Friday, June 27, 2014

Council Members want foreclosures condemned

From the Observer:

Council members Donovan Richards, Daneek Miller and Mark Levine rallied with activists and academics on the steps of City Hall today to call on the city to use eminent domain to stop home foreclosures.

They discussed a new report by the left-leaning New York Communities for Change (N.Y.C.C.), which revealed that thousands of African-American and Latino homeowners were still at risk of losing their homes due to foreclosures and underwater mortgages.

Mr. Richards, who represents areas like southeast Queens and the Rockaways that were hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis and Hurricane Sandy, went straight to the point.

“I’m here because I think the people need their bailout. Didn’t the banks get their bailout? So why can’t the people get a bailout?” Mr. Richards said. “Today I stand with N.Y.C.C. to call on New York City to use eminent domain to really seize these mortgages and make a difference in the lives of New Yorkers.”

Financial institutions have aggressively opposed the usage of eminent domain in this instance and questioned its legality–it remains unlikely, observers say, that it will be implemented in New York City. Mr. Levine, however, said the tactic could be viable.


Anonymous said...

Even in eminent domain, the Govt has to pay fair market value to the person who's property is taken (aka the bank) - what you are basically doing then is just paying the person's mortgage. Like the Govt has the money to do this?

BTW, what do they think will happen in NY if the law passes. Why would ANY lender take the risk lending to any but the best qualified borrowers - if you can afford to put 50% down, and forget 20% max gross for mortgage payment (the old gold) - make it "You want a $2000 mortgage/month? You'd better have an income of $20k/month, OH, and you will have to pay PMI (Primary Mortgage insurance) even then
AKA the people they are worrying about would be the LAST non super rich people in NYC to own a home

Joe Moretti said...

Forget who should not have bought a house back then. We are dealing now in the present.

I am not quite sure of the solution, but throwing people out of a house for a bank to just hold onto it, while it deteriorates and becomes an eyesore in the community helps no one involved.

I am not saying that people should just live in the house for free, but throwing them out and having an empty house sit to be vandalized is not the answer.

Anonymous said...

As the token free markets participant in this blog, I kind of like this idea because it can go all the way to the Supreme Court and get that mistaken Kelo v. New London decision overturned. You know that one -- it allowed eminent domain for any or no reason.

Anonymous said...

Get out of here with this communist crap!

Anonymous said...

What a farce.

No one is responsible for their actions anymore.

Anonymous said...

Joe - if the property is being damaged when vacant, and would be worth more if it was continuously occupied, then the banks should let the former owners stay rent free, and be given 90 or more days before they'd have to vacate, if they keep the place in good condition. They can send an inspector once a month to make sure the place is being maintained properly. Strict local laws about maintaining property could make it worth the banks time to let someone stay until they have a buyer.