Looters out in full force

VMAX  Forum

Help Support VMAX Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Rusty I agree with you. The only thing I think people with those adjustable rates should get locked in to a lower fixed rate. But no way should we be bailing out anyone because the value of the house goes down. What's next if your value goes up should they make them give them more money because you made a good investment.
 
+2 Danny!!!!........What the heck happend to personal accountability and doing the right thing??............I don't like the path we're on...........All I can do is try to live good and do right by people every day.............Proud to be a wagon puller!!..........................Tom.
 
This is wrong on so many levels....

1) If you bought into a house with a low rate ARM just so you could afford a bigger house then shame on you. Your chickens have come home to roost. Just because the bank gave you a $475,000 loan does not mean that you should commit that much of your income to your house. Here is a thought, how about buying a home that you can actually afford taking into consideration even a pay cut.

2) The government, whether it be city, state, or federal using imminent domain in this manner is a perversion of what imminent domain was designed for. So the government is going to offer the private company 50% of the loan amount. If they don't take it they will essentially seize the property and give them what they "feel" is fair market value. I have no love for the big banks and lending institutions, however this is no different than mafia dealings..."I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse...". It sets a dangerous precedent regarding the seizure of property.

If the city wants to hold the bank's feet to the fire I would think they could demand that the homes are maintained (grass cut, home secured, etc...) however to try and steal the property away AND make a profit on it is simply criminal.
 
I see a lot of people talking about responsibility here. I agree with that 100%. What I don’t see is people saying that the banks need to have accountability and responsibility also.


A lot of people are not the best with money; they go to the bank for advice. The bank says “Hey, you can afford this;
we will give you a loan for so much. We are the subject matter experts; we know what we are talking about.” I am not saying that ignorance is an excuse. But when you get lied to directly to your face, then yes, the blame is on the banks just as much as the people who believed them.


So no, I don’t see what the Mayor is doing is wrong or right, but it is sure as hell over reaching. Bottom line, I won’t defend the banks and am kind of surprised that people here are. I congratulate the people who actually got the government to work for them and help them.
 
I see a lot of people talking about responsibility here. I agree with that 100%. What I don’t see is people saying that the banks need to have accountability and responsibility also.


A lot of people are not the best with money; they go to the bank for advice. The bank says “Hey, you can afford this;
we will give you a loan for so much. We are the subject matter experts; we know what we are talking about.” I am not saying that ignorance is an excuse. But when you get lied to directly to your face, then yes, the blame is on the banks just as much as the people who believed them.


So no, I don’t see what the Mayor is doing is wrong or right, but it is sure as hell over reaching. Bottom line, I won’t defend the banks and am kind of surprised that people here are. I congratulate the people who actually got the government to work for them and help them.

This isn't about the banks...that wasn't where I was going with it...

Its about the most blatant abuse of imminent domain that I've ever heard if in my 50 years.

I thought it was over the top when i started hearing about cases where eminent domain was exercised to steal private property (land) in order for the govt to sell it to another private individual who was going to develop it and theoretically raise tax revenues for the govt.

That whole tax revenue being support for the "public good" argument is stretching eminent domain VERY thin.


This new concept of "public good" blows the case I just cited out of the water as far as abusing that power. Its a dangerous precedent if it succeeds.

The whole housing market collapse thing has been already beaten to death in several threads already.
 
Its about the most blatant abuse of imminent domain that I've ever heard if in my 50 years.

Re-reading the artical (2-3 times) I see what your saying now. I have to say I still like seeing the Gov steping in and taking care of people where banks try and screw them. That being said it seems like there are a lot of shady things that surounding the situation if it dosn't go exactly as planned.

I thought it was over the top when i started hearing about cases where eminent domain was exercised to steal private property (land) in order for the govt to sell it to another private individual who was going to develop it and theoretically raise tax revenues for the govt.

This, I think we can all agree is wrong.
 
Unfortunately the banks are a business, and they are in it for a profit. It is up to PEOPLE to have to learn what is the best deal out there. 30 years ago...information wasnt as readily available as it is now with the internet age.

Personal accountability and responsibility are out the window.
 
This happens just about every time a new sports stadium is built or expanded. Nothing new really. People who can't afford to move and are given a pittance for their home and sent on their way. City's love to do this and have the lawyers to get it done. How has Wrigley Field stayed alive ? Someday, someday.
 
This happens just about every time a new sports stadium is built or expanded. Nothing new really. People who can't afford to move and are given a pittance for their home and sent on their way. City's love to do this and have the lawyers to get it done. How has Wrigley Field stayed alive ? Someday, someday.

Not really. Not if you read the article.

No ones being asked to move, the homeowner gets a cheaper loan, the bank and the tax payer gets screwed.
I've never heard of eminent domain being used to destroy a legal contract that both parties were ok with, especially when the required "public good" that will arise from
It is like it is here.

In this case its a third party stepping in, not at the request or permission of either of the two named parties on a private legal contract; those two parties both being in a current state of "OK'ness", taking that contract in hand and shredding it, and rewriting it to their whims.

I don't see this as any different than if I financed you a car for $10k, 5 years later its worth 5k and looking sort of ugly cause you bought more car than you can afford and don't have the cash flow to maintain it properly.

The city says we can't have these ugly cars around so they walk into my business and hold me at gun point telling me I WILL sell them the loan for less than what's owed on it.


Then turn around and refinance you for $5k in the hopes that you'll use the new "cushion" in your budget to maintain the car better, eliminating the blight.


I wonder what all these "bank haters" would feel if banks just stopped retail banking all together....
 
Back
Top