Supervisors hope to halt foreclosures with new resolution

|
(70)
PHOTO BY CHRISTOPHER D. COOK

John Avalos introduced a resolution today urging support for homeowners facing foreclosure in San Francisco. The resolution calls for several actions, including suspending all foreclosures until state and federal measures to protect homeowners are in place.

Sponsors of the resolution Avalos, David Chiu, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, and Christina Olague joined a coalition of community organizations to explain the resolution at a press conference.

The resolution would call for support of a statewide Homeowners Bill of Rights, a series of bills that would address predatory loans and robosigning, as well as California Attorney General Kamala Harris's campaign for a statewide suspension on foreclosures in properties controled by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It also “urges all city and county officials and departments to work proactively to ensure that San Francisco residents do not fall victim to unlawful foreclosure practices,” as Avalos explained.

Supervisors cited a report released in February by Assessor Phil Ting as one of the reasons for the resolution. The report found “irregularities” in 99 percent of foreclosure documents in San Francisco between 2009 and 2011, and “what appear to be one or more clear violations of the law” in 84 percent of cases. 

The resolution's language also names "predatory banking practices that disproportionately targeted racial and ethnic minority communities, especially working class African Americans and Latinos" as an impetus for the resolution, noting that “from 2007 to 2008, Wells Fargo, and mortgage lenders it has since acquired, was 188 percent more likely to put African American borrowers and 117 percent more likely to put Latino borrowers into higher-cost, subprime loans.”

“What we see around foreclosures is that we have a systemic problem,” said Campos. Over 1,000 homes in San Francisco are currently in the process of foreclosure, 

Supervisor Kim connected the issue to another systemic problem affecting San Francisco, that has been a recent topic of discussion at City Hall: family flight. 

“We do have many low-income families that are actually homeowners in the city, primarily in the southeast sector. But how they afford to buy homes is by squeezing often two to three families in these homes in the southeast. So we’re talking about not just one household when we foreclose on a home, we’re often talking about two, three families with multiple youth and seniors,” said Kim.

“This is something that has been an important issue for many of our supervisors across the political spectrum, is how to retain families in San Francisco. Stopping foreclosure has to be a key part of that.” 

A few supervisors congratulated community organizers for focusing on the foreclosure crisis.

“I want to thank Occupy Bernal for not only shedding light on what’s happening in Bernal Heights, but realizing that the foreclosure crisis that we’re facing is something that involves all of us. Every single neighborhood,” said Campos.

The resolution was introduced to the Board of Supervisors March 20. It will be discussed further at the Land Use and Economic Development committee meeting April 2. 

If it eventually passes the Board of Supervisors, the resolution will be non-binding; a citywide foreclosure moratorium is likely not imminent. Yet many supporters expressed urgency and commitment for city action to address foreclosures. 

“When speaking with the sheriff about how we can stop evictions, what struck me most was he said that sometimes when we walk into these homes, we’ve found that people have committed suicide before the sheriffs even come in,” said Supervisor Kim. “This is a life and death issue for many of our residents.”

 

Comments

Foreclosure is governed by State and Federal laws which trump anything the city or county can do.

It's really too bad that avalos doesn't give support to those hard-working and responsible people who actually pay their bills, but ratehr seeks to punish them by trying to give immunity to deadbeats.

Posted by Anonymous on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 5:52 am

We don't need your bias comment here.. why cause you sounds like work for the bank or have interest wt them.. if you do care for the welfare of the people then you should have voice the other way.. and not for the bank..

Posted by sunny on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 12:54 pm

The city has no standing to interfere with court proceedings that are governed by Federal and State law.

This policy will be for appearances only, and would have no legal effect.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

One of the hazards of posting under so many aliases to make it appear like there are many of you holding the same opinions, is that sometimes you slip up, "Greg."

Er... I mean, "Anonymous."

Posted by Greg on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 11:23 pm
Posted by Greg on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 6:20 am

It is so sad to read a comment that is void of all compassion. It is our society's propaganda that has made us believe that we must stand alone and pull ourselves up without the help and love of one another.
Maybe you have not been helped when you needed it, I hope you are helped now and find your way back to your heart and your recognition we are in this together. May it be so for all of us.

Posted by Guest: magick on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 11:00 pm

Why should I also pay the bills of others who do not?

Posted by Greg on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 6:21 am

Thank for your continued great reporting on how predatory lender foreclosures by banks like Wells Fargo are destroying the diversity of our community. And how volnteer activists like those of us in Occupy Bernal are joining with our neighbors in foreclosure by banks like Wells fargo to fight back. Keep up the great work.

Posted by Buck Bagot on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 7:08 am

in the past 4 years.. there millions of people loss their home.. people commit suicide , loss their livelihood , loss their jobs..loss their money... loss their family .. simply want to stay in their home yet these bank refuse to even negotiate since they have made their money already... they don't loss an dime.. why cause these loan are service by them ,, not own by them .. they made trillions of dollars market these loan as instrument to be sold to the public as investment .. encourage lies on the papers..encourage fabrication ... encourage inflated income ,, encourage re buy your second house buy your third house ,,, fourth house ,, why they doing these cause they are making billions and billions in the middle ... so they can keep making more.. i feel sorry for freddi and fannie mac .. they are the guaranteed these garbage loan .. and we as homeowner that endup suffer the most.. and nations economy suffer the most ...so why are these bank not punish ... because they have all these high price republscum Representative act as their agent and shelling them in congress and senate ,,, you got scumbag Rush limbaugh and the fox news corp who own by Rupert Murduct deliberately misinform you ..

Posted by sunny on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 1:10 pm

When you take out a loan, you have to repay it. If you fail to do that, you lose your home. And if you did not lose your home in that situation, nobody would ever pay their mortgage.

Your comments are essentially an insult to all of us who uncomplainingly pay our mortgage every month. For some strange reason, you support deadbeats more than those who pay their bills. What insanity is that?

Posted by Greg on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 1:22 pm

not that people don't want to pay .. you never loss an house ,, its like you never got shot before.. so you don't know how the victim feel .. put youself in the shoes.. you have few children and wife.. counting on you .. you still paying the same .. but suddenly the payment when 100 to 200 percent.. when you contact them ask them to renegotiating they give you bs after bs .. i have bank tell me don't use fax machine .. i have bank that telling my client they don't use email .. i have bank state to me that they never received my sign register mail ,, why can they renegotiate the term ,, let the family stay .. these people want to pay to stay in their house.. not because they don't want to pay.. but how many can affort to pay 200 percent more.. but banks much prefer foreclosed on the home instead of give the home owner an new loan wt lower payment .. why cause they can make more money buy reselling the house wt new loan...

Posted by sunny on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

I've had a mortgage for 20 years and - guess what - absolutely no problem/
. I make the payments and the bank sends me a christmas card and more importantly, allows me to stay in the home I have borrowed from them.

It sucks being poor but that doesn't mean the rest of us should subsidize them.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

Remember how SF board resolutions ended them?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 2:20 pm

Thanks for covering this important issue!

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 3:55 pm

If you sign a contract you need to know what you are signing. I dont think it is right that other taxpayers have to now pay becuase many did not realize that by signing onto those types of loans (where it is not a fixed rate for the life of the loan so the initial payments are lower) or using a second mortgage for a downpayment...another loan...Sorry !!! Shame on them for not realizing what they are signing....I agree with Greg. I make over 100K a year but never could afford on my own a home in SF as I am on my own due to the fact that a FIXED RATE payment on any house in SF is too much for my budget....back then--- and even today. I make way to much to qualify for below market rate housing as there are income caps-so I am stuck a renter. I am in no mans land with a decent salary.

FYI I was told by many banks in 2006-2007 that I could afford the payments on a 500-600K home (only asking for 'stated income' by the way, but I was truthful) but then I looked at the loan terms they were not fixed rate but had balloon payments and second mortgages to use for the downpayment--just so the monthly payment appeared lower at first and I could afford it. This type of lending did keep prices artificially high for the last ten years or more and i realized it back then and it made me mad....I realized the sham of the whole thing and REFUSED the loans and kept renting....now you are saying my tax dollars have to bail out those other people that were stupid and signed and are now whining becuase they lost their job and are underwater and want to stay in a house? no way. We only subsidize the poor, lazy and the stupid in this city....hardworking people dont get a break. Where is my bailout? I want to own a house too, do I need to throw a tantrum like occupy bernal and say I want to live in a house so just give me one for whatever I want to pay? I will never own and i make a decent salary because of all the stupidity in this city.

Posted by Guest WHAAA on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 5:42 pm

there are another nineteen homeowners who thought this through, was careful about what they signed and committed to, and who have been dutifully paying their debts.

As much as i feel sorry for anyone losing their home, most of these foreclosees knew in their hearts that they were living on borrowed time, and had no reasonable expectation that they could ever afford to buy a home here.

And you are correct - everyone wants a bailout these days but we have to draw a line somewhere. And we draw it at those who should have known better but quite simply didn't care.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 5:56 pm

They rolled the dice and lost. I am speaking of both the banks and all the buyers buying and refinancing homes that they simply could not afford....they all gambled on the fact that the housing market would continue it's exponential growth. It didn't, and they lost...well the banks didnt really lose and they probably realized they really wouldn't... and yes, that was wrong. But like a big Vegas casino, when you gamble with the casino sometimes you lose and sometimes you win, but the Casino (in this analogy, the banks, really never lose becuase of the sheer number of players and the decks stacked on their side) Individuals therefore need to be discerning and realize not to take financial advice from the entity that stands to gain......That is like the Fox guarding the hen house. That is the lesson but I believe they knew, they all knew it was a risk and they were taking it.... as is any investiment, if they didnt know, they were in no mental capacity to sign a binding contract. Unfortunately, and bizarrely there were very few that did not drink the kool-aid. I thank my common sense for keeping me out of this morass.

Posted by Guest WHAA on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 6:39 pm

and that the banks should maybe have been nationalized.

Fine, but either way, those who don't pay their mortgages must leave their homes. That is true even if the bank is the government.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 6:52 pm

I'm arguing forclosures should proceed. I'm just saying banks should suffer some consequence, but they probably knew they would not given the circumstances and they would be ' too big to fail'. Therefore, it is up to consumers to be that much more careful. Now our only option is to punish them in the marketplace by voting with our pocketbook. Don't invest in banks and securities that were the worst offenders. Move your money to a credit union. Unfortunately, the forclosures need to still happen for those that got involved with these loans. It is the only way out. Banks do need to be regulated in the future by the Govt. entitities charged then and now with oversight. The SEC failed , the chief economists failed, Greenspan and bernanke, politicians and oversight comittees failed. They did this country a disservice by ignoring the issue. It was obvious that this was going to happen and there was a collapse imminent. It was a systematic failure, fueled by greed at all levels. All signs were there and were ignored.

Posted by Guest WHAA on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 4:32 am

Right wing idiot. The first loans to go sour were the fraudulent loans. Once the economy crashed when banks held unknown amounts of toxic MBS on their books, then many families who had done right by their housing finance lost their incomes and could not make mortgage payments. It is impossible for most families to hedge for too long against unemployment.

The fault for this lies with the banks that sought excess profits from fees related to serializing debt off of their books and unlike real banking that holds loans as assets on their books, they didn't give a shit as to what happened once those loans were owned by investors because those homes were not assets.

Departure from basic standards of prudence in loan standards, deregulation of interest rates and leverage ratios and the flooding of the economy with trillions of freshly printed dollars created by the private banking sector that stoked massive inflation in housing prices is what led to this housing collapse.

Blaming honest families for bad acts by deregulated finance and a relatively small number of bad actor borrowers is what I'd expect to read on redstate.com, freerepublic.com or foxnews.com. Why is Tim tolerating this crap at sfbg.com?

Posted by marcos on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 6:54 pm

Absolutely. We should have all of our discussions in a bonafied progressive echo chamber. I should never have to
Encounter opinions which are dIfferent from my own.

Posted by Grig on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 8:17 pm

I don't mind differing opinions, and I don't think that's what marcos is saying either, but there are a few posters like yourself who are here solely to troll. You attack other people personally, and post under multiple aliases, often stealing other people's identities. There are just a handful of you (maybe even only one). You're probably a paid shill. But by posting under different names, you try to give the impression that your opinion is the majority. Those who develop even a passing familiarity with this site can start to see who the trolls are. But to the casual reader the whole online comments section turns to mush... which is of course the point. Tim and Co. can stop it in an instant. There are ways to control trolling. I don't know why it's not instituted, because the site is just being vandalized mercilessly.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 11:37 pm

Why are dissenting opinions to your 'progressive' stance called 'trolls' and you are not a 'troll'? By posting your opinion here? Hmmm? Why do you assume that anyone who has another opinion must be paid? That is bizarre. This is a comment area, you comment with your opinion and we comment with ours... That is how free speech works. Why do you assume that a lot of people don't have the same opinion that is not yours? That is such a myopic stance. I haven't heard any personal attacks from Greg, who has posted here a lot of times under 'Greg' I doubt given that there are other aliases... I agree with him and anyone else for not creating a false market in stalling forclosures, that isn't getting us out of this mess. I don't know Greg or anyone else with a like opinion here, sorry to break your bubble. Maybe tim and co as you call them realize by technology that these posts are not coming from the same place with multiple aliases as you are charging ... So they won't 'stop it in an instant' as you would like.

Posted by Guest WHAA on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 4:54 am

oooh, oooh....Personal attack, personal attack!!! Name calling! Tim, oh Tim how can you allow this on OUR comment area? please remove this!!! I'm thowing a tantrum because someone doesn't agree with me!!!! Censor this Marcos ( or do you mean to write Marxist?) person immediately!

That bit aside, you do realize that you contadicted yourself a couple of times in this post regarding banks holding assets, also the removal of personal responibility by using the words ' few,' 'honest' and 'families' doesn't work... You don't know the numbers or how honest these people were or are, so don't get it twisted. Yes, I'm sorry for children that are losing their homes because the parents were dumb and greedy, but that is it. They ate the only innocents, the adults were gambling like every other party in it.

Posted by Guest WHAA on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 6:48 am

Dumb and greedy right wing idiot.

We must all be reduced to bearing gold bricks on red velvet pillows with gold tassels to our financial overlords to make them whole for their bad gambles and their Wiemar levels of printing money to goose the housing market.

Apparently debt and money printing is only bad when held by the public sector that is supposed to have monetary sovereignty, that holds debt in the currency it controls. When private capital prints mortgage dollars like they're going out of style and stokes bubbles and inflation in the housing market, then that's no problem even though it makes American labor even more globally uncompetitive by forcing up the price of housing. So long as the banks get the interest income streams in exchange for their bad bets and inflationary serialization policies, all is well.

Personal responsibility is only for the little people and for those who made no errors of their own but who see their homes being taken from them due to the undertow created by others.

If you can't hedge against unemployment, then clearly you are "dumb" and "greedy."

Might I direct you to redstate.com, freerepublic.com or foxnews.com where you'll feel more comfortable with a fact-free discussion of economic sharia?

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 7:43 am

to labels like "idiot" or "troll" or "right-winger" then you'd be more effective saying nothing.

Coming across angry is coming across as not having good arguments.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 8:28 am

There is no debate with right wing trolls, idiots who resort to religious dogma of economic sharia in place of reasoned economic analysis.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 9:06 am

To me, that kind of stereotyping is much more indicative of an inability to manage and maintain a debate than simply looking at someone's ideology, as you appear to believe.

I also notice that you obfuscate when you start to lose a debate. You might want to hone your rhetorical prowess.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 9:22 am

Also, I am not right wing, and have never been accused of that, sorry you have to resort to name calling and stereotyping. And...not that I think that is 'bad' as much as I dont think a liberal stance is 'good'--which I consider myself...

But if you think fighting for people to keep a house that they A> cannot read a contract about the terms and limits B> simply cannot afford to pay for currently given their job status and outstanding loans on the home and C> make the argument that the home is "their" home that is being "taken"---when they have only been paying (in many cases) the interest on the loan , zero of the principal and put no down payment down.....is 'reasonable economic analysis' we really have nothing to debate anyway. You live in a fairytale that is not reality.

Sorry, it has to work this way.

Should the banking regulating agencies SEC, FDIC etc. banks and the responsible heads be punished and made to pay into a fund to fix this mess? yes, of course, they are culpable and I think they should, but we are where we are and propping this mess up with stall tactics on the forcosures is stalling our economic recovery.

Posted by Guest WHAA on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 9:36 am

Another economic right wing idiotic post. People contracted for housing when they had jobs and the fact that those jobs disappeared through no fault of their own should not economically wreck a family unless the bankster class which instigated the policies of loose money and housing inflation likewise go down in flames.

If banksters are bailed out as TBTF, then homeowners should all be bailed out as TBTF.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 9:54 am

because of the "banks" - that viewpoint of yours is naive and wrong.

Over 90% of homeowners are paying their mortgages - we're talking about the marginal fringe of borrowers who are sub-prime. They were probably doomed anyway.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 10:23 am

I defy you to find one mention of religious dogma or 'sharia' in any of the dissenting posts than yours. That is really silly and a clearly desperate grasp at some type of straw to try and make my opinion the 'bad' or unpopular one.

Posted by Guest WHAA on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 10:00 am

I defy you to find one mention of religious dogma or 'sharia' in any of the dissenting posts than yours. That is really silly and a clearly desperate grasp at some type of straw to try and make my opinion the 'bad' or unpopular one.

Posted by Guest WHAAA on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 10:02 am

Idiot. The religious dogma of Ayn Rand is the same religious dogma as Josef Stalin, that complicated and contradictory systems can be reduced into nice simple economic ideologies. Reality does not readily allow itself to be shoehorned into such simplistic ideologies.

In fact, ideologies are for those without new ideas.

If Rand disciple Alan Greenspan could not make a go of libertarian capitalism as fed chair, then he is the Josef Stalin of lib cap, as Stalin had all the power to make Leninism work and he could not. Both religious ideologies fail because human nature is complicated, neither good nor evil but a mix of the two, a contradiction which neither polar ideology can incorporate.

Idiot.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 10:24 am

Haven't I been telling YOU, that you were oversimplifying the issue by saying all borrowers were on the up and up and 'good' and all lenders were 'bad'- and all common sense views were 'bad' and only yours that would have those stay in homes that they dont pay for and the people are victims of the big bad economy were 'good'--those have been Your points and Your idiologies --its here in Black and White. . Now you are turning that around on me? Seriously you are looped. I have been maintaining that you are oversimplifying and passing out halos to all that signed these "hardworking familiies" that signed these obviously bad loans....that is what YOU have been maintaining --the black and white stance.

...and now the 'religious dogma' is Objectivism, which was not even discussed and is a whole other topic, off religion. Funny too especially, given your views and points you should mention Stalin ....laughable arguments...qutie pathetic.

I think I have mistaken you for someone who had a nervous system and acutual rational thought. My bad.

Posted by Guest WHAA on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 11:08 am

Idiot. Most borrowers were honest borrowers. The few who were bought liars loans were the first to falter and it was those loans that took the whole fucker down, stoked massive unemployment which led honest borrowers to be unable to pay their mortgages and which saddled the economy even further. Mellon would be proud of you, idiot.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 11:30 am

your statements sound much more like mere personal viewpoints.

It seems that you don't understand that capital markets move in cycles and so, periodically, we have a downdraft when excesses are wrung out of the system.

Such cleansings are actually a healthy and natural part of the cycle. The problem occurs more when governments try and "manage" the cycle and smooth out these necessary corrections.

Shaking out the weak hands is a healthy and cathartic process, and not to be feared. Even if all the banks had failed and were now run by the government, foreclosures would continue until there is balance and equity in the market again.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 11:53 am

Idiot. Were you home schooled or did your brain get all bent up at church school? I'm not speaking for anyone, I'm recounting what I've read of the patterns of mortgage lending that got us into this mess.

Massive foreclosures are not part of any cycle or correction, they are a sign of structural contradictions that involve tens of millions of loans that are threatened with going under water and a housing cost structure that makes the economy less competitive when compared to other similarly situated economically. Cheap mortgage money is inflationary like the government printing to debase the dollar, high housing prices are like a TAX on the economy which makes it less competitive.

Conservatives don't hold internally consistent views that are defensible when put under scrutiny. They just believe, as in jesus and Ayn Rand. Because the book says so. That's why!

Andrew Mellon advised Herbert Hoover to liquidate, liquidate, liquidate! That worked out very well for Hoover's reelection prospects.

Idiot.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 12:41 pm

It's a perfectly logical response to a default.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

Idiot, do you have to try to be so stupid or does it come naturally?

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 1:47 pm

This is so easy it's almost not fun any more.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 2:20 pm

Um, saI'm saying IM a person who does not want to pay the way of others out of their dumb and greedy mistakes...i.e. not looking over a contract and buying a house they cant afford down the line and betting it will go up in value thus falsifying the housing market so that real people with real assets dont feel comfortable purchasing becaused they are smart enough to see that the market is fraud on all sides--buyers and sellers NOW..that is dumb and greedy! not letting the market dictate the terms as it always has in the past... again, dont get it twisted.
'homes being taken from them by undertow' would only apply had they paid all cash or finished paying off a mortgage, until then the house is not theirs is is being rented to them by the bank.

You seem to have trouble with understanding an asset (the home) being collatoral for a loan. it is very basic--you and all these others need to go back to school and if you dont understand the house is the security for a loan that is not being paid, then that is what the real problem is,,,that is not redstate, that is common sense and capitalism (that is in practice HERE) and the basis of our financial system HERE....you want communism and socialism there are a select few countires clinging to that, but not so many.. it doesnt work.

Posted by Guest WHAA on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 8:45 am

Most all mortgages were taken out by those with employment whose housing payments could easily have been met with those wages. Once the bad loans crashed the economy, jobs evaporated and most all mortgages now in trouble were taken out honestly. That is the undertow, $4t in cash sucked out of the economy by fraudulent banking practices that took the economy with it.

How about more quantitative easing to try to keep those asset prices inflated?

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 9:11 am

There could never be a "bad loan" without a "bad borrower", a "bad valuation" and a "bad droker".

Trying to blame just the banks shows a naivity that condemns you to continue to not truly understand the nuances of the mortgage mess.

But it will work itself through and - don't worry - your condo will maintain it's value, ensuring that new arrivals in this city will continue to struggle so that middle-aged activists like you can make do.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 9:24 am

Idiot. Bad loans are always bad. Good loans can go bad when bad loans crater the economy.

Why did the economy crater? Because good borrowers lost their jobs for no reason at all? Or was it because those jobs evaporated because banks mixed up crap loans with good loans into sausages of serialization that all banks held but nobody trusted because they were crap?

Prudent banking standards were eviscerated by right wing economic shariasts who held that regulation was not needed, that enlightened self interest was sufficient. Banks should hold mortgage loans on their books as assets to ensure that they don't hold crap on the balance sheets. 500 years of banking prudence was tossed out the window by Ayn Rand disciples with disastrous results.

The fact that yet another real estate and tech bubble is inflating the paper value of our home is meaningless to us until we decide to move.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 9:57 am

You claim to "care" for others but if it affects your home value in any way, you'll do a 180

Posted by Greg on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 10:24 am

So because you happen to lose your job you dont have to pay the debt you signed with the house as the collatoral? I'm sorry, does that make sense? Think about it....think about it....
You cant say that ALL loans were taken out by those with wages becuase the banks were allowing loans on 'stated income'. EVEN the poster child for occupy Bernal says they used a house owned since 1973 that should be paid off as an ATM and to finance mom's retirement, when the retiree had no income.....Many others did not have the finances to get a loan and upped their 'stated' wages, why not they didnt have to prove it--well this mess is why not, ok?. So yes, bad on the banks and oversight agencies for allowing this, but bad on people for not being more honest and practical. There are a million nuanced stories. Banks allowed people to do a lot of things also like not paying a 20% downpayment as they used to require--or allowing a second for a down. OR allowing loans to be "interest only" for five years with a balloon payment that caught people out. And remember many have walked away from their house becuase they had no 'skin in the game'--the house that they paid no principal on becuase they were just making interest payments for 3 years, lost value and they walked away--many times EVEN if they still had their jobs. I know personally of three people at my work who did this. They have their jobs and the same salary....so it isnt black and white and simple and neat as you would like. ALL people are not good, ALL banks are not good--ALL was based on getting what they all didnt deserve... but if you happened to lose your job and the bank is forclosing (yes I agree all this created a n undertow in the economy with job loss) then that is what needs to happen for us all to recover. That is just LIFE. You win some, you lose some. But we all need to play by the same rules. You can't whine becuse you happened to be caught out in this financial crisis. It isnt fair to the rest of us that did play by the rules.

Posted by Guest WHAA on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 9:56 am

Idiot. Most people who took out mortgage loans did so under conventional lending standards, the number of stated income loans was minimal and only came online once the pool of legitimate borrowers was exhausted around 2005-6.

Hundreds of years of bankruptcy law were eviscerated on the altar of economic sharia as well in the bankruptcy reform act of 2005, which will ensure debt peonage to all who faltered in repayment irrespective of their circumstances.

So banksters sold good loans to all who qualified, lowered standards and sold crap, bundled it all together and serialized them which poisoned the whole lot of loans which then caused economic collapse and then the banks get bailed out and get to hold everyone hostage who was a victim of generalized economic collapse under debt peonage for the rest of their lives.

Dickensian right wing economic sharia is what we've got going on here.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 10:02 am

'Most people who took out mortgage loans did so under conventional lending standards, the number of stated income loans was minimal and only came online once the pool of legitimate borrowers was exhausted around 2005-6'

Your s statement above is patently, patently false! There is countless evidence/articles to the contrary in every major publication for the past four years. Do some reading and get back here. You are very, very wrong.

90% of forclosures are loans (and refinances) taken out after 2001 and especially after 2004 when the conventional lending standards pretty much ceased to exist.

Posted by Guest WHAAA on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 10:16 am

Idiot. Those shaky loans are the first wave, with the next big wave coming from those whose savings are being depleted as we speak. Idiot.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 10:22 am

Related articles

  • Despite settlement, Wells Fargo still in housing activists' crosshairs

  • Activists rally for alleged victim of illegal foreclosure

  • The price of growth

    Development is booming in the eastern neighborhoods, but the money isn't there to cover the infrastructure needed to serve it

  • Also from this author

  • Homeless for the holidays

    Changing demographics in the Bayview complicate city efforts to open a shelter there

  • Betting on Graton

    Newest casino targeting Bay Area residents promises to share the wealth with workers and people of color

  • Women complain about F.X. Crowley's union

    NLRB filings, lawsuit charge discrimination while supervisorial candidate was running Local 16