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

In article ,
says...

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.

Good move!

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 8/14/2013 4:16 PM, Califbill wrote:
amdx wrote:
On 8/12/2013 8:32 PM, Wayne.B 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



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

====

Predatory lending practice:

Lending money to people who want it and then expecting to be repaid.

And if they didn't lend, they would be accused of red lining the area!

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.

Yes and there are many mortgage holders that are getting relief
because they are upsidedown on the equity. Either the taxpayers
or the bank pays to get them right side up. But if you took care of
yourself, saved your money and paid off your home, YOU'RE SCREWED!

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.

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.

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 1947520100398275307.987948bmckeenospam-
, says...

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.

I can show you a house that is by no means anything special in Pleasant
Hill that the owner has been approached by buyers willing to shell out
$400k for that is in a mediocre neighborhood, is 35 years old, and as is
every house in the area, has a yard the size of a postage stamp. Here it
would be worth little more than $100k. Showed people from there houses
for sale here, and they were amazed.

iBoaterer wrote:
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.

If it still a million, then it is a nice house, and in a good area. My
daughter lives in santa Monica and there a million gets you a tear down on
a small lot.

In article 223278402398286801.658717bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
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.

If it still a million, then it is a nice house, and in a good area. My
daughter lives in santa Monica and there a million gets you a tear down on
a small lot.

It's a decent house and the area is okay, of course the lot is as tiny
as all lots there.