home

Who Owns That House?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 07:06:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan:

[A] national, blanket moratorium on all foreclosure sales would do far more harm than good -- hurting homeowners and home-buyers alike at a time when foreclosed homes make up 25 percent of home sales.

For instance, in Cleveland, where there are over 18,000 vacant homes, lives Millie Davis who recently earned her Master's Degree in Urban Planning from Cleveland State University and just bought her first home - one that had fallen into foreclosure and sat abandoned for years. Had a blanket moratorium been in place, that sale would have fallen through [. . .] These homeowners are at risk, too - and the best hope they have is for the "Foreclosed" signs in front of the vacant, abandoned properties on their block to come down, so that the value of their homes can start rising again.

(Emphasis supplied.) I am insistent on following the rule of law and providing homeowners due process, not a moratorium on foreclosures. I am for ending the moratorium on the rule of law that persists in this country regarding foreclosures. But beyond that, Donovan's statement makes no sense. The current climate of clouds over titles to homes is not a result of a potential national moratorium on foreclosures. Quite the opposite. It was due to the moratorium, blithely accepted by the Obama Administration, on due process and the rule of law. The Obama Administration has simply been incompetent regarding the mortgage crisis (from HAMP on down.) There is a crisis of confidence in the country about this issue, and a cause of that is the incompetence of the Obama Administration.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Night Open Thread | Persistent Resistance To Boldness >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Who Owns That House? | 54 comments (54 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It's more (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 07:41:12 AM EST
    supply side gobble-de-gook. These people DO NOT understand demand. They think if the supply is there people will buy houses when that is not the case at all. Like I've said before, I have houses in my neighborhood that have sat for years.

    Demand creates supply, (none / 0) (#51)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 03:46:36 AM EST
    Not the other way around!

    Parent
    Those houses wll (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 08:27:55 AM EST
    continue to sit there too because few people can afford them, and those who can will not invest in them if clear title and the rules of clear title mean nothing to the courts and the powers that be.  Without the rule of law strictly governing home buying, selling, and foreclosing nobody can be assured of anything and that is to include the investors in mortgage backed securities.  

    What good will it do the Millies (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 08:56:51 AM EST
    to buy homes that they may lose, too, if the title turns out to be flawed?

    When the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development does not understand the depth and breadth of the problem, these statements only worsen the worrisome crisis of confidence.  

    So, do you think Millie Davis is (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 10:07:07 AM EST
    lying awake at night wondering about the state of the title to the property she bought in that foreclosure sale?

    And, how many real estate agents are lying awake at night wondering how they will handle the issue of clear title with potential homebuyers who are now beginning to ask about it?  Will real estate brokerage firms have to establish title-searching divisions in order to accommodate the concerns of buyers - and what kind of liability will they be taking on if they do?

    At some point, it has to start dawning on more people that the filing of false affidavits wasn't a bug, it was a feature - a strategic decision made in an effort to cover up all the failures of the lenders and servicers, from the underlying failure to properly comply with servicing agreements that required the actual transfer of the notes to the foreclosing entity, to the use of companies like DOCX, to the rampant fraud on investors, homeowners, the courts and - ultimately - the economy.

    None of this goes away when the moratoria stop.  Confidence is not magically returned to either the housing market, or to the MBS investment sector, which is also now beginning to wake up and smell something they wish with all their hearts was coffee, but is instead the stench of nonexistent and utterly worthless securities.

    It was bad enough when the media allowed itself, once again, to play stenographer for Wall Street and the big banks, but now we have the Secretary of HUD out there also reading from a similar script.

    Where is Obama, number one, and where in the world is the much-vaunted expertise of Elizabeth Warren - the consumer guru that the blogosphere just HAD TO HAVE???

    I think, but I'm not sure, that she's been studying her lines, and any day now, we can expect to hear more platitudes about how unwise it is to have a national moratorium, especially since the voluntary nature of the ones currently in place by the big banks is proof that they really, really, want to make things right.

    Oh, wait - she already said that.

    Silly me.

    Why did Millie Davis buy in (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 10:46:24 AM EST
    a neighborhood where there were so many foreclosures if she can't handle it?

    The statement above seems to indicate that the foreclosure signs were there long before Ms. Davis moved into the neighborhood...

    Clearly, Millie has decided to take a on a major risk in her investing strategy.  Not sure that is a compelling reason to throw a bunch of other people out of their homes illegally.

    Things are awfully screwy these days and the Democrats wonder or don't why it is that they are looking at major losses at the polls.

    Parent

    I'm not sure I understand... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:09:17 AM EST
    I didn't get that Millie couldn't handle her own mortgage, I was merely wondering what Mille knows of this situation, and whether she now has any fears that perhaps the title to the home she bought wasn't clear at the time she settled on the property.

    Even if I didn't know what I know, I'm not sure I would consider buying a property that had been foreclosed on, or buying in a neighborhood where a lot of the homes were sitting empty because they, too, had been foreclosed on.

    Ending the moratorium isn't going to make the problems go away, and the more we learn, the more obvious it is to me that this was - and is - a system that is rotten through to the core - and it shouldn't only be the homeowner who suffers.


    Parent

    Basically, Millie's story is (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 01:43:06 PM EST
    being used as a rationale for ending the moratorium.  

    The "logic" set forth here is that because Mille recently purchased a house in an area in which there are many foreclosures she is entitled to expect an increase in the value of her property.

    The reality is that she has placed a bet and may lose - this particular neighborhood may never recover or take decades to do so.  She did not place this bet without knowing that the area was particularly hard hit by foreclosures - in fact, she took advantage of the foreclosure situation.  All of that is fine.  It is her choice.  People called people crazy for buying townhouses in Manhattan in the 70s, those folks are laughing all the way to the bank now - Millie may hit the jackpot sometime down the road - but the point is that her risk-taking is not an excuse for victimizing other people.

    I actually think that this example speaks volumes about how this Administration views the world - and it ain't pretty - what they are saying here is that the people who have some cash - speculators no less - because that's all Millie really is - should be catered to.  Millie isn't the lady down the street who bought in 2004 who is underwater on her mortgage and just would like to become whole again - not people whose stake in recovery is huge compared to our recent grad's - Millie is the newcomer who is in effect taking advantage of other people's misfortune and probably wants a return on her investment sooner rather than later.

    Now, to be fair to Millie, I don't know that she's a bad person who is deliberately trying to profit on the misfortunes of others - but the Administration seems to be favoring her interests over the rest of the people who are "weaker" - and that is unseemly to me.  I'd say that Millie's fate and fortune shouldn't be any more important than anyone else's; and I would further offer that Millie, unlike some or many of her neighbors, bought into  what was obviously a bad situation in hopes of it getting better.  Many of her neighbors probably bought into that neighborhood with no concept that anything could be bad - remember those days?  Remember when banks, pundits, politicians and just about everyone not only assumed, but also insisted that a fall in the US housing market was impossible?  Remember that?  Just a couple of years ago people were called "crazy" if they didn't buy right away because they would be left behind forever and the values were only ever going to go up.

    Well, Miss Millie knows that she bought low - and she knows why she could buy low - that's because the area has been hit hard by foreclosures - something she knows because of the signage that makes it obvious and because she herself bought a home that was foreclosed upon - and she is gambling and hoping that she will at least hold her equity or maybe even grow its value.  Again, fine.  But why her bet is more important than someonelse's that was placed in 2004 is elusive to me.  It is very Republican thinking to focus so intently on the "winners" and to ignore or discount the "losers" so blatantly.  Of course the new Democrat seems to be fairly Republican these days.

    The Administration is writing off a lot of people - writing off their hopes and dreams - all for a few Millies.  Their problem, particularly in an election year and in an economy as screwed up as this one is that there are a lot fewer Millies in the world than there are all those other people in that neighborhood who have either lost their homes or are just trying to hang onto them right now.

    Parent

    And, then there are those (none / 0) (#18)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:27:52 AM EST
    who never missed a payment, but were not informed their mortgages had been bundled and sold and to send their payments to the new lender, so the payments went to the wrong place. They got foreclosed on.

    I read recently a headline, but at the moment didn't have time to read the article, that said someone who owned their home free and clear got foreclosed on?!?

    No one is safe from this runaway train, it appears. The American dream has become the American nightmare.


    Parent

    Yes, but even worse -- (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:40:39 AM EST
    that owner had paid cash and never had a mortgage.  The fraudulent papers were put together on the wrong address.

    This and other horror stories are in one of the articles that BTD linked a couple of diaries ago -- a long article but worth the time; I recommend it, too, as it pulls together a lot of info in one place for a good overview.  But a warning that it is very disturbing; this goes beyond banks and title firms and realtors and the like.  There is complicity by courts.  This really is systemic crime.

    Parent

    I should also add that, of course, (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 10:36:38 AM EST
    homeowners must be accorded due process - and the moratoria instituted by the big lenders doesn't seem intended to allow for that, as much as it's for buying time to dream up a new way to somehow keep these massive frauds from bringing down what a lot of people have suspected for some time was a fairly shaky house of cards.  And still allow for the big bonuses, of course.

    And, as long as we're talking due process, where is the Justice Department on this?  Yes, 50 state attorneys general have opened up fraud investigations, but in a situation where fraud on the courts seems like the tip of an iceberg that's looking a lot, in total, like a criminal enterprise, doesn't this, at some point, rise to the level where Main Justice needs to get involved?

    Or are we once again going to be held hostage to the people holding the economy hostage and be forced to pay more blackmail?

    Note the Realtor-approved line: (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    "so the value of their homes can start rising again". Even after millions have lost their equity, which for many was the only asset they had, home-ownership is still a great investment! The value rises(unless it doesn't)!

    Housing is too important (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    Housing is too important to have to suffer the slings and arrows of bubbles and volitile markets. People live in houses.  Mortgage backed securities must simply be prohibited.

    I see the situation as a pure (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 07:54:26 AM EST
    Hobbesian power/land grab by the elites.
    Everything is going according to plan, IMO.
    The WH can't afford to support a moratorium (none / 0) (#6)
    by BTAL on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 10:31:54 AM EST
    this close to the election.  Such an action would direct all the spotlights onto the problem sparking an even larger backlash.  It would be un-controllable.  The down-playing and quiet approach is out of fear.

    Anything they try to throw down (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 10:58:39 AM EST
    that excludes or circumvents the rule of law will be toxic for them and it will come with LOOOONG TERM consequences.  Conservatives will slaughter him daily for it and a lot of his base will be even more demoralized by the decision too.  They need to fully support due process, but with this White House's track record I don't see that happening.  After the midterms they will throw down something banana republic and President Obama WILL BE a one term President.  That makes me sad because I wanted something so much better to take place when we finally crossed that not a white guy President line.

    Parent
    My scope was calbrated on the 2 week range (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by BTAL on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 01:11:58 PM EST
    The WH, DOJ and Congressional leadership know that any attention they give to this slowly simmering issue will trigger the media to heat it to the rapid boil faster than Nov 2 can get here.  Hence, the whistling past the graveyard actions, aka extend and pretend.

    As to the longer term fix, IMHO they (those listed above) are doing the duck thing, look calm on the surface while paddling like mad underneath.  Without some sort of "miracle" fix, they know they will be facing their GWB "This sucker could go down" moment.  The result would be the fulfillment of your one term prophesy.

    Parent

    There is no miracle fix though (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 01:30:45 PM EST
    that doesn't do long term damage to some part of the structure that we need to remain whole other than an HOLC type plan.  And when that happens investors will immediately notice the haircut instead of slowly going bald.  At a time when nobody has a job, there are a lot of jobs to be had in this unwinding and this accounting.  Everytime something takes a lot of time or a lot of effort though this White House wants nothing to do with it.  Obama has to go back on his "turn the page" crap and his only look forward and not back crap too because this is all about what was allowed to happen in the past.  If he dealt with it, and it will be hard work, he could come out a hero.  But he has to deal with it and apparently he would have to fight with certain members of congress.  He could do what Clinton did and get on the tube and give the whole country a lecture on where he was taking it and who was undermining that, but does this President have what it takes to step up with a plan and argue for it and take such actions?  Now that I know him better it seems to me that this man is terrified of creating a plan that is his, he can't bear the scrutiny or the fight for such a thing or the defense of such a thing.  He doesn't want to do anything other than be a tool for whoever is going to butter his bread today or for the moment as Anne points out.

    Parent
    It is a Catch-22 from a PURELY political (none / 0) (#38)
    by BTAL on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 01:50:06 PM EST
    position.

    • Go at it with a HOLC solution and the socialist brand is seared into his last two years.  It will be fed by the already perceived views of some coupled with the student loan change + GM/UAW deal + HCR (I know, I know...).  

    •  Approach in a reactive way, let it explode then the banks redo their 2008 dance yet the public will go ballistic over any type of TARP II/bailout.  It would also have been long enough into this administration that the blame GWB/I inherited ploy will be slapped back.

    All of this is under the umbrella of no jobs.  Even if some sort of coordinated modification that also cleans up the docs could be negotiated for the benefit of all, too many don't have any income to qualify.  That rubs salt into any possible solution's wounds.

    Parent
    If he did HOLC right now (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 02:05:34 PM EST
    those who would cry socialist wouldn't be paid enough mind to matter at all. The only reason why the "socialist" thing gets any play right now is because of the tea party and the only reason why anyone listens to the party at all is because they talk about some sort of accountability when nobody else out there talks about accountability at all.  The sort of accountability they talk isn't a functional accountability though, but they do talk about an accountable government and the people are sick of being accountable and a government that is not and hasn't been for ten years and they'll take what they can get even if all they can get is the tea party.

    Parent
    I really like the words "at all" today (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 02:06:44 PM EST


    Parent
    I disagree strongly (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 10:43:15 AM EST
    You're not speaking for you only

    Hell yeah... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 10:46:06 AM EST
    access to the courts for due process is all broked*cks still got going for them, and must be preserved at any cost to the housing market or economy at large...without access to the courts we literally have no chance against financial predators who have the deck already stacked well in their favor.

    Parent
    They are not preserving the housing market (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:03:01 AM EST
    though, they are helping destroy it.  Without rule of law and due process, who in their right mind would promise to pay 30 years for anything?

    Parent
    Who in their right mind? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:14:53 AM EST
    Who in their right mind takes out a subprime mortgage on an overpriced house with no money down?

    There's a sucker born every minute sister:)

    Parent

    What lender in their right mind (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:19:52 AM EST
    considers such borrowers anything more than renters?  :)

    Parent
    LOL... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:34:57 AM EST
    Not even...renters get their deposit back!

    Parent
    And we haven't even touched (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:41:25 AM EST
    the investors yet :)  Crack pipe anyone?

    Parent
    What a tangled web we weave... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 12:48:30 PM EST
    when our hearts are filled with greed:)

    Parent
    There are suckers everywhere, but (none / 0) (#39)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 01:57:21 PM EST
    in order to take their money, they have to have some to take to begin with.  I think that the problem that we are already seeing rear its ugly head is that the suckers' bank accounts are running dry.


    Parent
    Too true... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    a skilled grifter knows ya can clean a sucker out completely but once...or you can nickel and dime grift them forever.  

    Greed kills another golden goose...for all their degrees you'd think the finance wizards could grasp these simple grifters concepts but noooooo, they need a multi-million dollar bonus right now!

    Parent

    Anectdotes v. data. (none / 0) (#9)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 10:44:00 AM EST
    one 'Real' person versus a blanket moratorium.  Examples of one or two or even a dozen real people doesn't mean that a moratorium is unnecessary to get to the bottom of who actually holds the title.

    I'm tired of reading about someone who has already purchased a foreclosed house as the reason that a foreclosure moratorium is unnecessary.

    Some questions for the Secretary:

    1. What is the rate of foreclosures versus buyers over the past three months? six months? twelve months?

    2. how many of the foreclosures that occured were/are legal?

    3. How many people have been foreclosed on and/or evicted who were NOT behind, had paid off their mortgage, or had applied for refinancing (please answer all three separatly. Aggregating the three doesn't provide information)?

    4. Should foreclosures continue while serious systemic questions remain over their legality, let alone their legitimacy?

    5. Would stopping foreclosures increase, decrease, or have no effect on homebuying between now and 2011? What data are available to support your answer, whichever it might be?

    The anecdote doesn't work for me any more. I want some data. I'm tired of nationwide analysis based on a single person.

    Isn't there a saying that a bad case makes for bad law, or something like that?

    the two aren't even related (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 12:35:42 PM EST
    In a judicial foreclosure state, where you have a finding that lender X held the note and mortgage, that there was a default, and an ultimate judgment of foreclosure, a bona fide purchaser w/o notice is going to be protected under the recording statute. For now I would call the robo signers a hidden defect that should be covered by title insurance.

    That doesn't mean there are not a host of problems with ongoing foreclosures that must be addressed as a matter of due process and to protect the integrity of the system.  False evidence is false evidence, even if the homeowner is truly in default.

    In many cases who is the actual owner of the note (and therefore the mortgage) is an open question. Original paperwork would help. Was it ever negotiated? Is it still in the orignal lender's warehouse? Does it even exist or was it destroyed? These are just some of the questions.

    Nor does this mean people are getting homes for free. In Florida at least, I only know of maybe 4 homeowners who hit that jackpot - as a form of judicial sanction for egregious behavior by the lender or the lender's lawfirm. Less than 1% of 1% of the total number of foreclosures.

    What a good defense lawyer is trying to do is to force a settlement by write down or by short payoffs, deeds in lieu of foreclosure without deficiency judgment. An actual moratoriam would be good in my view, but a defacto one is occuring. The answer is not a rocket docket. The answer is for judges to kick out non-conforming pleadings and to require due process. That will ensure an orderly end to this mess. That will also clear their docket. It will

    Parent

    This (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 02:33:35 PM EST
    What a good defense lawyer is trying to do is to force a settlement by write down or by short payoffs, deeds in lieu of foreclosure without deficiency judgment. An actual moratoriam would be good in my view, but a defacto one is occuring. The answer is not a rocket docket. The answer is for judges to kick out non-conforming pleadings and to require due process. That will ensure an orderly end to this mess. That will also clear their docket

    Parent
    Good questions. (none / 0) (#33)
    by EL seattle on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    Honest data can lead to a much more accuate view of the problem.  And that could lead to the most productive solutions.  Of course, basic transparency and documentation would have prevented these scandals and tragedies in the first place, and finding untainted data would probably be pretty difficult at this time.

    It's almost as though in the rush towards super-computing 'clouds' and the like, there's been a tendency to abandon basic accounting and documentation principles because document trails can't seem to keep up with the accelerated change.   Moore's Law can be conveniently used as a lazy excuse for this sort of behavior, but it has allowed for a lot of destructive mischief over the past few years.

    I think that this is a problem that goes well beyond the morgage mess(es).

    Parent

    Maybe I've read more (none / 0) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:24:35 AM EST
    than some folks, but the problem is so much bigger, and complicated, than even these comments suggest: Breaking & entering, changing locks while occupants still there, bringing industry friendly judges out of retirement to rubberstamp counterfeit bank docs, three secretaries in one office signing same name on forged docs,.......and the list goes on and on.

    Arizona may have gone backward on immigrants, but on fraudulent foreclosures they're dead on. The Attorney Gen. said he'll file criminal charges against officers of any company (or bank) found to attempt foreclosure with illegal docs.

    The banks and Real Estate Industry created a home buying frenzy, and the public bought into the dream. Having stuffed their numbered, off shore accounts with their billions (trillions?) the poor banksters couldn't afford a few dollars for clerical help to satisfy legal requirements.

    I guess being "above the law" has taken on a whole new meaning.

    Obama had his chance: help the people, or help his idols on Wall & Broad.

    Screw them all!  

    And, still, the people (none / 0) (#19)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:30:15 AM EST
    are not marching against anyone. Where is the outrage?

    Parent
    In France (none / 0) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:43:15 AM EST
    They're striking and rioting about requests for cutbacks we'd consider hangnails compared  to our cancer.

    Where's (our) outrage? Check out some psychology blogs, and ask your question there.

    It's coming, as sure as America's ideals have been trashed by our Power-Elite-Junta. As you'll find out, some gestations take a little longer than others.

    The longer the wait, the greater the Pop!


    Parent

    That's what I see too (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:54:40 AM EST


    Parent
    Good question. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:48:13 AM EST
    The TPers are riled up over nothing and the rest of the country just keeps taking it and taking it. Thank you, Sir, may I have another? What is wrong with us? Lazy, too busy surviving, uninformed?

    Parent
    I think all three are playing a role (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 12:00:59 PM EST
    The cheap food is still flowing too, we are fat slobs right now.  Food is becoming an issue for some though, and I think that will be a turning point.  We are certainly out of practice though in voicing our outrage and our leaders don't care when it does happen because up to now there haven't been consequences sizeable enough for them to care.  The way we jail people too I think is a factor.  The EU doesn't jail people for sneezing and they fear the outrage of their people as well.  People are afraid to protest here, people are afraid to be arrested, you have to lose your fear of being jailed or arrested and that changes everything.  I think it is coming though.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 12:11:00 PM EST
    the only real estate that's increasing in value.....rapidly, is farmland.

    When the sh!t hits the proverbial fan the people of means don't want to be anywhere near to urban areas.

    p.s. The rich have also (quietly) set up private food distribution channels.....and secured private (jet length) runways.

    Parent

    The Bush family compound... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 03:43:54 PM EST
    100k acres down in Paraguay near the freshwater reserves...I've read all about it.

    Yep, the elites are planning for our Mad Max-esque future, and will run for the hills when it arrives.

    Hopefully we wise up in time to prevent the Mad Max future.

    Parent

    Bill Burroughs (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 04:16:05 PM EST
    used to talk about them elbowing the women and children out of the way and jumping into the life boats in drag..:)

    Parent
    Dr. Benway and co. are small potatoes, I think (none / 0) (#48)
    by EL seattle on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 05:50:09 PM EST
    This operation has probably been under the control of the Intolerable Kid and his crowd for quite some time.

    One crisis is piling up after the other right. on. schedule.

    Parent

    Farmland increasing in value? (none / 0) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 12:15:28 AM EST
    Boy, not around here, it ain't.  Would that it were so.  I can't tell you how many farms in my area have been up for sale for the last several years with no takers.

    Where do you get that thought? I'd love to hear about it because it's a terribly depressing situation here. (I should say, my state has avoided the worst of the recession, so it's not as if we're in overall major decline.  But nobody has the cash cushion and the optimism to take on the uncerrtainties of farming right now.)

    Parent

    You see, (none / 0) (#52)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 07:54:15 PM EST
    that's the problem with blogging

    "farmland increasing in value," doesn't mean all farmland, everywhere.

    I was relaying a point I read in The Times (business section, I think.) The idea was that the uber-rich are starting to get a little antsy about being holed up in their 25 million dollar Manhattan townhouses should the proverbial "blood" start flowing in the streets. Easier to escape through the woods than down an elevator.

    And, for the not-quite super-rich, farming for personal consumption may be an option should your friendly super-duper market go up in flames.

    You know, "G," you remind me of a time half a dozen years ago when I was trying to sell my house. Every night on the news the "journalists" were breathlessly shouting at us how houses are being sold before the "for sale sign" was even stuck into the ground.

    So, how come it took 5 months before I even got an offer?


    Parent

    I question the whole premise (none / 0) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 20, 2010 at 01:47:45 AM EST
    honestly.  I don't doubt the rich are yapping about the idea, but they're not actually buying farmland.

    "Out Here," your typical house plot is 10 to 15 acres at a minimum.  Even mine is 2.  Plenty of room to grow your own food, even for rich people.  And none of it is "farmland."  It's just what "back yard" means to people who don't live in cities.

    I have no doubt those rich types have numerous vacation residences and second and third homes outside the cities with land surrounding them.  It's not farmland, but they have the option of hiring a fleet of workers to put in a nice kitchen garden if they feel the need.

    See, there's "farming" and there's "growing your own."  The two things are not the same.

    Parent

    "depends on what 'is' is" (none / 0) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 20, 2010 at 04:23:43 PM EST
    are you claiming there are no millionaires who have purchased what the NY Times referred to as "farmland" for the purpose of having easy egress in case of a national uprising?

    Using your neighborhood as a counter argument to the premise of the article ......I don't know what to say.

    Parent

    Noooo (none / 0) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 12:04:33 AM EST
    I'm questioning your statement above that farmland is "rapidly increasing in value."

    I've seen no data to that effect, and as I said, it isn't happening in my state, which is almost 100 percent rural, at all.  In fact, it's going the other direction.

    Come on.  A handful of millionaires buying a few acres in case they need to feed their families is hardly "farmland rapidly increasing in value."

    I was probing in hopes that you had some factual basis for the claim that farmland is rapidly increasing in value because that would be an extremely hopeful development for my state.  I'm disappointed to find out there's nothing behind your assertion other than a single article about a few rich people.

    I sympathize with their impulse, for whatever it's worth.  It's not the main reason but it is one reason why I moved from the city to the country, having the ability to feed myself, if worst comes to worst.

    Parent

    Who should own that house? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 12:41:36 PM EST
    Rather than bailing out wall street over the subprime mortgage mess they created for themselves and everyone else, the administration and the fed could instead have paid off every mortgage in the country, subprime or not, for less money (only about 12 trillion) than the 18-20 trillion they gave wall street as a reward for pillaging the economy. This could even have been done with tax credits thus avoiding any outlay of money from the fed.

    It would have restored the value behind the CDO mortgage backed securities that wall street got themselves into so much trouble with, and thus saved wall street while tremendously boosting the consumer driven economy as the money would have gone directly to the mortgage holding banks while at the same time effectively doubling the amount of bailout money by lifting a enormous debt weight from all those homeowners (and given them all clear title, I think) who would then have had an equivalent amount of disposable funds to spend any way they chose.

    The US consumer economy would be rockin' and rollin' by now - maybe even enough to pull the rest of the world out of the hole.

    .......

    Now, had this been done Obama and the Democrats would likely have lost all future donations from wall street and they'd be whining so loud we  couldn't hear ourselves think - those donations of course were apparently more important to Obama and the Democrats than bailing out homeowners instead of the party's corporate owners - but in spite of their whining they'd be looking at a landslide in the midterms.

    Idjits.

    Question? (none / 0) (#31)
    by coast on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 12:42:57 PM EST
    With the November elections in mind, what are the ramifications, if any, for people who have been foreclosed on and they are still living in the residence?  Whether they were foreclosed on legally or illegally, they are essentially squatters until it is worked out in court.  How does this impact their ability to vote in November.  Typically you are required to be a "legal" resident of the county or district in which your are voting.  If you are occupying a house illegally, are you still able to vote?  Homeless can list anything really as their address, but they are not occupying the space illegally.  That isn't the same as someone who is squating in their former residence.

    I don't know the answer and don't know how many voters this would actually apply to, but my guess is it applies to a lot more than in previous elections.

    "Legal" residence ... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 03:05:54 PM EST
    ... doesn't refer to someone's status as a "legal" resident of a dwelling (as in, having the legal right to occupy a home or apartment).  The definition varies somewhat from state to state, but a "legal resident" for voting purposes usually means the state "where the citizen has, or has had, physical presence at the location and where there is the intent to remain or return."

    Parent
    think of the children! (none / 0) (#50)
    by cpinva on Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 01:33:01 AM EST
    yeah, i know, no relevance whatever, but it had to be said. in fact, it makes about as much sense as the "if we foreclose on them, they will be snatched up by non-existent eager buyers" crappola, being spewed forth by the banking industry and the white house. one of these two should know better, but i am at a loss as to which one it is.

    i thought the last great command economy died a crumbling death, 20 years ago? we used to call it the USSR. didn't work. violated the basic laws of economics: sales follow demand, not the reverse.

    i realize obama isn't an economist, and i don't necessarily expect the president to be one. that said, i do (fairly, i think) expect him to have smart guy/gal economists advising him, who actually have a clue about how markets really work, versus how the banks and republicans wished they did.

    if he does, and they did, and he's chosen to ignore their learned advice, what good purpose is served, by continuing to support him? i mean really, we could just as well have a republican in there, who'll do the same thing, and i won't feel any need to defend his/her obvious stupidity.

    Who Owns That House? | 54 comments (54 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment