Why is the city gov't even considering

User Forum Topic
Submitted by FoamFinger1 on September 10, 2008 - 4:42pm

Why is the city gov't even considering buying foreclosed properties? This is supposed to support the neighborhoods? This will prevent blight? If the free flowing money of the RE bubble years didn't prop up a neighborhood, how can this piece meal approach work?

Can anyone else remember when the city had no idea of it's own R.E. holdings? Now they want to start building up an inventory again? As history has proven, this city gov't can't manage property. The city has enough debt. Buying up forclosed vacant property is another bad idea.

If disposing of poroperty is the final goal...JUST SELL IT!..Sell it to the highest bidder and get on with business. We've all seen the auctions with hundreds of people. Someone in these crowds has got to have a check book and willing to pay a price that reflects what they believe the property is worth. Since it's their money, they set their bid, the auction takes greater bids until the property is sold. It shouldn't take years to dispose of any asset that so many people want. I don't care what a property sold for back in 2006 or 2005 or 2000 whatever. Right now the property needs to be sold. Whoever puts a bid on it shows what the market will pay right now. That is the market value. This is mark-to market!

Sell it to the highest bidder and move on. Once the property is in private hands, it has the best chance of being used to it's highest potential (lived in by the owner, rental to low income tenants, scrap value, mix with other property for redevelopment). Get a new owner on record, then tax revenues will be collected. Transaction fees and expenses associated with the transaction are earned and paid, more taxes paid, and the economy moves along.

This transaction is certain to be a low ball amount, flipped for a quick gain...so what? Get the property in private hands and move the economy along.

The comps for the neighborhood? Considering how new loans will be reviewed with a fine tooth comb, it will be obvious this distressed type sale should be given different weight as opposed to a owner occupied well maintained property. (the flip side of what was used to run prices up).

Just my two cents, rant off.

‹ La Jolla tops Beverly Hills and Greenwich in 2008 Unemployment ›
From what I've read in the
Submitted by EconProf on September 10, 2008 - 9:31pm.

From what I've read in the U-T, the City, esp. in councilman Young's district (who is pushing this), will be buying up some of these foreclosed properties, and thus be in competition with the private sector investors.
If these will be houses and apartments rented out by the City to Housing Commission tenants, look out for some unfair competition all you investors.
Almost certainly, the City will not pay for building permits for any rehab, will not pay the annual rental tax, will not pay market interest rates if borrowed money is used, and may not even pay property taxes.
It's great to be in competition with your local government, especially when they use your taxes to support their new adventure.

"If the free flowing money of
Submitted by BuyerWillEPB on September 11, 2008 - 9:17am.

"If the free flowing money of the RE bubble years didn't prop up a neighborhood, how can this piece meal approach work?"
-----------------------------------

It can work to save the wealth of the few who are well connected in this city.

If you believe this is meant to save the common Joes like us... I have a bridge I'd like to sell to you.

It was in that bail-out bill
Submitted by PadreBrian on September 11, 2008 - 9:24am.

It was in that bail-out bill that congress made and bush signed. Cities have something like 4.5B to spend...based on need. So basically Riverside county...and a few high-rises in san diego.