Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Richmond Threatens Eminent Domain To Address Foreclosure Crisis
KCBS ^ | AUgust 1, 2013 | KCBS

Posted on 08/01/2013 9:02:28 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey

Richmond Threatens Eminent Domain To Address Foreclosure Crisis

Richmond city leaders were moving ahead with a plan to head off the foreclosure crisis, a plan that is not without controversy.

The city has offered to buy more than 600 underwater mortgages at below the homes’ current value.

“If they are unwilling to negotiate a sale of the loans, which we want them to do, then we will consider using eminent domain as another option to purchase these loans at fair market value,” said Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin.

Richmond is the first city in the country to take the controversial step of threatening to use eminent domain, the power to take private property for public use. But other cities have also explored the idea.

(Excerpt) Read more at sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com ...


TOPICS: Local News
KEYWORDS: eminentdomain; foreclosures; richmond
I see a trend in the offing
1 posted on 08/01/2013 9:02:28 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

Richmond?

Which Richmond?

Ricmond, VA?


2 posted on 08/01/2013 9:03:55 AM PDT by upchuck (To the faceless, jack-booted government bureaucrat who just scanned this post: SCREW YOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

California, in the bay area. Population, 100,000.


3 posted on 08/01/2013 9:07:13 AM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

A city in CA has already floated this socialist claptrap of an idea.

Libs have no concept of the law of unintended consequences for the housing market.

Not to mention the grossly unconstitutional nature of it.

Oh, wait. Silly me, I was still operating under the mistaken assumption that the US was a Republic with a functioning Constitution. How stupid could I be?


4 posted on 08/01/2013 9:07:48 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

If they do this good luck getting a loan to buy a home in that city. Banks may not say they aren’t making loans, but you can bet underwriting will go on forever.


5 posted on 08/01/2013 9:08:25 AM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

Richmond, California is broke
anyway.

It narrowly avoided being pushed into federal bankruptcy court (through a major cutback in city services, etc.).

Where it thinks it can get the $$$$ all of a sudden to buy up 600 defaulted deadbeat non-paying loans in its mostly-slum neighborhoods

AND pay all the litigation costs (plus pay for its defense when taxpayer suits are filed)

?????????
This is 95% BS


6 posted on 08/01/2013 9:09:18 AM PDT by faithhopecharity (E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

Legalities aside, there are also huge tax consequences to consider.

A local attorney and real estate broker posting under the name “davecherr” commented on the problem of debt forgiveness.

There is a massive and thus-far unremarked upon problem with this ED scheme: it would result in a MASSIVE INCOME TAX BILL FOR THE HOMEOWNER. Under the tax code, discharge of indebtedness is counted as income. There is a safe harbor for people who lose their primary residence to foreclosure, but it would not apply to these Richmond residents, since they would keep their house with magically reduced debt.

Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/07/tax-nightmare-of-eminent-domain.html#ITujKY26TipCDmUZ.99


7 posted on 08/01/2013 9:09:55 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity
Where it thinks it can get the $$$$ all of a sudden to buy up 600 defaulted deadbeat non-paying loans in its mostly-slum neighborhoods

They want to buy the loans, not the houses, for "fair market value". We can presume since they will dictate what that is, it will be about a $1 each. They will then seize the property and distribute it out to community organizers to use in building their fiefdoms.

8 posted on 08/01/2013 9:17:09 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

I live across the bay for richmond over in Marin.

Richmond might be our OWN detroit!

I can imagine the legal system Grinding to a Halt behind all this !


9 posted on 08/01/2013 9:23:57 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey (Macabre Crumpet of Caucasian Ethnicity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

No government entity can use the power of Eminent Domain to buy property at “below the homes’ current value.”

The very definition of Eminent Domain requires that the owner be paid “just compensation”, which in turn is defined as:

Just Compensation n 1) in general a fair and reasonable amount of money to be paid for work performed or to make one “whole” after loss due to damages. 2) the full value to be paid for property taken by the government for public purposes guaranteed by Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, which states: “...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” If the amount offered by the governmental agency taking the property is not considered sufficient, the property owner may demand a trial to determine just compensation. Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Just+Compensation


10 posted on 08/01/2013 9:26:37 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

The thing which gets to me is that I ended up in a near total financial catastrophe with a house I’d bought in 89 and had to sell in 94 when the housing and job market both crashed simultaneously, and nobody gave a rat’s ass. In fact prior to that time, nobody had ever lost a dime in real estate in Northern Virginia, so that people losing money at that time at least had an excuse, people under-water today don’t have that excuse yet it seems like the whole world wants to try to help them...


11 posted on 08/01/2013 9:29:35 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

It doesn’t say they are deadbeat.

What it says is that the loans are underwater.

And what the city is proposing is to take these loans from the banks, and pay the banks LESS than what the loans are for, and LESS than what the houses are worth.

So essentially, they are proposing to steal the right to foreclose from the banks, for less money than what the banks may have gotten if they foreclosed and sold the property.

Once the city does this, they will have performing mortgages that will, over time, pay the city back more in principle than the city put in. It could be a money-maker. And it is easy to make money if you can force someone to sell you something for less than it’s value.

What i don’t understand is how they would get away with this, because even in the dreadful Supreme Court Kelo case, the SC still upheld the rule that the government had to pay the full market value for the property.


12 posted on 08/01/2013 9:32:42 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

There is little reason to believe the mortgages would suddenly become performing. Many people there are unemployed. And the banks have been rewriting those loans they think could be transformed Into a paying status. With not so great results a lot of the time. No. Most of the defaulted loa s will stay that way in Richmond Or many if them anyway. But you’re right that the legal costs a d settlement costs will far exceed anything Richmond can pay. This whole crazy scheme has been lobbied by an outfit that wants to do the work fir the city. But the company won’t be paying fir the losses.


13 posted on 08/01/2013 9:41:21 AM PDT by faithhopecharity (E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

There is little reason to believe the mortgages would suddenly become performing. Many people there are unemployed. And the banks have been rewriting those loans they think could be transformed Into a paying status. With not so great results a lot of the time. No. Most of the defaulted loa s will stay that way in Richmond Or many if them anyway. But you’re right that the legal costs a d settlement costs will far exceed anything Richmond can pay. This whole crazy scheme has been lobbied by an outfit that wants to do the work fir the city. But the company won’t be paying fir the losses.


14 posted on 08/01/2013 9:41:24 AM PDT by faithhopecharity (E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

You can see it coming from a mile away, just as has been building with healthcare, the government is making their play to take over all housing, in the interest of “fairness.”


15 posted on 08/01/2013 9:43:14 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

I am a tax preparer. A taxpayer that is insolvent (liabilities > assets) can exclude some or all the cancellation of debt income on their tax return. Very few of the Richmond (CA) homeowners with underwater mortgages that get a 1099-C (cancellation of debt) would have to include this income on their return I’d guess.


16 posted on 08/01/2013 9:49:01 AM PDT by DFG ("Dumb, Dependent, and Democrat is no way to go through life" - Louie Gohmert (R-TX))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey
I can imagine the legal system Grinding to a Halt behind all this !

Yes indeed. I-279 North here in Pittsburgh was supposed to be open by around 1970. The fate of an historic church (plus literally HUNDREDS of eminent domain battles with individual property owners) prevented them from cutting the ribbon until the late 90's.


17 posted on 08/01/2013 10:06:28 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Probably not many of these people pay much income tax And sendi g them a bill for the profit from any giveaway writedown program won’t bother them much
If they are t laying their mortgage what makes anyone Imagine they’ll suddenly leap to the opportunity of paying a big IRS bill?


18 posted on 08/01/2013 10:17:02 AM PDT by faithhopecharity (E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey
“If they are unwilling to negotiate a sale of the loans, which we want them to do, then we will consider using eminent domain as another option to purchase these loans at fair market value,” said Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin.

Isn't that special? The mayor wants to define the "fair market value" and compel banks to sell at his chosen price. I've met people who wanted to negotiate like that, but normally they carry guns or at least knives, they travel in packs, and they negotiate late at night in bad neighborhoods.

19 posted on 08/01/2013 10:25:16 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

He is just another low level government hack believing political position is an anointment.


20 posted on 08/01/2013 10:29:15 AM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Impy

I too thought Richmond,VA. It will not be long going detroit. To much of good? thang, O rectum.?.?


21 posted on 08/01/2013 11:10:18 AM PDT by Recompennation (Constitutional protection for all not just selectively for Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

While the 5th amendment provides for taking property for public use with just compensation, doesn’t Section 10 of the constitution prohibit the states from interfering with contracts.

Section. 10: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

When a financial institution loans money to a person to purchase a home, the lender and borrower enter into a contract for repayment of a specific dollar amount. The amount subject to this contract is not affected by either the appreciation or depreciation in value of the property bought with the borrowed money. The property (house) value at any given time is irrelevant to the contractual obligation. The fact that the property may have been pledged as collateral for the loan does not have anything to do with the contract itself. It would seem that a contract could only be modified or taken at the federal level through a bankruptcy proceeding.


22 posted on 08/01/2013 11:24:13 AM PDT by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

Slap!!! Slap!!! Wake up!!!


23 posted on 08/01/2013 11:46:20 AM PDT by Shimmer1 ("What a poor, ignorant, malicious, short-sighted, crapulous mass." John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson