Mortgages look to be headed for drastic changes

[SD Realtor]

I cannot think of a better way to achieve a stronger overall market. This of course will add to imbalances with regards to investor owned properties and such. However in all honesty, (and CAR I know you will not like this) owning a home is not a right. We allo know the pendulum was going to need to swing hard in the other direction and if we had standards like this to begin with, it would have been helpful. Reducing the FHA footprint is a great idea. Hopefully we will see prices adjust but it will not happen overnight. The rubber band does not just snapback immediately.

[bearishgurl]

I read the article. It seems like Congress may be coming to its senses, after all.

If the FHA ceiling is now $729,750 in San Diego County, then that is way too high. The FHA was not originally put in place to fund upper middle-class and luxury home purchases. It was created to give low-income, predominately first-time buyers a leg-up into the housing market. I believe the FHA ceiling in SD County should be no more than $300K. The downpayment SHOULD be higher than 3.5%, as that is not enough “skin in the game” to prevent strategic default. The FHA should require 10% down and eliminate the MMI.

Ditto for VA loans. An active duty servicemember should not be able to receive their certificate of eligibility until they separate or retire from the service. Active duty servicemembers are deployed and relocated at the whim of the government, whether or not it is a good time for them to sell their homes. In the vast majority of cases, they have a dependent, unemployed or underemployed spouse and minor children living in their homes, a great many of whom have little education and no clue about managing money on their own. Married servicemembers in both active duty enlisted and officer ranks are already paid HUGE housing stipends to live in SD county in addition to their base bay (approx $1800-3000 per mo). This is sufficient to pay monthly rent or assign it back to the Navy and receive military quarters in return (w/gas elec, water, sewer and trash paid).

The VA program should require at least a 10% downpayment and offer their loans at market nterest rates with zero points and wipe away the aversion that sellers have with VA financing by eliminating the VA funding fee and points.

As to Fannie and Freddie, they have both proved to cost taxpayers way more $$ than any “benefits” conferred by them. Those “agencies” should be abolished, forthwith.

I believe in the old model where a LOCAL bank makes LOCAL decisions based upon their OWN appraisals and their OWN underwriting guidelines, NOT based upon FF’s “guidelines” in Washington DC. A bank asking for a 20-30% downpayment is not asking too much. 20% should be the minimum downpayment for a conventional loan. There should be no need for PMI. These banks should keep these loans, service them and collect the payments. Impound accounts are ridiculous. It is cheaper for the lender to employ personnel to check to see if a borrowers have paid these items on time and threaten to file an NOD if they haven’t than it is to service “impound accts.” If a person is adult enough to sign a trust deed and note, they are adult enough to budget to pay their own taxes and insurance when they come due.

I would like to see government from ALL levels exit the housing market.

I agree with SDR in that owning real property is not right in this country. It’s a privilege for those who have earned the right to borrow a mortgage and saved a downpayment. Owning real property obviously isn’t for everyone. A large segment of the population is unable to budget for the true costs of homeownership, i.e. taxes, fire ins premiums and inevitable repairs. This portion should rent.

I’d like to see far less government intervention in the housing market. If this results in permanent RE asset deflation, then so be it.

Hard line to take? Maybe. Just consider how the RE market has been decimated and will continue to be for years to come under the current way of doing business. It’s an utterly incompetent comedy-of-errors turned into a complete disaster.

[bearishgurl]

I read the article. It seems like Congress may be coming to its senses, after all.

If the FHA ceiling is now $729,750 in San Diego County, then that is way too high. The FHA was not originally put in place to fund upper middle-class and luxury home purchases. It was created to give low-income, predominately first-time buyers a leg-up into the housing market. I believe the FHA ceiling in SD County should be no more than $300K. The downpayment SHOULD be higher than 3.5%, as that is not enough “skin in the game” to prevent strategic default. The FHA should require 10% down and eliminate the MMI.

Ditto for VA loans. An active duty servicemember should not be able to receive their certificate of eligibility until they separate or retire from the service. Active duty servicemembers are deployed and relocated at the whim of the government, whether or not it is a good time for them to sell their homes. In the vast majority of cases, they have a dependent, unemployed or underemployed spouse and minor children living in their homes, a great many of whom have little education and no clue about managing money on their own. Married servicemembers in both active duty enlisted and officer ranks are already paid HUGE housing stipends to live in SD county in addition to their base bay (approx $1800-3000 per mo). This is sufficient to pay monthly rent or assign it back to the Navy and receive military quarters in return (w/gas elec, water, sewer and trash paid).

The VA program should require at least a 10% downpayment and offer their loans at market nterest rates with zero points and wipe away the aversion that sellers have with VA financing by eliminating the VA funding fee and points.

As to Fannie and Freddie, they have both proved to cost taxpayers way more $$ than any “benefits” conferred by them. Those “agencies” should be abolished, forthwith.

I believe in the old model where a LOCAL bank makes LOCAL decisions based upon their OWN appraisals and their OWN underwriting guidelines, NOT based upon FF’s “guidelines” in Washington DC. A bank asking for a 20-30% downpayment is not asking too much. 20% should be the minimum downpayment for a conventional loan. There should be no need for PMI. These banks should keep these loans, service them and collect the payments. Impound accounts are ridiculous. It is cheaper for the lender to employ personnel to check to see if a borrowers have paid these items on time and threaten to file an NOD if they haven’t than it is to service “impound accts.” If a person is adult enough to sign a trust deed and note, they are adult enough to budget to pay their own taxes and insurance when they come due.

I would like to see government from ALL levels exit the housing market.

I agree with SDR in that owning real property is not right in this country. It’s a privilege for those who have earned the right to borrow a mortgage and saved a downpayment. Owning real property obviously isn’t for everyone. A large segment of the population is unable to budget for the true costs of homeownership, i.e. taxes, fire ins premiums and inevitable repairs. This portion should rent.

I’d like to see far less government intervention in the housing market. If this results in permanent RE asset deflation, then so be it.

Hard line to take? Maybe. Just consider how the RE market has been decimated and will continue to be for years to come under the current way of doing business. It’s an utterly incompetent comedy-of-errors turned into a complete disaster.

[bearishgurl]

I read the article. It seems like Congress may be coming to its senses, after all.

If the FHA ceiling is now $729,750 in San Diego County, then that is way too high. The FHA was not originally put in place to fund upper middle-class and luxury home purchases. It was created to give low-income, predominately first-time buyers a leg-up into the housing market. I believe the FHA ceiling in SD County should be no more than $300K. The downpayment SHOULD be higher than 3.5%, as that is not enough “skin in the game” to prevent strategic default. The FHA should require 10% down and eliminate the MMI.

Ditto for VA loans. An active duty servicemember should not be able to receive their certificate of eligibility until they separate or retire from the service. Active duty servicemembers are deployed and relocated at the whim of the government, whether or not it is a good time for them to sell their homes. In the vast majority of cases, they have a dependent, unemployed or underemployed spouse and minor children living in their homes, a great many of whom have little education and no clue about managing money on their own. Married servicemembers in both active duty enlisted and officer ranks are already paid HUGE housing stipends to live in SD county in addition to their base bay (approx $1800-3000 per mo). This is sufficient to pay monthly rent or assign it back to the Navy and receive military quarters in return (w/gas elec, water, sewer and trash paid).

The VA program should require at least a 10% downpayment and offer their loans at market nterest rates with zero points and wipe away the aversion that sellers have with VA financing by eliminating the VA funding fee and points.

As to Fannie and Freddie, they have both proved to cost taxpayers way more $$ than any “benefits” conferred by them. Those “agencies” should be abolished, forthwith.

I believe in the old model where a LOCAL bank makes LOCAL decisions based upon their OWN appraisals and their OWN underwriting guidelines, NOT based upon FF’s “guidelines” in Washington DC. A bank asking for a 20-30% downpayment is not asking too much. 20% should be the minimum downpayment for a conventional loan. There should be no need for PMI. These banks should keep these loans, service them and collect the payments. Impound accounts are ridiculous. It is cheaper for the lender to employ personnel to check to see if a borrowers have paid these items on time and threaten to file an NOD if they haven’t than it is to service “impound accts.” If a person is adult enough to sign a trust deed and note, they are adult enough to budget to pay their own taxes and insurance when they come due.

I would like to see government from ALL levels exit the housing market.

I agree with SDR in that owning real property is not right in this country. It’s a privilege for those who have earned the right to borrow a mortgage and saved a downpayment. Owning real property obviously isn’t for everyone. A large segment of the population is unable to budget for the true costs of homeownership, i.e. taxes, fire ins premiums and inevitable repairs. This portion should rent.

I’d like to see far less government intervention in the housing market. If this results in permanent RE asset deflation, then so be it.

Hard line to take? Maybe. Just consider how the RE market has been decimated and will continue to be for years to come under the current way of doing business. It’s an utterly incompetent comedy-of-errors turned into a complete disaster.

[bearishgurl]

I read the article. It seems like Congress may be coming to its senses, after all.

If the FHA ceiling is now $729,750 in San Diego County, then that is way too high. The FHA was not originally put in place to fund upper middle-class and luxury home purchases. It was created to give low-income, predominately first-time buyers a leg-up into the housing market. I believe the FHA ceiling in SD County should be no more than $300K. The downpayment SHOULD be higher than 3.5%, as that is not enough “skin in the game” to prevent strategic default. The FHA should require 10% down and eliminate the MMI.

Ditto for VA loans. An active duty servicemember should not be able to receive their certificate of eligibility until they separate or retire from the service. Active duty servicemembers are deployed and relocated at the whim of the government, whether or not it is a good time for them to sell their homes. In the vast majority of cases, they have a dependent, unemployed or underemployed spouse and minor children living in their homes, a great many of whom have little education and no clue about managing money on their own. Married servicemembers in both active duty enlisted and officer ranks are already paid HUGE housing stipends to live in SD county in addition to their base bay (approx $1800-3000 per mo). This is sufficient to pay monthly rent or assign it back to the Navy and receive military quarters in return (w/gas elec, water, sewer and trash paid).

The VA program should require at least a 10% downpayment and offer their loans at market nterest rates with zero points and wipe away the aversion that sellers have with VA financing by eliminating the VA funding fee and points.

As to Fannie and Freddie, they have both proved to cost taxpayers way more $$ than any “benefits” conferred by them. Those “agencies” should be abolished, forthwith.

I believe in the old model where a LOCAL bank makes LOCAL decisions based upon their OWN appraisals and their OWN underwriting guidelines, NOT based upon FF’s “guidelines” in Washington DC. A bank asking for a 20-30% downpayment is not asking too much. 20% should be the minimum downpayment for a conventional loan. There should be no need for PMI. These banks should keep these loans, service them and collect the payments. Impound accounts are ridiculous. It is cheaper for the lender to employ personnel to check to see if a borrowers have paid these items on time and threaten to file an NOD if they haven’t than it is to service “impound accts.” If a person is adult enough to sign a trust deed and note, they are adult enough to budget to pay their own taxes and insurance when they come due.

I would like to see government from ALL levels exit the housing market.

I agree with SDR in that owning real property is not right in this country. It’s a privilege for those who have earned the right to borrow a mortgage and saved a downpayment. Owning real property obviously isn’t for everyone. A large segment of the population is unable to budget for the true costs of homeownership, i.e. taxes, fire ins premiums and inevitable repairs. This portion should rent.

I’d like to see far less government intervention in the housing market. If this results in permanent RE asset deflation, then so be it.

Hard line to take? Maybe. Just consider how the RE market has been decimated and will continue to be for years to come under the current way of doing business. It’s an utterly incompetent comedy-of-errors turned into a complete disaster.

[bearishgurl]

I read the article. It seems like Congress may be coming to its senses, after all.

If the FHA ceiling is now $729,750 in San Diego County, then that is way too high. The FHA was not originally put in place to fund upper middle-class and luxury home purchases. It was created to give low-income, predominately first-time buyers a leg-up into the housing market. I believe the FHA ceiling in SD County should be no more than $300K. The downpayment SHOULD be higher than 3.5%, as that is not enough “skin in the game” to prevent strategic default. The FHA should require 10% down and eliminate the MMI.

Ditto for VA loans. An active duty servicemember should not be able to receive their certificate of eligibility until they separate or retire from the service. Active duty servicemembers are deployed and relocated at the whim of the government, whether or not it is a good time for them to sell their homes. In the vast majority of cases, they have a dependent, unemployed or underemployed spouse and minor children living in their homes, a great many of whom have little education and no clue about managing money on their own. Married servicemembers in both active duty enlisted and officer ranks are already paid HUGE housing stipends to live in SD county in addition to their base bay (approx $1800-3000 per mo). This is sufficient to pay monthly rent or assign it back to the Navy and receive military quarters in return (w/gas elec, water, sewer and trash paid).

The VA program should require at least a 10% downpayment and offer their loans at market nterest rates with zero points and wipe away the aversion that sellers have with VA financing by eliminating the VA funding fee and points.

As to Fannie and Freddie, they have both proved to cost taxpayers way more $$ than any “benefits” conferred by them. Those “agencies” should be abolished, forthwith.

I believe in the old model where a LOCAL bank makes LOCAL decisions based upon their OWN appraisals and their OWN underwriting guidelines, NOT based upon FF’s “guidelines” in Washington DC. A bank asking for a 20-30% downpayment is not asking too much. 20% should be the minimum downpayment for a conventional loan. There should be no need for PMI. These banks should keep these loans, service them and collect the payments. Impound accounts are ridiculous. It is cheaper for the lender to employ personnel to check to see if a borrowers have paid these items on time and threaten to file an NOD if they haven’t than it is to service “impound accts.” If a person is adult enough to sign a trust deed and note, they are adult enough to budget to pay their own taxes and insurance when they come due.

I would like to see government from ALL levels exit the housing market.

I agree with SDR in that owning real property is not right in this country. It’s a privilege for those who have earned the right to borrow a mortgage and saved a downpayment. Owning real property obviously isn’t for everyone. A large segment of the population is unable to budget for the true costs of homeownership, i.e. taxes, fire ins premiums and inevitable repairs. This portion should rent.

I’d like to see far less government intervention in the housing market. If this results in permanent RE asset deflation, then so be it.

Hard line to take? Maybe. Just consider how the RE market has been decimated and will continue to be for years to come under the current way of doing business. It’s an utterly incompetent comedy-of-errors turned into a complete disaster.

[CA renter]

[quote=ctr70]http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view/2011_0220say_goodbye_to_fannies_low_rates/srvc=home&position=also

This article is very negative. Depending on how soon this stuff happens, this could have some more severe downward pressure on prices:
1. Higher down payments
2. Big reduction in FHA
3. Higher mortgage insurance FHA
4. Higher (possibly much higher) rates across the board

…wow.[/quote]

From the above link:

“The administration’s long-delayed housing report, released Feb. 11, drew a mix of catcalls and mild applause. Apartment developers praised the report’s emphasis on expanding opportunities for people to rent their housing as opposed to the idea that homeownership is something for everybody.”
—————–

This goes with what SDR mentioned above, also, but I disagree with this sentiment. True, nobody is “entitled” to own a home, but there is little doubt that, for many people, it has been the only way for them to move up in life (that’s assuming inflation is in the future, of course).

IMHO, we need to weigh the “rights” of landlords/investors to make a profit at the expense of poorer people vs. the “rights” of poorer *working* people to own a home. It’s my personal belief that our society is better served if we assist the working poor, and that includes helping them with home ownership.

The problem is that we’ve gone about doing this the wrong way, by guaranteeing loans that stretch their budgets, and by “partnering” with for-profit (sometimes, fly-by-night non-profit) lenders, developers and builders who are not interested in the well-being of poor people.

I’d like to see a program where the govt builds modest, but well-built houses, and then sells them directly to poor people with certain requirements: a sliding scale DTI ratio, where the poorer one is, the LOWER their DTI ratio can be (i.e., a family earning $30,000/yr can only allocate 20% of their gross income on total housing expenses; and a $50,000/yr income can only allocate 23% of their income to housing expenses, etc.). These people would also be expected to maintain their homes as part of the deal, and (very low cost) HOAs would be set up to ensure everyone abides by the agreement. I would also include the requirement that they must not have been on “welfare” in the past five years, and should have credit scores of 620, or better.

I think it’s dangerous to have the pendulum swing too wildly in any direction. We’re going from “everyone should own a home,” to “only rich people should own a home,” and I think that’s a tragic mistake.

edit: One more…this program should have a limited number of opportunities per year so that the market is not overwhelmed by either the supply or the demand that results from the program.

[CA renter]

[quote=ctr70]http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view/2011_0220say_goodbye_to_fannies_low_rates/srvc=home&position=also

This article is very negative. Depending on how soon this stuff happens, this could have some more severe downward pressure on prices:
1. Higher down payments
2. Big reduction in FHA
3. Higher mortgage insurance FHA
4. Higher (possibly much higher) rates across the board

…wow.[/quote]

From the above link:

“The administration’s long-delayed housing report, released Feb. 11, drew a mix of catcalls and mild applause. Apartment developers praised the report’s emphasis on expanding opportunities for people to rent their housing as opposed to the idea that homeownership is something for everybody.”
—————–

This goes with what SDR mentioned above, also, but I disagree with this sentiment. True, nobody is “entitled” to own a home, but there is little doubt that, for many people, it has been the only way for them to move up in life (that’s assuming inflation is in the future, of course).

IMHO, we need to weigh the “rights” of landlords/investors to make a profit at the expense of poorer people vs. the “rights” of poorer *working* people to own a home. It’s my personal belief that our society is better served if we assist the working poor, and that includes helping them with home ownership.

The problem is that we’ve gone about doing this the wrong way, by guaranteeing loans that stretch their budgets, and by “partnering” with for-profit (sometimes, fly-by-night non-profit) lenders, developers and builders who are not interested in the well-being of poor people.

I’d like to see a program where the govt builds modest, but well-built houses, and then sells them directly to poor people with certain requirements: a sliding scale DTI ratio, where the poorer one is, the LOWER their DTI ratio can be (i.e., a family earning $30,000/yr can only allocate 20% of their gross income on total housing expenses; and a $50,000/yr income can only allocate 23% of their income to housing expenses, etc.). These people would also be expected to maintain their homes as part of the deal, and (very low cost) HOAs would be set up to ensure everyone abides by the agreement. I would also include the requirement that they must not have been on “welfare” in the past five years, and should have credit scores of 620, or better.

I think it’s dangerous to have the pendulum swing too wildly in any direction. We’re going from “everyone should own a home,” to “only rich people should own a home,” and I think that’s a tragic mistake.

edit: One more…this program should have a limited number of opportunities per year so that the market is not overwhelmed by either the supply or the demand that results from the program.

[CA renter]

[quote=ctr70]http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view/2011_0220say_goodbye_to_fannies_low_rates/srvc=home&position=also

This article is very negative. Depending on how soon this stuff happens, this could have some more severe downward pressure on prices:
1. Higher down payments
2. Big reduction in FHA
3. Higher mortgage insurance FHA
4. Higher (possibly much higher) rates across the board

…wow.[/quote]

From the above link:

“The administration’s long-delayed housing report, released Feb. 11, drew a mix of catcalls and mild applause. Apartment developers praised the report’s emphasis on expanding opportunities for people to rent their housing as opposed to the idea that homeownership is something for everybody.”
—————–

This goes with what SDR mentioned above, also, but I disagree with this sentiment. True, nobody is “entitled” to own a home, but there is little doubt that, for many people, it has been the only way for them to move up in life (that’s assuming inflation is in the future, of course).

IMHO, we need to weigh the “rights” of landlords/investors to make a profit at the expense of poorer people vs. the “rights” of poorer *working* people to own a home. It’s my personal belief that our society is better served if we assist the working poor, and that includes helping them with home ownership.

The problem is that we’ve gone about doing this the wrong way, by guaranteeing loans that stretch their budgets, and by “partnering” with for-profit (sometimes, fly-by-night non-profit) lenders, developers and builders who are not interested in the well-being of poor people.

I’d like to see a program where the govt builds modest, but well-built houses, and then sells them directly to poor people with certain requirements: a sliding scale DTI ratio, where the poorer one is, the LOWER their DTI ratio can be (i.e., a family earning $30,000/yr can only allocate 20% of their gross income on total housing expenses; and a $50,000/yr income can only allocate 23% of their income to housing expenses, etc.). These people would also be expected to maintain their homes as part of the deal, and (very low cost) HOAs would be set up to ensure everyone abides by the agreement. I would also include the requirement that they must not have been on “welfare” in the past five years, and should have credit scores of 620, or better.

I think it’s dangerous to have the pendulum swing too wildly in any direction. We’re going from “everyone should own a home,” to “only rich people should own a home,” and I think that’s a tragic mistake.

edit: One more…this program should have a limited number of opportunities per year so that the market is not overwhelmed by either the supply or the demand that results from the program.

[CA renter]

[quote=ctr70]http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view/2011_0220say_goodbye_to_fannies_low_rates/srvc=home&position=also

This article is very negative. Depending on how soon this stuff happens, this could have some more severe downward pressure on prices:
1. Higher down payments
2. Big reduction in FHA
3. Higher mortgage insurance FHA
4. Higher (possibly much higher) rates across the board

…wow.[/quote]

From the above link:

“The administration’s long-delayed housing report, released Feb. 11, drew a mix of catcalls and mild applause. Apartment developers praised the report’s emphasis on expanding opportunities for people to rent their housing as opposed to the idea that homeownership is something for everybody.”
—————–

This goes with what SDR mentioned above, also, but I disagree with this sentiment. True, nobody is “entitled” to own a home, but there is little doubt that, for many people, it has been the only way for them to move up in life (that’s assuming inflation is in the future, of course).

IMHO, we need to weigh the “rights” of landlords/investors to make a profit at the expense of poorer people vs. the “rights” of poorer *working* people to own a home. It’s my personal belief that our society is better served if we assist the working poor, and that includes helping them with home ownership.

The problem is that we’ve gone about doing this the wrong way, by guaranteeing loans that stretch their budgets, and by “partnering” with for-profit (sometimes, fly-by-night non-profit) lenders, developers and builders who are not interested in the well-being of poor people.

I’d like to see a program where the govt builds modest, but well-built houses, and then sells them directly to poor people with certain requirements: a sliding scale DTI ratio, where the poorer one is, the LOWER their DTI ratio can be (i.e., a family earning $30,000/yr can only allocate 20% of their gross income on total housing expenses; and a $50,000/yr income can only allocate 23% of their income to housing expenses, etc.). These people would also be expected to maintain their homes as part of the deal, and (very low cost) HOAs would be set up to ensure everyone abides by the agreement. I would also include the requirement that they must not have been on “welfare” in the past five years, and should have credit scores of 620, or better.

I think it’s dangerous to have the pendulum swing too wildly in any direction. We’re going from “everyone should own a home,” to “only rich people should own a home,” and I think that’s a tragic mistake.

edit: One more…this program should have a limited number of opportunities per year so that the market is not overwhelmed by either the supply or the demand that results from the program.

[CA renter]

[quote=ctr70]http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view/2011_0220say_goodbye_to_fannies_low_rates/srvc=home&position=also

This article is very negative. Depending on how soon this stuff happens, this could have some more severe downward pressure on prices:
1. Higher down payments
2. Big reduction in FHA
3. Higher mortgage insurance FHA
4. Higher (possibly much higher) rates across the board

…wow.[/quote]

From the above link:

“The administration’s long-delayed housing report, released Feb. 11, drew a mix of catcalls and mild applause. Apartment developers praised the report’s emphasis on expanding opportunities for people to rent their housing as opposed to the idea that homeownership is something for everybody.”
—————–

This goes with what SDR mentioned above, also, but I disagree with this sentiment. True, nobody is “entitled” to own a home, but there is little doubt that, for many people, it has been the only way for them to move up in life (that’s assuming inflation is in the future, of course).

IMHO, we need to weigh the “rights” of landlords/investors to make a profit at the expense of poorer people vs. the “rights” of poorer *working* people to own a home. It’s my personal belief that our society is better served if we assist the working poor, and that includes helping them with home ownership.

The problem is that we’ve gone about doing this the wrong way, by guaranteeing loans that stretch their budgets, and by “partnering” with for-profit (sometimes, fly-by-night non-profit) lenders, developers and builders who are not interested in the well-being of poor people.

I’d like to see a program where the govt builds modest, but well-built houses, and then sells them directly to poor people with certain requirements: a sliding scale DTI ratio, where the poorer one is, the LOWER their DTI ratio can be (i.e., a family earning $30,000/yr can only allocate 20% of their gross income on total housing expenses; and a $50,000/yr income can only allocate 23% of their income to housing expenses, etc.). These people would also be expected to maintain their homes as part of the deal, and (very low cost) HOAs would be set up to ensure everyone abides by the agreement. I would also include the requirement that they must not have been on “welfare” in the past five years, and should have credit scores of 620, or better.

I think it’s dangerous to have the pendulum swing too wildly in any direction. We’re going from “everyone should own a home,” to “only rich people should own a home,” and I think that’s a tragic mistake.

edit: One more…this program should have a limited number of opportunities per year so that the market is not overwhelmed by either the supply or the demand that results from the program.

[sdrealtor]

CAR
I agree, I would love to see the government build houses. Let’s see how they put their experience building $100,000 ashtrays for fighter jets to good use. $10,000,000 tool sheds for everyone!!!!!!!! Face it, the gubment facks up everything they try to do. Having them getting into homebuilding could be the coup de grace.

[sdrealtor]

CAR
I agree, I would love to see the government build houses. Let’s see how they put their experience building $100,000 ashtrays for fighter jets to good use. $10,000,000 tool sheds for everyone!!!!!!!! Face it, the gubment facks up everything they try to do. Having them getting into homebuilding could be the coup de grace.

[sdrealtor]

CAR
I agree, I would love to see the government build houses. Let’s see how they put their experience building $100,000 ashtrays for fighter jets to good use. $10,000,000 tool sheds for everyone!!!!!!!! Face it, the gubment facks up everything they try to do. Having them getting into homebuilding could be the coup de grace.

[sdrealtor]

CAR
I agree, I would love to see the government build houses. Let’s see how they put their experience building $100,000 ashtrays for fighter jets to good use. $10,000,000 tool sheds for everyone!!!!!!!! Face it, the gubment facks up everything they try to do. Having them getting into homebuilding could be the coup de grace.

[Author]

Posts