Stabilize Home Mortgage Borrowers with Eminent Domain

[sbd]

Those who view the current problems with foreclosures and mortgage backed securities need to stop calling those in foreclosure idiots who bought houses they could not afford. There might be some in that category that as stated above would lose their house if they can’t afford the new payments.

The current financial crisis has many distinct problems that this plan can address efficiently.

For instance, homeowners who don’t have upside mortgages will not lose equity in their homes due to foreclosure sales below market value. So even if you are not in foreclosure the foreclosures in your neighborhood will affect your property value. No one is untouched by this crisis.

Let’s assume you did everything right and are living within your means. Your job requires you to move to another state recently. The value of your house however has decreased over 30% which basically forces you to chose between losing your job or losing lots of money on the sale.

This plan would take care of the upside mortgage problem for anyone who submits a request. This includes all those borrowers who are upside down on their mortgage whether in foreclosure or not.

Wall Street will also benefit from this plan because all of those risky loans held as securities would be paid off to the investors. Right now, they don’t even know what, if any return they might get from these Securities.

Under the plan,the refinanced mortgages could then be re bundled at their true value and sold to investors. This will also solve the liquidity issue as the funds will continue to flow through each of the processes.

[SD Realtor]

I am sorry but I disagree. As I said the first part of the plan is fine, that is the repossession of the homes due to emminent domain. The second part of the plan which is simply subsidizing the homeowner is not good. A plan of this manner will not determine the true value of the home. A plan of this manner takes no contingency into effect for recidivism. A plan of this manner will not be able to easily discriminate between fraud.

What is the huge moral crime against asking people to live within thier means rather then bending the rules and accomodating the means to fit thier budget or lifestyle? The alterations I provided remove all arbitrary facets of the plan. They allow the absolute true value of the home to be determined. They provide a new homeowner, or in some cases the old homeowner, who will be requalified and is much more well positioned to pay the loan properly. Finally the sale of the home itself will become a TRUE comp, rather then a HIDDEN comp and it will serve to help the entire housing market adjust faster and in a more true manner.

[SD Realtor]

I am sorry but I disagree. As I said the first part of the plan is fine, that is the repossession of the homes due to emminent domain. The second part of the plan which is simply subsidizing the homeowner is not good. A plan of this manner will not determine the true value of the home. A plan of this manner takes no contingency into effect for recidivism. A plan of this manner will not be able to easily discriminate between fraud.

What is the huge moral crime against asking people to live within thier means rather then bending the rules and accomodating the means to fit thier budget or lifestyle? The alterations I provided remove all arbitrary facets of the plan. They allow the absolute true value of the home to be determined. They provide a new homeowner, or in some cases the old homeowner, who will be requalified and is much more well positioned to pay the loan properly. Finally the sale of the home itself will become a TRUE comp, rather then a HIDDEN comp and it will serve to help the entire housing market adjust faster and in a more true manner.

[SD Realtor]

I am sorry but I disagree. As I said the first part of the plan is fine, that is the repossession of the homes due to emminent domain. The second part of the plan which is simply subsidizing the homeowner is not good. A plan of this manner will not determine the true value of the home. A plan of this manner takes no contingency into effect for recidivism. A plan of this manner will not be able to easily discriminate between fraud.

What is the huge moral crime against asking people to live within thier means rather then bending the rules and accomodating the means to fit thier budget or lifestyle? The alterations I provided remove all arbitrary facets of the plan. They allow the absolute true value of the home to be determined. They provide a new homeowner, or in some cases the old homeowner, who will be requalified and is much more well positioned to pay the loan properly. Finally the sale of the home itself will become a TRUE comp, rather then a HIDDEN comp and it will serve to help the entire housing market adjust faster and in a more true manner.

[SD Realtor]

I am sorry but I disagree. As I said the first part of the plan is fine, that is the repossession of the homes due to emminent domain. The second part of the plan which is simply subsidizing the homeowner is not good. A plan of this manner will not determine the true value of the home. A plan of this manner takes no contingency into effect for recidivism. A plan of this manner will not be able to easily discriminate between fraud.

What is the huge moral crime against asking people to live within thier means rather then bending the rules and accomodating the means to fit thier budget or lifestyle? The alterations I provided remove all arbitrary facets of the plan. They allow the absolute true value of the home to be determined. They provide a new homeowner, or in some cases the old homeowner, who will be requalified and is much more well positioned to pay the loan properly. Finally the sale of the home itself will become a TRUE comp, rather then a HIDDEN comp and it will serve to help the entire housing market adjust faster and in a more true manner.

[SD Realtor]

I am sorry but I disagree. As I said the first part of the plan is fine, that is the repossession of the homes due to emminent domain. The second part of the plan which is simply subsidizing the homeowner is not good. A plan of this manner will not determine the true value of the home. A plan of this manner takes no contingency into effect for recidivism. A plan of this manner will not be able to easily discriminate between fraud.

What is the huge moral crime against asking people to live within thier means rather then bending the rules and accomodating the means to fit thier budget or lifestyle? The alterations I provided remove all arbitrary facets of the plan. They allow the absolute true value of the home to be determined. They provide a new homeowner, or in some cases the old homeowner, who will be requalified and is much more well positioned to pay the loan properly. Finally the sale of the home itself will become a TRUE comp, rather then a HIDDEN comp and it will serve to help the entire housing market adjust faster and in a more true manner.

[j]

Yes, this plan would cause all the financial institutions to fail at the same time. Isn’t this how they do it in the Banana Republics?

[j]

Yes, this plan would cause all the financial institutions to fail at the same time. Isn’t this how they do it in the Banana Republics?

[j]

Yes, this plan would cause all the financial institutions to fail at the same time. Isn’t this how they do it in the Banana Republics?

[j]

Yes, this plan would cause all the financial institutions to fail at the same time. Isn’t this how they do it in the Banana Republics?

[j]

Yes, this plan would cause all the financial institutions to fail at the same time. Isn’t this how they do it in the Banana Republics?

[Anonymous]

I agree with SD Realtor on this one. It seems to me that instead of trying to minimize foreclosure and “keep people in their homes”, the government should be: 1) trying to streamline the foreclosure process by helping the current cash-strapped occupant transition to a much more affordable rental (thereby freeing-up their cash and increasing their economy-supporting consumer spending power, by the way), and 2) aiding banks in turning around all their newly foreclosed-on properties for sale on the open market.

These steps could be accomplished by providing first months rent/security deposit loans or assistance for foreclosed-on people, for example, and also funds to help banks clean up trashed properties (not including granite counter top upgrades!) in preparation for quick sale on the open market.

It seems like keeping financially-strapped people in underwater houses is bad for both the people themselves and financially responsible people waiting patiently to buy a realistically-priced house.

[Anonymous]

I agree with SD Realtor on this one. It seems to me that instead of trying to minimize foreclosure and “keep people in their homes”, the government should be: 1) trying to streamline the foreclosure process by helping the current cash-strapped occupant transition to a much more affordable rental (thereby freeing-up their cash and increasing their economy-supporting consumer spending power, by the way), and 2) aiding banks in turning around all their newly foreclosed-on properties for sale on the open market.

These steps could be accomplished by providing first months rent/security deposit loans or assistance for foreclosed-on people, for example, and also funds to help banks clean up trashed properties (not including granite counter top upgrades!) in preparation for quick sale on the open market.

It seems like keeping financially-strapped people in underwater houses is bad for both the people themselves and financially responsible people waiting patiently to buy a realistically-priced house.

[Anonymous]

I agree with SD Realtor on this one. It seems to me that instead of trying to minimize foreclosure and “keep people in their homes”, the government should be: 1) trying to streamline the foreclosure process by helping the current cash-strapped occupant transition to a much more affordable rental (thereby freeing-up their cash and increasing their economy-supporting consumer spending power, by the way), and 2) aiding banks in turning around all their newly foreclosed-on properties for sale on the open market.

These steps could be accomplished by providing first months rent/security deposit loans or assistance for foreclosed-on people, for example, and also funds to help banks clean up trashed properties (not including granite counter top upgrades!) in preparation for quick sale on the open market.

It seems like keeping financially-strapped people in underwater houses is bad for both the people themselves and financially responsible people waiting patiently to buy a realistically-priced house.

[Anonymous]

I agree with SD Realtor on this one. It seems to me that instead of trying to minimize foreclosure and “keep people in their homes”, the government should be: 1) trying to streamline the foreclosure process by helping the current cash-strapped occupant transition to a much more affordable rental (thereby freeing-up their cash and increasing their economy-supporting consumer spending power, by the way), and 2) aiding banks in turning around all their newly foreclosed-on properties for sale on the open market.

These steps could be accomplished by providing first months rent/security deposit loans or assistance for foreclosed-on people, for example, and also funds to help banks clean up trashed properties (not including granite counter top upgrades!) in preparation for quick sale on the open market.

It seems like keeping financially-strapped people in underwater houses is bad for both the people themselves and financially responsible people waiting patiently to buy a realistically-priced house.

[Author]

Posts