Delicious
 

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

Delicious
 

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.

Delicious
 

On 8/12/2013 9:32 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.

Krause isn't his usual nutso self. He's getting worse.

Delicious
 

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:46:18 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

On 8/12/2013 9:32 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.

Krause isn't his usual nutso self. He's getting worse.

===

Definitely in the down spiral. The government should take care of him
though - because he's "special".

Delicious
 

On 8/12/13 9:32 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.


That's not what was going on there, bozo.

Delicious
 

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.

Delicious
 

Delicious
 

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.

Delicious
 

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.

Delicious
 

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.

Delicious
 

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

Delicious
 

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!

Delicious
 

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.

Delicious
 

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!

Delicious
 

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.

Delicious
 

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.

Delicious
 

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.

Delicious
 

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.

Delicious
 

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.

Delicious
 

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.

Delicious
 

"amdx" wrote in message ...

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.

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

The whole deal with that house was bizarre.

When we bought the house I really didn't know much about home values
down there. I had just taken our boat down to Jupiter, FL from MA.
My wife flew down a couple of days later to see the marina where the
boat's slip was and see the general area. After a couple of days
living on the boat she found a realtor and arranged for him to show me
some houses in the area. She flew back to MA and I met with the
realtor the next week.

She had programmed the realtor well in terms of what she wanted. Had
to have a bit of land and provisions for having horses.

The realtor picked me up and told me he had 4 or 5 places for me to
look at. We had established a budget of a max of $400K. Whatever
we bought was to be a winter house and we'd be spending summers back
in our primary residence in MA.

The first place he took me to was the place we bought .... at $465K.
It had everything she wanted .... nice house, pool, horse paddocks, a
riding rink and a horse barn. I told the realtor it was perfect ...
we'll take it. He was a little shocked and told me he still had 4
other places to show me. So, we looked at all the other places, then
made a full price offer on the first one.

It turns out, it was being sold by Pratt and Whitney. They had just
transferred one of their executives who had lived there and had bought
the house from him as part of his transfer arrangements. The actual
market value of the house at the time was more like $600K, so we got
a good deal.

We had a great time there for the next three winters. But three
hurricanes and my wife's homesickness convinced us to sell it.

Selling it was even more weird. We had a friend we had met who was a
realtor. I figured we'd put it on the market at around the $600K
figure. She said we should ask more and suggested the $1M figure.
I thought she was nuts, but we weren't in a big hurry to sell, so we
agreed.

The first person who looked at it was a woman who had grown up in the
general area. She was also the mistress to some wealthy businessman
from Maryland. When I met her, she explained that she was "on call"
for him whenever he travelled and often flew all over the world to
meet up with him.

She had told him that she wanted a nice place of her own in Jupiter
and he told her to go find one and he'd buy it for her. (told you
this was weird).

So, he made a full price offer of a million for the place without ever
seeing it. Wilma hit between the offer and the closing, so the
realtor is the one who "suggested" a $10K reduction due to the minor
roof damage.

The guy flew down for the closing. He had a certified check for the
full sell price. He also brought his check book because he told me
he wasn't sure if there was anything else involved in the transaction.
He ended up buying a Kubota tractor we had and most of the furniture
that was in the house.

Everything was put in the girl's name.

I heard later that she broke off her relationship with the guy a few
months after the sale.

Delicious
 

On 8/15/13 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"amdx" wrote in message ...

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.

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

The whole deal with that house was bizarre.

When we bought the house I really didn't know much about home values
down there. I had just taken our boat down to Jupiter, FL from MA. My
wife flew down a couple of days later to see the marina where the
boat's slip was and see the general area. After a couple of days living
on the boat she found a realtor and arranged for him to show me some
houses in the area. She flew back to MA and I met with the realtor the
next week.

She had programmed the realtor well in terms of what she wanted. Had to
have a bit of land and provisions for having horses.

The realtor picked me up and told me he had 4 or 5 places for me to look
at. We had established a budget of a max of $400K. Whatever we
bought was to be a winter house and we'd be spending summers back in our
primary residence in MA.

The first place he took me to was the place we bought .... at $465K. It
had everything she wanted .... nice house, pool, horse paddocks, a
riding rink and a horse barn. I told the realtor it was perfect ...
we'll take it. He was a little shocked and told me he still had 4
other places to show me. So, we looked at all the other places, then
made a full price offer on the first one.

It turns out, it was being sold by Pratt and Whitney. They had just
transferred one of their executives who had lived there and had bought
the house from him as part of his transfer arrangements. The actual
market value of the house at the time was more like $600K, so we got a
good deal.

We had a great time there for the next three winters. But three
hurricanes and my wife's homesickness convinced us to sell it.

Selling it was even more weird. We had a friend we had met who was a
realtor. I figured we'd put it on the market at around the $600K
figure. She said we should ask more and suggested the $1M figure. I
thought she was nuts, but we weren't in a big hurry to sell, so we agreed.

The first person who looked at it was a woman who had grown up in the
general area. She was also the mistress to some wealthy businessman
from Maryland. When I met her, she explained that she was "on call"
for him whenever he travelled and often flew all over the world to meet
up with him.

She had told him that she wanted a nice place of her own in Jupiter and
he told her to go find one and he'd buy it for her. (told you this was
weird).

So, he made a full price offer of a million for the place without ever
seeing it. Wilma hit between the offer and the closing, so the realtor
is the one who "suggested" a $10K reduction due to the minor roof damage.

The guy flew down for the closing. He had a certified check for the
full sell price. He also brought his check book because he told me he
wasn't sure if there was anything else involved in the transaction. He
ended up buying a Kubota tractor we had and most of the furniture that
was in the house.

Everything was put in the girl's name.

I heard later that she broke off her relationship with the guy a few
months after the sale.




Who got the Kubota?

Delicious
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 8/15/13 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:





The whole deal with that house was bizarre.


I heard later that she broke off her relationship with the guy a few
months after the sale.




Who got the Kubota?

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

Heh. There was more to this.

A few years later the woman put the place up for sale. I think it was
in 2009 or 2010 after the bubble had burst.. Asking price was under
$500k. She couldn't swing the taxes on the place. She sold the
Kubota and a John Deer Gator to neighbors. Apparently the rich guy
that bought it for her had some kind of default clause in their
agreement because the ownership had reverted back to him. He
contacted us through a third party wanting to know if we had any
interest in renting it for the winter months.

Delicious
 

iBoaterer wrote:
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.

Did not say the houses were more expensive. Just said there are affordable
houses for the median income folks. Pleasant Hill has lower priced areas,
but is still a good location. We sold our house there in 1979 for $85k.
1200' house on a big lot. Pie shaped lot on cul de sac. Now estimated
$467k at Zillow. 9 st. Lawrence ct. If you want to zillow.com