Housing Bubble, credit bubble, public planning, land use, zoning and transportation in the exurban environment. Specific criticism of smart growth, neotradtional, forms based, new urbanism and other top down planner schemes to increase urban extent and density. Ventura County, California specific examples.
> The bank should take the loss because they > gave the loan to someone who cannot afford it.
According to FCB's initial post, "A" took out a loan (two in fact) by filling out forms stating fraudulent income - they lied to the bank in order to qualify.
and the bank should suffer for this?
Had they told the truth, the bank would NOT have loaned them the money.
> By why doesn't the government pass a law > requiring all banks to get a certain > percentage of their mortgage business > from low-income consumers
Ah... "low-income consumers" can't afford the payments. "A" is a "low-income consumer".
Banks are not charities, they loan money to people they believe can pay it back. To do otherwise would be silly (and would put them out of business quickly).
> or to provide an affordable loan to any > consumer with a job and a salary above a > certain low level?
Banks will loan to anyone above a certain level. "A" lied about what that level was. Had they told the truth, they would have gotten a lesser loan and would be able to make the payments.
> as there would have to be some kind of > home or shack for said low-income > consumers.
Monica it seems to me that you don't understand what makes for affordable houses. Requiring full amortization and a substantial down payment makes for affordable housing. Sleazy lending got us into this mess and it can't possibly get us out.
No, rental does not provide ownership. My idea is to require by law to provide access to home ownership. I did not say access to great homes, but there should be no working individual who is simply priced out.
Banks are not charities. They would make what little money is to be made that way, and they would be required by law to cater to that clientele. Besides, the rich would subsidize the poor, if necessary, by paying more for mortgages, other loans, bank fees, and so on.
Incidentally, I don't see what's wrong in getting a piece of the American Dream by lying and cheating, if the rules are so unfair that the individual can't get that otherwise. There are all kinds of unfair practices, such as charging NSF fees when there is actually money in the account, that the banks use against consumers, so banks deserve to be screwed from time to time.
The thing about NSF fees when the individual has money is simple. When a check is deposited, the bank won't allow the person to take out the money immediately, or use that money to cover a check, even though the money is there. It is there, but the bank is just keeping it and not allowing the legitimate owner to use it.
How about if we just take money from the rich and give it to the working poor for a down payment? Then we could charge the wealthy with the upkeep of the house too. I would favor that.
There should be no working individual who is simply priced out.
I'm usually a lurker but this sentence really struck a chord with me. I have been priced out for years....I am not in the slightest bit bitter because I've always rented homes bigger than most places my homedebtor friends were paying for.
Damn Jim, I'm a blogger, not a mind reader! You beat me to it. This also goes to one of the things that really irks me about affordable housing. It isn't about having affordable or even having the same as what some of us are lucky enough to have. No, it seems to be an effort to make the nicer places less nice by "sharing" until there isn't enough to go around. Everyone can live in a nice place, we just cannot all live in the same nice place.
a few years back I actually tried to buy a condo where I was living in Hawaii and almost took a neg am loan. I had NO idea what a neg am loan was and realtor was kind enough to let me know "it won't matter so long as you refi!" Luckily for me, I'm literate. I read through the contract and realized there was no way I could pay if the worst happened and the mortgage went up. NO DEAL. And I lived happily ever after.
Not true Rob! We can all live in nice places...we just can't all own those nice places. What gets me is that some people feel like their lower class just because they rent. I've always rented just because if allows me to fill my rental with lotsa nice stuff.
You have to admit she has a point in a way. I saw the same thing in Florida. The more affluent don't mind having the working class commute in from whatever hovel they live in, but they absolutely do care where it is, and neither do the developers or the city planners. This will lead to growing discord among the masses.
Damn, came back for one last look and got sucked in again... :)
> having the same as what some of us are lucky enough to have
Generally, it's not luck. True, you may be lucky to be born rich, but for most it is about choices made along the way.
A friend from college got a music degree. He teaches high school music down in the LA area. He is quite happy with his choice and enjoys his life.
He will always rent though, he knows this and accepts it.
I got a computer science degree. My wife picked up several degrees and is a bio-tech patent attorney. We also both love our careers and are happy with the choices we made along the way.
We absolutely can afford to own and have a nice, fairly modest place in a neighborhood we love.
I am always amused by the people who claim that the system is stacked against them. Invariably, when you start to probe, you find that they stacked their own deck.
The world is as it is. If you choose to put in the time / effort to get ahead, you will. There is an element of luck to it, but I find that hard work and careful planning have a way of creating "luck".
PF, Yeah, I called it luck but then i also firmly believe you can make your own luck. Failing that, do what i did and marry far above your station. ;-)
"I am always amused by the people who claim that the system is stacked against them"
If they spent half their time actually working or trying to better themselves rather than whining about "the man" and how society doesn't give them a chance, they would be better off. I agree completely with you, most of them..fuck themselve...s to put it bluntly.
2) Make illogical, naive statements on how things SHOULD BE on this planet, for example, "We should have world peace, zero pollution, a free home for every family and free government medical care for every citizen and absolutely zero taxes for those who actually decide to work." Throw in lots of female type suffrage or victim examples.
3) Wait for "Knight in Shining Armor" to post realistic, logic based response.
2) "We should have world peace, zero pollution, a free home for every family and free government medical care for every citizen and absolutely zero taxes for those who actually decide to work."
Welcome to Monicaverse. As I recall, she lives in Quebec, so perhaps things are different in Canada. I suspect she thinks we should be on th e English Council system. I don't know, really, how it's done in Canada, I suspect she's trolling across the 48. Perhaps some of our more lucid Canadian or English friends could explain.
Rebecca suggested that Monica is from Quebec. I don't recall her mentioning being from here, but I might have missed that. We do have a certain quantity of government-assisted housing for the poor, one four-storey example of which convinced me not to buy the charming bungalow across the street a number of years ago. But, yes, things are different here. We use metric. Oh, and SK, we don't use phrases like estate agent or flat, but I remember conveyances from when Dad did lots of real estate in his law practice so I assume that term is used here. Happy Thanksgiving to all of you.
Why would anybody refuse to buy a house close to government-assisted housing? What's wrong with people there? How are they bothering people from other houses?
It depends on what you mean by noise. In my apartment building, there is someone who would bother me with some piano music and some music that sounds like church music, but not at odd hours. It's not really that bad, but I did not choose to listen to that. But then, I suppose that's a matter of social class. They can play their music within reason because they can afford to rent there, whereas the poor from the subsidized housing are blamed for their noise.
36 comments:
First, let me say Casey was ahead of his times, he started a fad:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/11/21/state/n105142S41.DTL
Carried over from last topic:
> The bank should take the loss because they
> gave the loan to someone who cannot afford it.
According to FCB's initial post, "A" took out a loan (two in fact) by filling out forms stating fraudulent income - they lied to the bank in order to qualify.
and the bank should suffer for this?
Had they told the truth, the bank would NOT have loaned them the money.
> By why doesn't the government pass a law
> requiring all banks to get a certain
> percentage of their mortgage business
> from low-income consumers
Ah... "low-income consumers" can't afford the payments. "A" is a "low-income consumer".
Banks are not charities, they loan money to people they believe can pay it back. To do otherwise would be silly (and would put them out of business quickly).
> or to provide an affordable loan to any
> consumer with a job and a salary above a
> certain low level?
Banks will loan to anyone above a certain level. "A" lied about what that level was. Had they told the truth, they would have gotten a lesser loan and would be able to make the payments.
> as there would have to be some kind of
> home or shack for said low-income
> consumers.
There is, it's called a rental.
(cont'd from below)
Monica it seems to me that you don't understand what makes for affordable houses. Requiring full amortization and a substantial down payment makes for affordable housing. Sleazy lending got us into this mess and it can't possibly get us out.
Remember the days when you had to put 20% down on a house? 80% loan was the max you could get?
People tended to buy what they could afford (or less), since it was so much harder to save the down payment.
I miss those days.
No, rental does not provide ownership. My idea is to require by law to provide access to home ownership. I did not say access to great homes, but there should be no working individual who is simply priced out.
Banks are not charities. They would make what little money is to be made that way, and they would be required by law to cater to that clientele. Besides, the rich would subsidize the poor, if necessary, by paying more for mortgages, other loans, bank fees, and so on.
Incidentally, I don't see what's wrong in getting a piece of the American Dream by lying and cheating, if the rules are so unfair that the individual can't get that otherwise. There are all kinds of unfair practices, such as charging NSF fees when there is actually money in the account, that the banks use against consumers, so banks deserve to be screwed from time to time.
The thing about NSF fees when the individual has money is simple. When a check is deposited, the bank won't allow the person to take out the money immediately, or use that money to cover a check, even though the money is there. It is there, but the bank is just keeping it and not allowing the legitimate owner to use it.
Yup Edgar, you called it - she's just baiting at this point.
> require by law to provide access to home ownership
> Besides, the rich would subsidize the poor
> if necessary, by paying more for mortgages
> Incidentally, I don't see what's wrong in getting
> piece of the American Dream by lying and cheating
That's just trying too hard to hit the hot buttons...
Monica - for Thanksgiving, I hereby grant you one free bowl of Purina Troll Chow. Enjoy it. :)
It's been fun all, but I'm off to a long weekend. Have a happy and safe Turkey Day.
Monica,
How about if we just take money from the rich and give it to the working poor for a down payment? Then we could charge the wealthy with the upkeep of the house too. I would favor that.
There should be no working individual who is simply priced out.
Why? No, seriously. Troll or not this seems central to everything you are advocating. Why? What is special about owning housing?
They aren't priced out, they just have to move - to Buffalo!
There should be no working individual who is simply priced out.
I'm usually a lurker but this sentence really struck a chord with me. I have been priced out for years....I am not in the slightest bit bitter because I've always rented homes bigger than most places my homedebtor friends were paying for.
Damn Jim, I'm a blogger, not a mind reader! You beat me to it. This also goes to one of the things that really irks me about affordable housing. It isn't about having affordable or even having the same as what some of us are lucky enough to have. No, it seems to be an effort to make the nicer places less nice by "sharing" until there isn't enough to go around. Everyone can live in a nice place, we just cannot all live in the same nice place.
a few years back I actually tried to buy a condo where I was living in Hawaii and almost took a neg am loan. I had NO idea what a neg am loan was and realtor was kind enough to let me know "it won't matter so long as you refi!" Luckily for me, I'm literate. I read through the contract and realized there was no way I could pay if the worst happened and the mortgage went up. NO DEAL. And I lived happily ever after.
Not true Rob! We can all live in nice places...we just can't all own those nice places. What gets me is that some people feel like their lower class just because they rent. I've always rented just because if allows me to fill my rental with lotsa nice stuff.
Dawg,
You have to admit she has a point in a way. I saw the same thing in Florida. The more affluent don't mind having the working class commute in from whatever hovel they live in, but they absolutely do care where it is, and neither do the developers or the city planners. This will lead to growing discord among the masses.
er, "do not care...
"
Damn, came back for one last look and got sucked in again... :)
> having the same as what some of us are lucky enough to have
Generally, it's not luck. True, you may be lucky to be born rich, but for most it is about choices made along the way.
A friend from college got a music degree. He teaches high school music down in the LA area. He is quite happy with his choice and enjoys his life.
He will always rent though, he knows this and accepts it.
I got a computer science degree. My wife picked up several degrees and is a bio-tech patent attorney. We also both love our careers and are happy with the choices we made along the way.
We absolutely can afford to own and have a nice, fairly modest place in a neighborhood we love.
I am always amused by the people who claim that the system is stacked against them. Invariably, when you start to probe, you find that they stacked their own deck.
The world is as it is. If you choose to put in the time / effort to get ahead, you will. There is an element of luck to it, but I find that hard work and careful planning have a way of creating "luck".
Again, a safe and happy Turkey Day to all...
Edgar, I think you have started basting your liver as well as the turkey. ;-)
Good idea by the way.
Anyway, there has to be some way of allocating resources and while far from perfect money seems to be the best of all the others.
PF,
Yeah, I called it luck but then i also firmly believe you can make your own luck. Failing that, do what i did and marry far above your station. ;-)
Rob - I did. :)
I do all right as a computer consultant (low six figs), but my best years, I don't make half what the wife does as a patent attorney.
Not complaining... not one little bit. :)
Liar loans and all the associated shenanigans have priced honest buyers out of the market.
My childhood home, that I would looove to buy, has just come on the market - for over $1 million.
And I'm firmly in "flyover country", in a city w/ population under 200,000.
But home prices here are still inflated by a third or more thanks to those buyers who should have remained renters.
@property Flopper
"I am always amused by the people who claim that the system is stacked against them"
If they spent half their time actually working or trying to better themselves rather than whining about "the man" and how society doesn't give them a chance, they would be better off.
I agree completely with you, most of them..fuck themselve...s to put it bluntly.
Isn't monika the one and same that likes MRSA?
Happy Thanksgiving EN'ERS!
Rules for successful trolling 101:
1) Select a blatantly female name.
2) Make illogical, naive statements on how things SHOULD BE on this planet, for example, "We should have world peace, zero pollution, a free home for every family and free government medical care for every citizen and absolutely zero taxes for those who actually decide to work." Throw in lots of female type suffrage or victim examples.
3) Wait for "Knight in Shining Armor" to post realistic, logic based response.
4) Repeat steps 2-3 ad nauseum.
Now taking requests for your next lesson.
*Reposted* for maximum exsposure.
LOL @ Scum.
I actually wish number 2 wasn't so far fetched.
Heh
2) "We should have world peace, zero pollution, a free home for every family and free government medical care for every citizen and absolutely zero taxes for those who actually decide to work."
I wish I had a scottle of botch.
@ FMW
Agree.
2) works for me.
Now as far as paying for all that stuff: as long as Monica/The Man/The System/The Banks pay for it and leave me the hell alone, I'm fine.
LOL @ Edgar and Wine Country Dude.
Welcome to Monicaverse. As I recall, she lives in Quebec, so perhaps things are different in Canada. I suspect she thinks we should be on th e English Council system. I don't know, really, how it's done in Canada, I suspect she's trolling across the 48. Perhaps some of our more lucid Canadian or English friends could explain.
re: Monicaverse
She didn't use any of the giveaway Brit terms for property transactions - terms like conveyancing, estate agent, letting a flat..
Not a Brit, IMO.
-K
Rebecca suggested that Monica is from Quebec. I don't recall her mentioning being from here, but I might have missed that. We do have a certain quantity of government-assisted housing for the poor, one four-storey example of which convinced me not to buy the charming bungalow across the street a number of years ago. But, yes, things are different here. We use metric. Oh, and SK, we don't use phrases like estate agent or flat, but I remember conveyances from when Dad did lots of real estate in his law practice so I assume that term is used here. Happy Thanksgiving to all of you.
NR
Why would anybody refuse to buy a house close to government-assisted housing? What's wrong with people there? How are they bothering people from other houses?
Noise. I was there. You weren't.
NR
It depends on what you mean by noise. In my apartment building, there is someone who would bother me with some piano music and some music that sounds like church music, but not at odd hours. It's not really that bad, but I did not choose to listen to that. But then, I suppose that's a matter of social class. They can play their music within reason because they can afford to rent there, whereas the poor from the subsidized housing are blamed for their noise.
Post a Comment