This is going to get very interesting now

[Coastal]

ACORN digs in to keep owners in their homes
BY Eun Young Chough
DAILY NEWS WRITER

Friday, February 20th 2009, 2:06 AM

They call themselves the "Home Defenders," and they're here to make sure struggling homeowners don't get kicked out without a fight.
As part of a coordinated nationwide civil disobedience campaign, dozens of housing advocates, elected officials and clergy members converged Thursday on the Laurelton home of Myrna Millington, who went through foreclosure in September.

"I have been living in my home for 38 years," said Millington, 73. "I am staying here, and I am not leaving my home."

Millington, a widow, paid off her mortgage. But the trouble began when she refinanced her house to pay for repairs in 2000 after her husband died.

She didn't realize it was a subprime loan until she got her first statement.

To help people like Millington, members of the advocacy group ACORN created teams of Home Defenders, who assemble at foreclosed homes to prevent evictions by using tactics such as human chains.

Now a nationwide movement, the campaign will enable homeowners who are facing eviction to use peaceful strategies to stay in their homes.

It will continue, advocates said, until the Obama administration finds a solution to the foreclosure crisis.

"Millington is a victim of predatory lenders, and this is what the current economic crisis has created," said City Councilman John Liu (D-Flushing). "Let's fix the system before throwing people out into the streets."

The civil disobedience campaign occurred on the same day that Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-Queens), chairman of the House subcommittee on international monetary policy, launched a free foreclosure intervention program for southeastern Queens, the epicenter of the city's mortgage foreclosure meltdown.

According to a recent report by PropertyShark.com, 13 of the city's top 15 zip codes with the highest number of foreclosures were in Queens. Last year, 5,482 properties in the borough received foreclosure notices.

"We have the largest foreclosure among the five boroughs," said Adrienne Hayes, 44, a member of ACORN who lives in St. Albans.

"What we want is a [foreclosure] moratorium for just one year," said Hayes.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/..._their_ho.html

[THOR]

The moratorium sounds like a great idea. It becomes a win-win for all parties.

[Rich Z]

Well, that depends. There are always two sides to a coin. If you own rental properties and tenants suddenly refuse to pay and claim protection under this moratorium, how are you going to feel about it then? Are you really willing to give people free housing for a year? If the government is going to pay that monthly rent, whose pocket does that REALLY come out of?

If banks can't recoup the properties that outstanding debts are owed so they can try to liquidate them to recoup their losses, how will this affect the banks? Ready for another massive bailout?

Is having GANGS defying legal orders to vacate and confronting the legal executors of those eviction notices going to end up well for anyone?

If this starts a trend where people can simply defy a law at will, is this going to create a real comfortable environment in this country?

Who gets to pick which laws can be FORCIBLY defied?

[floridaZ]

I'm with Rich here, they are walking a very fine line here. Plus, it's ACORN, so I already don't trust them. Anyway, I personally think that we're screwed because the gov't got their noses into the housing market... so sticking it further up the economy's ass with a moratorium can't make it any better, no matter how popular it may be with people getting evicted from their homes.

It just doesn't make sense for the gov't to keep a company they just put billions into from getting money. It also doesn't make sense to try and change the rules so that everyone who can't afford where they live can keep their house, it just can't happen that way. If you can't afford your house, sell it/let the bank have it and get an apartment/house that you can afford. That is just what makes sense to me, and I think that it would solve a lot of problems. The banks would still have it bad with all the foreclosures, but then at least the people would be able to afford their living expenses. Of course, this won't happen since so many people now think that they can get a free ride, so living responsibly is actually the less profitable course of action.

[Shadow]

Well, that depends. There are always two sides to a coin. If you own rental properties and tenants suddenly refuse to pay and claim protection under this moratorium, how are you going to feel about it then? Are you really willing to give people free housing for a year? If the government is going to pay that monthly rent, whose pocket does that REALLY come out of?

Rich,
Foreclosure and tenant eviction are two toally separate actions.
Forclosure is implimented by the lender for non-payment of a loan.
Tenant Eviction on the other hand can be implemented for a number or reasons to include non-payment of rent or an undesirabe tenant action as long as it doesn't violate the Federal Fair Housing guiidelines of race, religion, yada yada yada....
Staying in my freaking house and paying rent is not a loan!

Refusing to pay as you suggest above, is far different than being "able" to pay. If you've ever owned any rental properties, you'd realize that section 8 housing can be a gold mine for a land lord

Tenants are prescreened by the gov't at thier expense, $$$ is guaranteed, and if they violate any of the sect.8 housing guidelines, they're out of there quicker than you can say GTFO without all the hassel of eviction

Now that's a win-win

Sure, the money is federal and comes from the taxpayers, but if I'm going to pay taxes, I'd just as well benefit from it in some way.

As I understand it, a moritorium would extend only to loans, not tenancy.

If banks can't recoup the properties that outstanding debts are owed so they can try to liquidate them to recoup their losses, how will this affect the banks? Ready for another massive bailout?

I agree, however banks are not in the landlord business.

A moritorium on foreclosures might be a resonable idea
I don't know if a year os such a good idea, but some restructuring of subprimes need to be done and some relief needs to be provided to those whose financial situation has changed since the implementation of their original loan (assuming they were paying it up to date prior to this action), through legitmate job loss (ie: not criminal, drug related, or too lazy to work), medical and traumatic injury induced medical bills or the loss of a supporting spouse.
For those who were doing ok until such an event triggered a financial spiral, there needs to be some assistance.

It depends on how the feds go about handling the issue? There has to be a way in the end for the mortgaging institution to recoup thier $$$. Otherwise, the loan would result in a write off and the financial institution could collapse if not bailed out. Not a good thing at all.

Now, do they need to get all the interest that was guaranteed to them in the original contract?

In theory they should since it was a contract and should be enforceable.

In reality, nothing from nothing equals nothing!

If they stand a chance of gaining a minimal interest rate through restructuring versus ZIP, NADA, ZILCH, NOTHING from a foreclosure or bankruptcy, then I'd opt for the lower rate. Interest is nothing more than a fee for loaning the money in the first place. As long as the principle is replaced, the banks are out little if any real money. There are plenty of other ways for banks to remain solvent and in business. Take a look at the fees they charge you now for example

Can a bank sit on the outstanding debt for 6 months to a year?

Sure they can. It's no different that foreclosing on the residence and having to maintain it, pay taxes and insurance on it and trying to move it in a crap real estate economy. Actually, it's probably cheaper to let the homeowner remain in the home, forego the mortgage, require that the taxes and insurance are paid (or the feds could forego taxes on the property during the moratoium period if they really wanted to help!) and have the homeowner required as a part of the moritorium package, to maintain the home in good condition.

Again, this becomes a win-win as Mark stated, for both parties. The homeowner gets a reprieve from the ton of crap that's been dumped on them, the possibility exists that the economy will turn around, they may become gainfully employed and the balance will eventually be paid in full. All while not putting another "decent" (and I emphasze DECENT) family on the streets

Those that do not fit into the categories I outlined above would face the normal foreclosure actions. Sorry, that wil piss some people off, but oh well
The fact is, if you are too lazy to work, you're a criminal or doper, you don't deserve a break (IMO). Hows that for politically incorrect?

Is having GANGS defying legal orders to vacate and confronting the legal executors of those eviction notices going to end up well for anyone?

I don't know about NY, but if the lawful process has been executed, gone through the courts and an order issued by the courts to execute the eviction, we'd execute it!

The human chain, should it decide to remain strong, would then be reinforced by stainless steel chains, and the whole mess could go to jail as one big happy f**king family
Passive disobedience is still disobedience. And obstruction is still obstruction. And in FLORIDA it's still a criminal offense.

If this starts a trend where people can simply defy a law at will, is this going to create a real comfortable environment in this country?

Who gets to pick which laws can be FORCIBLY defied?

If they want to prove a point, here's one for them...point is....you need more bail bondsmen! It takes too long for 1 person to do the paperwork to bail that many people out of jail at one time

The fact is, many good, hard working, dedicated and forthright people have suddenly and through no fault of thier own, fallen on hard times and need a break. You can't have 20 hands all outstreatched for $$ at the same time and only enough $$ to fill 3 of them and survive. The numbers don't add up. The subprime lenders should have never made the loans in the first place!
If they are left holding the bag on one of thier loanshark moves, so be it. They reap what they sowI have no remorse for them at all!

As for ACORN, They are in the same category as the UHURU "movement", and all the other groups of thier ilk.

They only lend themselves to assiting one segment of the community and have a very distorted view of right and wrong.

As with other groups (KKK, Hells Angels, Outlaws, et al), they are known and proven radical and extremist groups and should be treated as such!!

[Shadow]

If you can't afford your house, sell it/let the bank have it and get an apartment/house that you can afford.

That's a good point (ever listen to Dave Ramsey?).

Selling the place and getting into something one can afford is very sound advise.

Here's the problem:

Getting into an apartment after an eviction, bankruptcy or foreclosure is a nightmare!
Unfortunately, after such an event, it's difficult, almost impossible to obtain decent housing without paying an arm, a leg and some other body part.

As long as there are protections in place to assure that those who legitimately fell on hard times through no fault of thier own (see the list above), have the ability to obtain housing somewhere, then it's all good

And selling a house in this market is almost impossible. Add to that back payments that may be due, legal costs, potential liens and judgements...not too many investors lined up to buy now days.

I do the foreclosure sales for one of my clients on a weekly basis here in Tampa. You'd be surprised what the conversations are now compared to 6-12 months ago among investors.

Face it, people in this country need a break.

If the feds really cared, they'd change the damend tax tstructure to start with!
Then eliminate excess taxes, bring back some of the tax benefits that they removed over the years and finally, learn to live within thier own budget!!

As long as we have city, county, state and federal agencies whining, pissing and moaning about $$$ and refusing to live within a budget, then nothings going to change.

Our "leadership" needs to "lead" by "example."

[Rich Z]

This makes for rather interesting (and relevant) reading....

http://freethemarketman.wordpress.co...its-defenders/

Truth is Treason in The Empire of LiesApril 30, 2008
The CRA Scam and its Defenders

By Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Ludwig von Mises Institute

“Liberal” economists are overjoyed by the bursting of the housing bubble, for it provides them with what they believe is another “market failure” story. “Most analysts see the sub-prime crisis as a market failure,” Robert Gordon gleefully declared in the April 7 online edition of The American Prospect magazine, edited by Robert Kuttner.

Gordon does not define what an “analyst” is, and does not cite any survey to support his claim. One suspects that his opinion is based on an informal survey of his like-minded, left-wing friends.

Gordon is a defender of the federal government’s 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) under which the Fed and other financial regulators have pressured/extorted banks into making more loans to less-than-creditworthy borrowers than they would normally be willing to risk. As such, Gordon believes in the following propositions:

runaway greed (”market failure”) on the part of lenders is the cause of the subprime crisis;
these same greedy lenders routinely ignore billions of dollars in potential profits in lower-income communities because of their systemic racism, stupidity, or both — hence the need for the CRA; and
no government agency, especially not the Fed, had anything to do with either the creation or bursting of the housing market bubble and the subprime crisis.
(If you think I’m establishing a straw-man argument, read Gordon’s article for yourself.) http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...ubprime_crisis

The first two propositions flatly contradict each other, whereas the third is unequivocally false. Fed policy — which is not even mentioned by Gordon in an article that is ostensibly about the cause of the subprime crisis — is the cause of the boom-and-bust cycle that has caused the housing bubble and its bursting. Not “market failure” but Fed policy.

Gordon is incensed that a few “analysts,” including myself and Professor Stan Liebowitz of the University of Dallas, have argued that the bursting of the housing bubble has caused the chickens to come home to roost, so to speak, after thirty years of government policy pressuring banks to make tens of billions of dollars in bad loans to people with low (or nonexistent) credit ratings. Neither Liebowitz nor I have argued that every last bad loan out there is a CRA loan, but Gordon implies that we do in a rather feeble attempt to construct a straw-man argument.

Gordon cites Fed bureaucrat Janet Yellen as the source of a “killer statistic” that absolves the government of all guilt: “Independent mortgage companies” which are not covered by the CRA made many more “high-priced loans” to borrowers with bad credit than did CRA-regulated banks, she says. Well, so what? Even if Yellen is correct, that does not mean that CRA-regulated loans have not caused tens of billions of dollars in defaults.

Moreover, Yellen and Gordon don’t seem to understand what an “independent mortgage company” is. Many of these companies are like the one in which my next-door neighbor is employed: they are middlemen who arrange mortgage loans for borrowers — including “subprime” borrowers — with banks, including CRA-regulated banks. Some killer statistic.

By ignoring the role of the Fed in creating the whole housing-market mess, Gordon’s pronouncement that it is entirely a result of “market failure” is laughable on its face. He also flatly denies that CRA lending has had anything to do with why so many uncreditworthy borrowers have defaulted now that the Fed-generated housing bubble has burst. This, too, is an untenable position.

When the CRA was created during the Carter administration, the administration also funded with tax dollars numerous “community groups” that have helped the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, and other federal regulatory agencies to enforce the act. Under the CRA, if a bank wants to make virtually any change in its business operations — merging, opening up a new branch, getting into a new line of business — it must first prove to regulators that it has made “enough” loans to the government’s preferred borrowers. The (partially) tax-funded “community groups” like ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) can file petitions with regulators that stop the bank’s activities in their tracks, perhaps defeating them altogether. The banks routinely buy off ACORN and other “community groups” by giving them millions of dollars as well as promising to make even more dubious loans.

In order to try to diversify the risk of these loans, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company (”Freddie Mac”) pioneered the “securitization” of bundles of these high-risk loans so that they could be sold on secondary markets. Such “securitization” exploded during the 1990s as a result of government regulation. As Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke himself stated in a March 30, 2007 speech entitled “The Community Reinvestment Act: Its Evolution and New Challenges” (published online by the Fed),

Securitization of affordable housing loans expanded, as did the secondary market for these loans, in part reflecting a 1992 law that required the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to devote a large percentage of their activities to meeting affordable housing goals. (p. 3)

In 1994 the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act loosened up the regulatory barriers to bank mergers. Consequently, said Bernanke, “As public scrutiny of bank merger and acquisition activity escalated, advocacy groups [like ACORN] increasingly used the public comment process to protest bank applications on CRA grounds.” In other words, there was a burst of additional legalized extortion perpetrated by the Fed and its pet “activist organizations” beginning in the mid-1990s. As a result, says Bernanke, “banks began to devote more resources to their CRA programs.” What an understatement.

Also in 1995, the US Treasury Department created the multibillion-dollar “Community Development Financial Institutions” fund to “provide banks with access [i.e., taxpayers' dollars] to new opportunities to finance community economic development” as “encouraged” by the CRA, said the Fed chairman.

The government also “streamlined” the regulatory requirements for CRA loans in 1995, allowing — and indeed pressuring — banks to make such loans without the benefit of many traditional credit-worthiness criteria, such as the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, savings history, and even income verification! Instead, the Fed told banks that participation in a credit-counseling program, many of which are federally funded, could be used as “proof” of a low-income applicant’s ability to make his mortgage payments. In other words, federal bank regulators required banks to make bad loans based on nonexistent credit standards.

In his April 26 New York Post article on the CRA entitled “The Real Scandal,” Professor Liebowitz explains how the government’s Fannie Mae Foundation singled out one bank in particular as the role model for all other banks in America in terms of its commitment to CRA lending: Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, had committed to $600 billion in low-income or “subprime” loans as of 2003. Today, Countrywide is essentially bankrupted and has been merged with Bank of America.

The myth that the CRA would not be harmful to bank-industry profits was hidden for years by the Fed-created housing bubble, which allowed for easy refinancing of all the bad debt. “[The] CRA increased lending and homeownership in poor communities without undermining banks’ profitability,” Robert Gordon proudly proclaims. But now that the bubble has burst, all those unqualified borrowers — whom the government calls “subprime,” as though their credit ratings are only a tiny, tiny smidgen below “prime” borrowers with the very best credit ratings — are defaulting on their mortgages in droves.

Bank profitability has been extremely “undermined,” to put it mildly. The bursting of the Fed-generated housing bubble is the reason why the CRA scam was not exposed until now, despite having been in operation for some thirty years.

[Coastal]

It's a win win for everyone except the land owner. I would not be too happy to have my property taken over by forced by a bunch of thugs and our gubmint stand by and do nothing.

I'm surprised how quickly some give a "meh" to others property rights.

This is just more of people not being forced to accept responsibility for their situation.

I have always said that the CRA as bad as it is, is not the cause of our failing economy. Nationally, only one out of a thousand homes is in foreclosure and probably most of those the lenders were insured against default. Even our gubmint has not reversed any of the mechanisms that have led to the majority of mortgage defaults. If they were so concerned you would think they might remove the pressures on lenders to make shaky loans rather than increase them.

[Shadow]

I agree with most of what your saying, esoecially the last part

But the "owner" (ie: builder, former owner, et al) has already been paid. It happened when the mortgage was signed and the checks handed over.


It's the bank or finance company whose sucking hind teet on this package.

But as I mentioned before, I don't think this is going to happen on tenant evictions. It seems relative only to foreclosures for now.

And some people, as previously stated, are in financial binds not of thier own design

The financing institutions, even though they were forced into this mess in some cases, need to startt figuring out how to help rather than just demanding and foreclosing.

JMHO

[THOR]

The financing institutions, even though they were forced into this mess in some cases, need to startt figuring out how to help rather than just demanding and foreclosing.

JMHO[/quote]

Right on Gordon. I couldn't agree more. If Banks took a more proactive friendly approach to help folks keep their homes, then the forclosure rate would plummet and the sharks out there won't be picking up these forclosures for pennies on the dollar. There was a forclosed home that listed for 249,000 in Pinellas Park area that went on the auction block and sold for under 50,000!! Not right in my opinion.