[California] Pricey homes in Richmond's eminent domain plan

sfgate.com, San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Tuesday, August 20, 2013 | Carolyn Said

[Lonely Bull]

Richmond's controversial plan to seize underwater mortgages through eminent domain includes loans for at least two homes purchased for over $1 million as well as other high-end properties - a revelation that appears to undermine the city's argument that the plan would combat blight.

The city is pursuing mortgages with balances ranging from $98,000 to $1.12 million, according to data collected by Marc Joffe, an analyst who received the property addresses, loan balances, offer amounts and other information through a California public records request and shared them with The Chronicle.

--SNIP--

Eminent domain is the seizure of private property for a public purpose. City leaders argued that the public purpose is to keep families in their homes and prevent blight and the destabilizing impact of foreclosures. Banks say the plan is unconstitutional and would drive up lending costs in Richmond.

[Lonely Bull]

Previously on this topic:

A City Invokes Seizure Laws to Save Homes (Richmond, Californis)

Richmond CA Considering Seizure Of Mortgages (An Offer They CAN’T Refuse)

Richmond Threatens Eminent Domain To Address Foreclosure Crisis

If you're slightly familiar with Richmond and are wondering about the "at least two homes purchased for over $1 million":

• In the region, real estate is generally more expensive than in other parts of the country.

• Not every area in Richmond is horrible and crime-ridden. I've been through areas that are quite nice, such as the Point Richmond in this article. (Even so, I wouldn't want to move to a city with a self-styled progressive government. It'd be less embarrassing to be a piano player in a whorehouse.)

[napscoordinator]

Are these homes that people are behind on their mortgage and perhaps property taxes? If it is then the people living in them are not living up to their end of the bargain. Pay or lose the house is one of the easiest statements ever said. I don't care if the monthly rate when they bought it was 850 and 5 years later it is 1600. That is NOT the problem of the mortgage company. The individual signed the contract. Don't pay....lose house. Simple as that.

[The Antiyuppie]

It does kill me, that people don’t understand that this is essentially a zero-sum game...if the “bank” loses money, the investors don’t MAKE money...and those investors are for the most part NOT baby-eating fat cats sitting around chomping cigars and snacking on caviar while contemplating how next to screw the masses...they are 401(k) investors...you know, actual working people. Bail-outs, walk-away short sales...it’s like insurance theft, really.

[The Antiyuppie]

It does kill me, that people don’t understand that this is essentially a zero-sum game...if the “bank” loses money, the investors don’t MAKE money...and those investors are for the most part NOT baby-eating fat cats sitting around chomping cigars and snacking on caviar while contemplating how next to screw the masses...they are 401(k) investors...you know, actual working people. Bail-outs, walk-away short sales...it’s like insurance theft, really.