It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Calif. cities eye plan to seize mortgages

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
This is the best idea for all involved.
The home owner gets to keep the house, with new lower monthly payments.The investors would have the opportunity to refinance at a FAIR MARKET VALUE. And Citys ,countys and states would get tax revenue.



The idea was broached by a group of West Coast financiers who suggest using the power of eminent domain, which lets the government seize private property for public use. In this case, they would condemn troubled mortgages so they could seize them from the investors who own them.


news.yahoo.com...




posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
San bernadino is bankrupt...

This is a cash grab on their part with all the new rent revenue it will generate, as a bonus they buy the good will of the people who are still wondering where all that City money went in the first place...


Corruption at its best.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


While this is made to sound good to troubled home owners, I don't like this quote:



In this case, they would condemn troubled mortgages so they could seize them from the investors who own them.


There will be no way to decide who is an investor and who is a home owner so is this a property grab?

Peace



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Expansion of eminent domain? Just hell no. Reform foreclosure laws instead. Infact, my state has strict laws restricting eminent domain. Money can never ever ever be gained from emminent domain in michigan. It cant be sold, it cant become a toll road, it cant be rented out. This is a big deal in my city because way back before my time several abandoned buildings were taken by the city through emminent domain and turned into public parking lots around the city. Honestly, it was neccessary, and i wish they could build atleast one parking garage. This parking is free. The city tried to sell one of these lots a while back......they were blocked from doing so iirc. Our city is a bit on the evil side as far as parking and having fun goes....



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
That's illegal, eminent domain was not created for snatching properties under such circumstances.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
There will be no way to decide who is an investor and who is a home owner so is this a property grab?
Peace
Well said.Furthermore, the most important aspect in self sovereignty is the ability to own property. Without full ownership of property the individual will always be obligated to someone or something, whether it's monetarily, or legally (simply put). I don't like it sir, don't like it at all.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Interesting idea. I would definitely like to see it tested in a small city to see how it would play out.

One of my friends manage a huge portfolio of properties for a major bank and he assures me that the bank he works with is HUGELY manipulating real estate values right now. We've all heard about the foreclosure shadow inventory and yes, these banks have millions of homes in pre-foreclosure and will not go through with it because they don't want to crash real estate prices.

This eminent domain group would in fact force these banks' hands, but it would crash prices which could have a ripple effect. I would be interesting to see what would happen to the city.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Eminent domain is used all the time by cities to take away land to benefit the city to their advantage, it is nothing new.
How the property is determined fair market is another thing.
I.ve seen whole blocks taken for freeways and school expansions even for condos. The only ones who profit are the builders and developers.
The banks have had the opportunity to refinance and they won't.
Citys have every right to protect their tax base as are the home owners have a right to save their homes that are under water in their morgage.
If the banks would rather see those homes go into forclosure than refinance at the fair market value of the home ,it's their lose.

Why should the consumer always take a loss and foot the bill ?
edit on 15-7-2012 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
In the end, the taxpayers would foot the bills anyways.....what about the maintenance of these properties etc?
Then theres the rent collecting probem, what if everyone ust didnt pay?
Its still ust shuffling money fr4om one handto the next, and not creating anything new...therefore it wil not solve the deeper problems we face.....
we cannot expand indefinately.....nor can values go up faster than incomes...
OTherwise everything falls apart like it just did.....stable prices and stable employment are the goal here....



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


The public is already paying for police to check empty homes for drug addicts, vandals and runaways, their paying for lower property values because the forclosed home are not maintained by the banks.
And we already bailed out the banks !



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 
I think you bring up some fair points.I would like to bring up some other interesting aspects in this idea as well. By doing this if someone could clarify some points for me it would be appreciated. I don't want to put on a face of ignorance, but I don't know what I don't know. First and foremost I would like to know to whom the titles of these properties are transferred to? Do they get transferred to another financial institution, or directly to the state? If legal ownership of these properties are being seized someone else will be the direct beneficiaries of these titles. If the state are the direct beneficiaries does this lend way to the debtor being subjected to laws and statutes that may be passed by the state down the road? EX: Sound restrictions, property upkeep violations, new taxes and fees, ect, ect. While giving these examples I'm not saying some would be unreasonable. My main point is the state gaining the ability to outright legally seize large amounts of property over a period of time. I'm not saying that this is the intention, I'm only saying it's something to keep in mind.Now if the property titles are going to be transferred to another financial institution, couldn't this just be strong arm tactics by some financial institutions against others, in cohorts with government? Now, I'm completely against a lot of the practices that these institutions have used against homeowners(2008), but I'm also concerned about the pandoras box this could be opening up for the future.

"This is not a bunch of Wall Street guys sitting around saying, 'How do we make money?'" he said. "This was a bunch of Wall Street guys sitting around saying, 'How do you solve this problem?'"
This was the most alarming statement I read in the article. This is like believing child molesters would make good grade school teachers.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
If this happens then the availabilty of mortgages in CA will go to zero.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Eminent domain is pretty complicated, you need a lawyer. This may help. Just remember you can't fight city hall.
The thing is if citys and countys use this method, noone may be willing to refinance the homes.
So it could be a lose lose situation if the bankers and investers refuse to play along.

Don't forget who ever holds the papers on the house must be paid fair market value under the Eminent domain law.

www.eminentdomainlaw.net...
edit on 15-7-2012 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
The state can seize your land now.

Once they normalize this as a practice; people will be scared to buy property which can easily be seized.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


It's nothing new. Many have lost their home with the Eminent domain law all across america.
Check the internet for storys Every state is different.
.
edit on 15-7-2012 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)


thesga.org...
edit on 15-7-2012 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Just a thought...

I have been reading some California municipalities have gone bankrupt. Not to diverge from the thread too far but that is in invite for privatization. At least that has been some of what has happened elsewhere.

Now you have the possibility of private corporations running the municipalities (or portions of them) AND being de facto landlords to some of the citizenry.

This would be quite different from a simple landlord-tenant relationship. Not only do you pay rent to your landlord now, you pay taxes to him, are subject to his zoning laws, etc.

Is this just me or does this seem uncomfortable?



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


Hell to the NO!

A caring government just trying to help??? Yeah right.


Bottom line, the gov will own your home....period......I thought we weren't supposed to trust the government?



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I never said I supported the idea.
.
Read what I posted , the eminent domain law would take the morgages not the homes.
And the plan is to resell the paper work to investers at the fair maket value of the home.
Who ever is in the home would stay and get a reduced morgage rate at the fair markt value of the home.
edit on 15-7-2012 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


Good idea?... Listen, the government will tell you where to live and you CAN'T SAY NO... If you say no they still take your house away from you... Welcome to socialism folks... California is going to be the first state to try this, but eventually it will be implemented all accross the U.S. Or at least the elites will TRY to implement it in every state...

I figure that the houses/apartments that they will give you to buy will be in accordance with the UN's Agenda 21... and they will be small...

So, this is how they plan to get almost every American to accept the UN Agenda 21...

The banks have been complicit on this sham, they lower the value of the house meanwhile your mortgate is very high to a point that many people are not able to pay them. More so with the lost jobs, and over-time being lost in jobs all accross the country...



edit on 16-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Holding/owning the mortgage means they own the house...it is one and the same. When you have a mortgage, the holder of the mortgage is the real owner....you are basically renting to own until you pay it off. So, it is a very bad idea.

Bad enough for the banks to own your house.....imagine the government owning it? They can kick you out without the foreclosure time I would think.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join