinyurl.com/n689sxu
Kindly STFU until you pay *us* the money you owe *us* due to your
inability to pay your taxes.

wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:22:05 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

City Uses Eminent Domain to Rescue
Homeowners from Predatory Lenders, and
Wall Street Freaks Out
I think this is an old story.
(last year? 2011?)
The bank might be willing to take the "market price" the county is
willing to pay when you see what the counties end up paying for
properties to build a stadium.
Who eats the back taxes and other liens? Who will be willing to hold
the paper on the new mortgage?

I agree it is an interesting concept but from what I see a lot of
these loans were un collectible anyway (bad records and no paper trail
on who exactly owns the loan) so it might be a win win for everyone.

The house next to me is starting to look like one of those. The
mortgage holder of record is not the guy who thinks he owns the
paper., They are still trying to sort that one out. My neighbor
screwed up moving out. She could have saved 2 years rent.
The strange thing is that since she still has stuff in the house and
she is still coming and going, the house is labeled as "occupied".
There is a chance she could move back in ... if she does it before it
goes over on a tax lien (next spring). I will bid on that one.

Harry has no interest in back taxes when they are his own.