Let Tax Payers Cover Your Mortgage

[GGT]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/12/news...ages/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Unemployed? Owe more on your mortgage than your home is worth? Your state might one day pay your mortgage.

Giving people free money to cover their home loans is just one of the radical ways that four states -- Florida, Michigan, California and Arizona -- plan to use $1.4 billion the Obama administration is sending their way to help the unemployed and underwater avoid foreclosure.


Many consumer advocates have said the government should help cover the payments of these troubled homeowners, lest the mortgage crisis continue spinning out of control and dragging down everyone's property values. But other housing experts warn that paying off loans creates a moral hazard and could actually dissuade people from looking for work.

Innovative programs, however, are exactly what the administration was hoping for when it unveiled the Hardest Hit Fund initiative in February. Officials are looking to help the unemployed and underwater, who are now at the heart of the crisis. Despite the administration's best efforts to stabilize the market, home prices are still sliding and foreclosure filings are at record highs.

The federal government is doling out a total of $2.1 billion to 10 states, which also include Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Ohio and Oregon. The others have not yet submitted their plans to Treasury for approval or have not made them public.

States have radical ideas to stop foreclosures
To be sure, the proposals will only a touch a small percentage of the unemployed and underwater homeowners who need help. But it will provide assistance to some of those who presently don't qualify for traditional loan modifications.

Administration officials will spend the next few weeks reviewing the proposals, but Assistant Treasury Secretary Michael Barr told CNNMoney.com that they contained some good ideas.

Subsidizing troubled homeowners
The recently unveiled initiatives are not identical, but they have two common themes: Helping the unemployed by subsidizing part or all of their monthly mortgage payments for up to two years and paying down underwater homeowners' loan balances.

The states want the loan servicers and investors to match their largess, hoping to woo them by paying down as much as $50,000 of underwater homeowners' loan balances.

But until now, financial institutions have been reluctant to reduce principal.

These proposals may irk Americans who are keeping up with their mortgage payments or don't want tax dollars used to help their neighbors. But Alan White, a law professor at Valparaiso University, said all homeowners will suffer if neighboring properties fall into foreclosure.

"There are benefits for all of us for stopping foreclosures any way we can," White said.

Plus, he added, many of the people who would be helped are those capable of paying their mortgages again once they find work. By example, he pointed to a longstanding Pennsylvania program that provides loans to the unemployed, which gives them assistance while they look for new jobs.

Also, covering homeowners' mortgages is a better use of government funds than giving incentives to the servicers and relying on them to assist borrowers, said Paul Willen, senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. This way, he said, states have more control over who benefits from the initiatives.

"Every dollar spent will go to families who need it," he said.

But delinquent homeowners aren't the only ones who would benefit from these subsidies. In fact, the banks would come away with a huge win, said Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at The Cato Institute. Not only would they have government money securely in hand, but they'd avoid the time and expense of the foreclosure process.

"This is a lot more than they would have collected otherwise," Calabria said. "The lenders should bear the losses for this. They are the one who made the loans."

Another concern is that these proposals will dissuade the unemployed from finding work or from relocating to an area with better job prospects, said Casey Mulligan, an economics professor at the University of Chicago. Such programs incent people to maintain their financial hardships.

"Why should anybody work if you are going to be in your house either way?" he said.

From the link on PA assistance loan program:

Awilda Mercado is thankful that the emergency loan program in Pennsylvania continues to serve the state's residents. In 2008 she lost her factory position and her husband had an on-the-job accident that left him unable to work. To help her stay in her York, Penn., home, the agency took care of her arrears of $7,386 and paid four months of her mortgage.


Now that she's receiving unemployment and her husband is on disability, the Mercados have been able to resume their mortgage payments. They also are reimbursing the housing agency, often sending in more than the $25 minimum payment.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/08/news...ion=2010030816


Yeah, I'd say I'm one of the "irked" homeowners. PA's scheme touts success because....

careful inspection of applicants' financial backgrounds, which are reviewed annually. Those who've racked up credit cards debts are not likely to gain approval, for instance. Those likely to land a job within a few months or years are.

....they count being on unemployment and disability as success?

There is some seriously stupid stuff going on. I'd rather have walkaways or jingle keys than this circus. You?

[Loki]

You're against the government helping the little guy?

[GGT]

You're against the government helping the little guy?

I'm against being stupid with stimulus funds. We've already bailed out the big banks, they've made profits and gave bonii again. Might as well let them take the cram down. There's also an article about Vegas trying to pump up another housing construction boom, even though their inventory and foreclosures *are* still high.

I'd rather see the little guy get job training, a tax credit, or hell---pay their relocation costs for moving to Texas or the Dakotas where there are jobs to be found.

[CitizenCain]

You're against the government helping the little guy?

I know! It's horrible when academic elitists with their heads up their asses screw over the little guy by opposing such vital do-nothing pork projects.

What I don't understand is;

1. why does the government think it needs to go this far to keep people in ownership

Same reason it pumped up the bubble in the first place, I suspect - a sociopathic desire to be re-elected, no matter the cost.

2. why do foreclosures in the US almost without fail result in the destruction of the capital good a house is supposed to be?

Because foreclosures result when there aren't enough people who can afford a house... so with no one to take care of it for years, it deteriorates. And property values being what they are, that sets up a self-reinforcing death spiral, particularly if the neighboring lots are also going through the same thing. This ain't Europe where you've got more people than space - it's the other way around on this continent.

Absolutely stupid. Forecose the house, auction it, let the bums find work.

Hope the GOP can sort itself out past it's stupid Bush era come 2012

The problem is that there aren't enough buyers to auction the house to (in terms of potential residents), unless the bank's willing to take 5 cents on the dollar or so. And really, who wants to live in an abandoned neighborhood or a neighborhood full of poor folks who can only afford to spend 15 grand on a house? It's like the ghetto, now conveniently located in suburbia.

So... yeah, that's why that won't work. If there was anyone [more viable than the current deadbeat residents] to auction the house to, they'd have done it by now.

[RandBlade]

Because foreclosures result when there aren't enough people who can afford a house...

Surely foreclosures result when the current owner can't afford the house.

so with no one to take care of it for years, it deteriorates.

Not if you auction it straight away.

The problem is that there aren't enough buyers to auction the house to (in terms of potential residents), unless the bank's willing to take 5 cents on the dollar or so.

5c in the dollar or nothing ... I'd take the 5c

And really, who wants to live in an abandoned neighborhood or a neighborhood full of poor folks who can only afford to spend 15 grand on a house? It's like the ghetto, now conveniently located in suburbia.

Except the current owners can't afford it either. Sell it to someone who can afford $15grand and not the person who can't afford it currently.

So... yeah, that's why that won't work. If there was anyone [more viable than the current deadbeat residents] to auction the house to, they'd have done it by now.

Not if the government is paying the deadbeats to stay deadbeats.

[Ominous Gamer]

Not if you auction it straight away.

Not possible with with the current way banks handle home loans and foreclosures. It takes months to foreclose, and months longer to get the proper paperwork before someone else can claim ownership. Considering the trend of simply walking away from an underwater mortgage, the foreclosure process alone will doom a house, especially in states like Florida.

Then their is still the problem of property flippers. Big names like GMAC are notorious for buying houses via auction.

The states know what to do better than the federal gummint, isn't that what everyone says?
What will FL do once hurricane season comes, and all that oil gets washed inland?

Neither of these sentences make a damn bit of sense, much less seem to have anything to do with the housing market

[RandBlade]

Not possible with with the current way banks handle home loans and foreclosures. It takes months to foreclose, and months longer to get the proper paperwork before someone else can claim ownership. Considering the trend of simply walking away from an underwater mortgage, the foreclosure process alone will doom a house, especially in states like Florida.

So if anything streamline the process, don't bail out those too lazy/stupid to pay their bills.

Then their is still the problem of property flippers. Big names like GMAC are notorious for buying houses via auction.

Well that's good

No.

Like I said, there's no one to buy these homes.

Not even for 5c in the dollar? OG has said that "big names like GMAC" are buying houses via auction, which is a very good thing and goes against what you're saying.

Decades of the government inflating the housing bubble have created an artificially high supply of houses which can't be filled. Simple fact of life.

Fine, then either let them go unsold at auction and perhaps eventually demolished. The bubble needs to pop, we don't need more government action like this further inflating it.

Banks won't - it seems to be a better idea to leave the asset on the books at it's inflated retail value (or write it off as a complete loss) than sell it for 5 cents on the dollar. Can't say I blame 'em.

Leave it on the books I can see, but how can it be better to write it off than sell it for what its really worth.

I'm sure the current residents would find a way to afford paying 15k for their 300k mortgage. So the banks can't make that offer, since everyone would start expecting it.

No, if the current residents have been foreclosed and are legally bankrupt they'd not be able to afford $15k, anything they have should still be owed to the bank.

Besides, the issue isn't really that the banks own the house - it's that they've already paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars to the residents (so the people could buy the house). Admitting that the home is now worthless and foreclosing does the bank no good. They get something worth a few grand in exchange for the balance of their 100's of thousands of dollar loan - far better to string the "home owners" along in the hopes that they'll be able to repay at least the principle on the loan some day, instead of accepting a bit of worthless collateral and canceling the loan (as is what happens in foreclosure).

Fine, if the banks don't want to foreclose then that's their choice. Nobody needs to make them. However that's not what this is about, this is about people paying taxes on their income, paying their mortgage on their after-tax income, then paying for someone elses mortgage through their taxes. Its wrong.

If the banks don't want to foreclose then they don't have to. But the state either doesn't need to interfere (if you're right) or shouldn't (if I am). Either way this action in this thread is wrong.

Really, why do you think banks are "letting" people miss payments and fall 6, 9 or 12 months "behind" in their mortgage payments before foreclosing? Because the banks would rather get paid occasionally, a year late, than be forced to foreclose and accept a worthless home in payment for the money they've paid out.

Then why on Earth are taxpayers paying the banks some lazy slobs mortgage?

[CitizenCain]

Not if you auction it straight away.

No.

Like I said, there's no one to buy these homes. Decades of the government inflating the housing bubble have created an artificially high supply of houses which can't be filled. Simple fact of life.

5c in the dollar or nothing ... I'd take the 5c

Banks won't - it seems to be a better idea to leave the asset on the books at it's inflated retail value (or write it off as a complete loss) than sell it for 5 cents on the dollar. Can't say I blame 'em.

Except the current owners can't afford it either. Sell it to someone who can afford $15grand and not the person who can't afford it currently.

I'm sure the current residents would find a way to afford paying 15k for their 300k mortgage. So the banks can't make that offer, since everyone would start expecting it.

Besides, the issue isn't really that the banks own the house - it's that they've already paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars to the residents (so the people could buy the house). Admitting that the home is now worthless and foreclosing does the bank no good. They get something worth a few grand in exchange for the balance of their 100's of thousands of dollar loan - far better to string the "home owners" along in the hopes that they'll be able to repay at least the principle on the loan some day, instead of accepting a bit of worthless collateral and canceling the loan (as is what happens in foreclosure).

Really, why do you think banks are "letting" people miss payments and fall 6, 9 or 12 months "behind" in their mortgage payments before foreclosing? Because the banks would rather get paid occasionally, a year late, than be forced to foreclose and accept a worthless home in payment for the money they've paid out.

[Hazir]

What I don't understand is;

1. why does the government think it needs to go this far to keep people in ownership

2. why do foreclosures in the US almost without fail result in the destruction of the capital good a house is supposed to be?

[RandBlade]

Absolutely stupid. Forecose the house, auction it, let the bums find work.

Hope the GOP can sort itself out past it's stupid Bush era come 2012

[Being]

Absolutely stupid. Forecose the house, auction it, let the bums find work.

Hope the GOP can sort itself out past it's stupid Bush era come 2012

Our actual unemployment is close to 20%. Are you seriously saying that 20% of our workforce are bums? Maybe you can tell us when the jobs will be available to make these "bums" productive again. I've looked at a few more of your comments in this thread and I've got to say they express a great ignorance of current events.

[Ominous Gamer]

Considering Florida has one of the highest unemployment rates, one of the highest foreclosure rates, and the banks did such an awful job of helping home owners after the government gave them all that TARP money (BoA is even being sued over this). I can understand the states going more directly towards the home owners.

What I don't understand is what Florida's plan is. Article mentions us as one of the four, but never again after that, even after mentioning 9 other states. CNN really has gone to shit lately.

[GGT]

What I don't understand is;

1. why does the government think it needs to go this far to keep people in ownership

2. why do foreclosures in the US almost without fail result in the destruction of the capital good a house is supposed to be?

1. It's also keeping the banks 'solvent' on paper, and they're loath to make new loans?

2. Over-inflated home prices made people feel wealthier, and they're reluctant to admit their house isn't worth what they paid (were fleeced)?

The CNN link has a video of NJ homes, they're not 'ghetto' material.
At least Detroit had the sense to start demolishing properties en masse....

Considering Florida has one of the highest unemployment rates, one of the highest foreclosure rates, and the banks did such an awful job of helping home owners after the government gave them all that TARP money (BoA is even being sued over this). I can understand the states going more directly towards the home owners.

What I don't understand is what Florida's plan is. Article mentions us as one of the four, but never again after that, even after mentioning 9 other states. CNN really has gone to shit lately.

The states know what to do better than the federal gummint, isn't that what everyone says?
What will FL do once hurricane season comes, and all that oil gets washed inland?


The whole housing thing got page 2, behind failing banks, unemployment, and the euro crisis. Here's a nice look at the negative equity picture. It aint pretty.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/20...ties-with.html

[GGT]

The banks have been holding inventory, reluctant to complete short sales and take a hit, they're stonewalling. Foreclosures take a long time because of that, and also when a 2nd mortgage comes into play (the HELOC). And don't forget about all those MBSs out there.

There are buyers paying cash, but only when the price is right (dead bottom).

Nobody but buyers want to let the prices fall---neither the local or state tax collectors, the banks or realtors, nor the sellers or the neighbors want to see the prices come down to earth. Vicious cycle.

Yet Vegas is building new homes.....how crazy is that?

[GGT]

Rand, you're right about people like me who are irked (paying my taxes, paying my mortgage, then seeing my tax money pay others' mortgages).

But you're missing a couple of things like strategic walkaways on negative equity. They can pay their loan, they just decided to act like commercial RE "investors" who cut their losses that way all the time. They're not necessarily "legally bankrupt" or even filing for bankruptcy.

Another aspect is the unemployment rate; there are the people who can't pay their loan and can't find a job either. Not all are deadbeat bums....but these schemes end up helping the opportunists all the same.


edit: GMAC also got bail-out help.
Technically, these properties belong to the banks that hold the loans, but good luck following that trail since they've traded hands so many times. Property rights? ha, the tax payer helped the banks, so they can do what they want with their property....

[RandBlade]

So that silly figure includes "long-term discouraged workers" - i.e. like I said people neither looking for a job, nor claiming unemployment benefits (bums).

How many homeowners with a mortgage fall under the category "long-term discouraged workers" do you think?

[Ominous Gamer]

So that silly figure includes "long-term discouraged workers" - i.e. like I said people neither looking for a job, nor claiming unemployment benefits (bums).

How many homeowners with a mortgage fall under the category "long-term discouraged workers" do you think?

You referring to the U6, or SGS?

I know my dad counted as a discouraged stat for awhile. I've gone into how insurance companies limit other companies from hiring older labor applicants.

[GGT]

Yeah, the U-6 is about 17%, and remember the Census made it look better (temporarily) while those looking for jobs (after having stopped looking) can make it look worse.

[RandBlade]

You expect a person to be able to afford their mortgage payment on an income that is 0% of what they were making before? You are seriously clueless about this aren't you?

Better some income than no income. I personally know some people who've had very successful jobs before the recession, lost them, then took up one or even two "menial" jobs to pay the bills and the mortgage while spending less until they could get a new job.

I have no problem with people looking for a better job, but don't come crying to me and expect me to pay through my taxes if you're too lazy to take up a lesser job while looking for a better one.

"Living wage" is a stupid and arbitrary comment OG. There is already a minimum wage, better than no wage.

PS if I were looking to hire between 2 individuals, one who hadn't held a job down in over a year and another that had taken up a menial job in order to pay the bills - I know whom I'd think has the better work ethic and be more likely to hire.

[Being]

You expect a person to be able to afford their mortgage payment on an income that is 0% of what they were making before? You are seriously clueless about this aren't you?

Better some income than no income. I personally know some people who've had very successful jobs before the recession, lost them, then took up one or even two "menial" jobs to pay the bills and the mortgage while spending less until they could get a new job.

I have no problem with people looking for a better job, but don't come crying to me and expect me to pay through my taxes if you're too lazy to take up a lesser job while looking for a better one.

"Living wage" is a stupid and arbitary comment OG. There is already a minimum wage in effect, better than no wage.

PS if I were looking to hire between 2 individuals, one who hadn't held a job down in over a year and another that had taken up a menial job in order to pay the bills - I know whom I'd think has the better work ethic and be more likely to hire.

Randy boy, there is a serious lack of jobs in this country right now. Even Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, etc... are not looking for more employees.

[RandBlade]

Randy boy, there is a serious lack of jobs in this country right now. Even Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, etc... are not looking for more employees.

Geegee just said there are 5 million jobs out there, lets get go pounding them.

Again, better some income than no income.

[Ominous Gamer]

"Living wage" is a stupid and arbitary comment OG. There is already a minimum wage in effect, better than no wage.

Thats because you can't define it on your terms. Minimum wage is a not a living wage. Even if someone managed to land a single part time job at minimum wage (your unemployment is still 10%), it doesn't cover the mortage and living necessities of even the most dilapidated housing in Florida. How long you expect someone to be able to keep even a part time job after they have their house taken out from under them?

[RandBlade]

Thats because you can't define it on your terms. Minimum wage is a not a living wage. Even if someone managed to land a single part time job at minimum wage (your unemployment is still 10%), it doesn't cover the mortage and living necessities of even the most dilapidated housing in Florida. How long you expect someone to be able to keep even a part time job after they have their house taken out from under them?

Longer than if they were too lazy to get a job in the first place.

I'm not in Florida but just searched for property in Tampa, Florida and was able to find 2 bedroom apartments and condo rentals starting at $450/month - sound fair?

Minimum wage is $7.25/month

So 2 incomes for 40hours a week at just the minimum wage is $2513/month.

Of course there are other expenses to pay for, not just rent, but 2 full time incomes on just the minimum wage equates to having more than $2k minus tax per month after rent.

Of course people may be part-time. 2 incomes, part-time at say just 16 hours/week each is $1005/month.

[Ominous Gamer]

Longer than if they were too lazy to get a job in the first place.

I'm not in Florida but just searched for property in Tampa, Florida and was able to find 2 bedroom apartments and condo rentals starting at $450/month - sound fair?

Minimum wage is $7.25/month

So 2 incomes for 40hours a week at just the minimum wage is $2513/month.

Of course there are other expenses to pay for, not just rent, but 2 full time incomes on just the minimum wage equates to having more than $2k minus tax per month after rent.

Of course people may be part-time. 2 incomes, part-time at say just 16 hours/week each is $1005/month.

I like how you try to tie full time with minimum wage pay, as if that actually exists. Nobody hires full time entry level help, not even your walmart and home depot examples. You also won't find a rental property that will rent a 2 bedroom place to two random people (why would we be talking about couples again? ) bringing in only $1005 a month. The rule is, and always has been, that rent can only be 30% of your income. You're pushing 50%

[RandBlade]

I like how you try to tie full time with minimum wage pay, as if that actually exists. Nobody hires full time entry level help, not even your walmart and home depot examples.

Oh really? Plenty of people do and if you're only doing just 2 shifts a week, then you can get a second job doing 3.

You also won't find a rental property that will rent a 2 bedroom place to two random people (why would we be talking about couples again? ) bringing in only $1005 a month. The rule is, and always has been, that rent can only be 30% of your income. You're pushing 50%

Using your 30% example 2 people on the minimum wage could afford it if they both just worked 23 hours per week on minimum wage. Tell me why that isn't possible please.

Sounds like minimum wage easily surpasses "living wage" levels, unless you think people should be able to "live" off working 1 day a week.

[GGT]

uhm, Rand---have you not been reading US news or something?

What are the figures lately guys, something like 12 million people want jobs but there are only around 5 million open positions? The unemployment insurance benefits have been extended at least twice, to 100 weeks?

[RandBlade]

uhm, Rand---have you not been reading US news or something?

What are the figures lately guys, something like 12 million people want jobs but there are only around 5 million open positions? The unemployment insurance benefits have been extended at least twice, to 100 weeks?

So if people stopped being picky about what job they took the net unemployment rate would fall to 7 mn people, or 5%. Even without the knock-on effects of having 5mn more employed that would imply I'm right, would it not

[Being]

So if people stopped being picky about what job they took the net unemployment rate would fall to 7 mn people, or 5%. Even without the knock-on effects of having 5mn more employed that would imply I'm right, would it not

The number of new entrants to the workforce are of course ignored by someone trying to salvage their rediculous argument.

[Hazir]

I know! It's horrible when academic elitists with their heads up their asses screw over the little guy by opposing such vital do-nothing pork projects.

Same reason it pumped up the bubble in the first place, I suspect - a sociopathic desire to be re-elected, no matter the cost.

Because foreclosures result when there aren't enough people who can afford a house... so with no one to take care of it for years, it deteriorates. And property values being what they are, that sets up a self-reinforcing death spiral, particularly if the neighboring lots are also going through the same thing. This ain't Europe where you've got more people than space - it's the other way around on this continent.



The problem is that there aren't enough buyers to auction the house to (in terms of potential residents), unless the bank's willing to take 5 cents on the dollar or so. And really, who wants to live in an abandoned neighborhood or a neighborhood full of poor folks who can only afford to spend 15 grand on a house? It's like the ghetto, now conveniently located in suburbia.

So... yeah, that's why that won't work. If there was anyone [more viable than the current deadbeat residents] to auction the house to, they'd have done it by now.

1. It's also keeping the banks 'solvent' on paper, and they're loath to make new loans?

2. Over-inflated home prices made people feel wealthier, and they're reluctant to admit their house isn't worth what they paid (were fleeced)?

The CNN link has a video of NJ homes, they're not 'ghetto' material.
At least Detroit had the sense to start demolishing properties en masse....





The states know what to do better than the federal gummint, isn't that what everyone says?
What will FL do once hurricane season comes, and all that oil gets washed inland?


The whole housing thing got page 2, behind failing banks, unemployment, and the euro crisis. Here's a nice look at the negative equity picture. It aint pretty.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/20...ties-with.html

Basically that means the government is still propping up banks that don't want to write down their losses. If there would be any sense in the system then AT LEAST they should oblige banks to demolish houses they foreclose on. At least that way a foreclosed neighbour doesn't necessarily drag down the value of your house. Nor does it force the banks to declare more of their mortgages to be under water. It could even result in a situation where people buy up the empty plots to enlarge their gardens. That wouldn't hurt a lot of those neighbourhoods with their too big houses on too small plots.

I've been fascinated with that Detroit demolition plan. It seems like sound thinking, too bad it took them so long to realise.

[CitizenCain]

uhm, Rand---have you not been reading US news or something?

What are the figures lately guys, something like 12 million people want jobs but there are only around 5 million open positions?

It's a lot worse than that, last I read. Thing I was read was saying that even at pre-"Great Recession" job creation levels, it would take almost ten years to get back to the employment levels we had. (In an article about why/how we aren't actually experiencing a recovery, despite what the White House says.... or at least we better hope we're not.)

Longer than if they were too lazy to get a job in the first place.

I'm not in Florida but just searched for property in Tampa, Florida and was able to find 2 bedroom apartments and condo rentals starting at $450/month - sound fair?

Minimum wage is $7.25/month

So 2 incomes for 40hours a week at just the minimum wage is $2513/month.

Right, and after deductions and taxation, they'll take home about $1400 a month. Oh yeah, I remember my minimum wage job. Have my first pay stub around here somewhere, in fact. A couple minimum wage jobs *might* constitute a living wage if the government didn't keep 30-40% of that check from you, which means that this only theoretically helps couples... but in reality, doesn't actually help anyone.

Basically that means the government is still propping up banks that don't want to write down their losses. If there would be any sense in the system then AT LEAST they should oblige banks to demolish houses they foreclose on. At least that way a foreclosed neighbour doesn't necessarily drag down the value of your house.

Dude, that's even *worse* for property values. Better an empty, "For Sale" house than a demolished house/empty lot.

Not to mention that you're just destroying wealth (and economic value) that way. It's a horrible, horrible, horrible idea.

It could even result in a situation where people buy up the empty plots to enlarge their gardens.

OK, you've clearly never been this side of the pond, if you're suggesting that as a viable option and not for absurdity and humor value. I can see how it might work in Europe, where a lot of your houses have 50 square feet of "garden" (we call them "yards" over here, FWIW), but no one wants an extra 10,000 sq feet of yard to mow. Frankly, I don't even want the couple thousand square feet of yard I have now, but I'm stuck with it until I come up with 5 figures to blow on "landscaping" my lot into a rock garden/pool deal to get rid of all the fucking grass. God, I hate fucking grass. God damn rich Scottish asshole who created this shitty American trend.

I've been fascinated with that Detroit demolition plan. It seems like sound thinking, too bad it took them so long to realise.

Right, but it only really works when the *whole* neighborhood is abandoned. It's just stupid to try when it's 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 homes.

FYI, here's a driveby video of one of the Detroit neighborhoods where the demolition project works - it's not really applicable outside of a scenario where the whole freaking neighborhood's gone/imploded/whatever. An unusual response to an unusual situation.

I am very much against government bailout of individuals' mortgages.

I'd also like to see the lending banks fail,

Good idea. 20% unemployment, so let's make some banks fail and add to that number!



What the hell?