Posted on 07/05/2012 10:57:24 AM PDT by listenhillary
A handful of local officials in California who say the housing bust is a public blight on their cities may invoke their eminent-domain powers to restructure mortgages as a way to help some borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth.
Investors holding the current mortgages predict the move will backfire by driving up borrowing costs and further depress property values. "I don't see how you could find it anything other than appalling," said Scott Simon, a managing director at Pacific Investment Management Co., or Pimco, a unit of Allianz SE.
Eminent domain allows a government to forcibly acquire property that is then reused in a way considered good for the public-new housing, roads, shopping centers and the like. Owners of the properties are entitled to compensation, which is usually determined by a court.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/05/california-cities-consider-seizing-mortgages/#ixzz1zlvtvCqT
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Atlas shrugs.
What's not to like?
What’s not being said in this article is that bank-owned properties are becoming a blight in many areas as the banks refuse to mow the lawns, keep the homeless out of them, and etc. with all of the costs associated with those problems being picked up by the cities.
The banks are holding on to the homes they seize for reasons they won’t explain and they’re creating some very difficult neighborhoods for the cities to manage at city expense.
I would not normally approve of this kind of thing, but it makes far more sense to keep people in a home than to evict them just to let the home go to rot and ruin and to become a blight.
Feds Pick Firms for Wholesale Home Sell
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2903122/posts
we’ll find out the names AFTER it’s all over.
(they have to pass it to see what’s in it)
PIMPCO being a large holder of Mort. Backed Securities on the hunch that Ben Bernanke would monetize them in a QE. One set of racketeers turning upon another in the last days of the NEW World Order, in prep for the next world order.
What’s not being said in this article is that bank-owned properties are becoming a blight in many areas as the banks refuse to mow the lawns, keep the homeless out of them, and etc. with all of the costs associated with those problems being picked up by the cities.
The banks are holding on to the homes they seize for reasons they won’t explain and they’re creating some very difficult neighborhoods for the cities to manage at city expense.
I would not normally approve of this kind of thing, but it makes far more sense to keep people in a home than to evict them just to let the home go to rot and ruin and to become a blight.
__________________
Megan...it may be useful to keep folks in homes...but this is not the way to do it. This will reek havoc on the real estate markets, damage retirement and pension funds that invest in the mortgages, and abrogate about 250 years of secured creditors rights/laws.
This is definitely the outcome of a communist utopia. Seizure of property in the name of a poor class that they themselves created.
Creating victims is their only way to justify injustice.
They can impose a fine, just like most homeowners associations.
before everyone gets nuts over the concept consider this:
the banks (or trusts with banks as servicing agents) are doing nothing to either sell at market value or mediate in good faith.
everything is in limbo as banks look desperatly for ways to screw the public.
these are properties that are not moving at all. The notes are worthless (if they even exist and IF they are properly documented) . This at the very least will force the hand of the banks to poop or get off the pot.
in california pot is probably what the bankers are smoking.
Cities can red tag dilapidated buildings or cite the Banks as owners of neglected properties as they do to any other property owners. Seizing mortgages is ridiculous.
Cities hauling out the Big Hammer. They want to use the threat of an eminent domain seizure under Kelo to force the banks to negotiate “cram downs” with these mortgage holders.
And thanks to David Souter there is nothing in a legal sense to stop them.
If Bank’s don’t capitulate they’ll seize the homes and cut them off at the knees.
No wonder the Hammer and Sickle became their symbol.
not so. In many jurisdictions forclosed properties either have exemptions during forclosure or even immunity (for a time) after title transfers to the bank.
cities are powerless.
How many of you, when first scanning the headlines, thought that this actually read:
"California Cities Consider Seizing Hostages"?
I understand. They are making the banks eat their peas.
Now - What bank in their right mind will ever make a new housing loan in California?
This is more of governments making up laws out of thin air in order to apply "social justice" to suit their desires and needs. What is
This is a recipe for financial chaos that can never be straightened out.
What is eminent domain? Depends on the day of the week and what California city we are in.
Read that top paragraph again. It is saying that the cities will use taxpayer monies (which they don't have) to pay the difference between the market value of a home and the mortgage amount, and then getting new investors to hold the now theoretically accurately valued mortgages.
This is no different than the city coming in and writing your mortgage holder a check buying down your principle to current market value. What could possibly be wrong with that?
In my experience, it's the homes in the process of foreclosure -- before the bank fully takes over -- that are blighted. But that's just me.
I don't see how this action helps homeowners. Looks like a land grab to me.
Unfortunately thanks to Kelo v. New London, yes, it does.
What a flustercuck we are in now.
FMCDH(BITS)
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.