Housing authority to rehab foreclosed homes

Tom D.
07/13/2009 10:00 AM

Sounds good, Chris.

Report a Violation

Chris R.
Cottage Grove, MN     07/10/2009 2:09 PM

I'm checking with the SWC TV to see if they would be willing to do a show...could be fun.

Report a Violation

Tom D.
07/09/2009 4:54 PM

Yes we should do a TV or radio show. That would be a lot of fun. We are on totally opposite spectrums indeed. I disagree with almost everything you say and that's what would probably make the show so good. You'll come around some day :) freedom and liberty, in my mind, always makes more sense, and are timeless. The last 5-8 administrations have done nothing but take more freedom and liberty from us. We will see the final consequences of those policies in 4-7 years and maybe sooner. I think the dollar will collapse, our so-called economy will fail and the bearings in the printing press at the Federal Reserve will finally go out. Government programs paid for by deficit spending will bring this great country to it's knees, all while people enjoy those great(sacrasm) services we get for $1,000,000,000,000's and $1,000,000,000,000's of tax payer dollars per year. As it is, even local government has been infected with the bailout disease. I got my vaccination from the bailout disease after reading some of the founders and Austrian economics. It's not to late for you, Chris! ha ha.

Report a Violation

Chris R.
Cottage Grove, MN     07/09/2009 1:53 PM

Tom, we should do a radio or Tv show together.

Report a Violation

Chris R.
Cottage Grove, MN     07/09/2009 1:39 PM

My point Tom is that even a founding father found that the Constitution, which wasn't even 20 years old at the time, and the laws that bind our country, need to be flexible for the growth of our nation. My view of your thinking is that the Constitution is an absolute, iron clad document with no room for interpretation, and I completely disagree. That is why we have the separate branches of governement to set forth law based on application of the Constitution to today's environment. It doesn't mean you throw away the amendments or the process of amending the Constitution. But, it does mean that the laws written more than 200 years ago need to constantly go through review by our judicial, legislative and executive branches. That is why our government, no matter what you think of it, has survived so well where others have failed. Our government is representative of the people of their time. Not 500 years ago, but of their time. That is why at some points, liberties may lessen and at other times they expand. That is why at some points we are a very conservative nation and at other points a very liberal nation. That is why we have room for debate. The funny thing is...we both love this country - just for different reasons. But, that is the beauty of it and that is what makes it special.

Report a Violation

Tom D.
07/09/2009 1:15 PM

Chris, It's apparent that we disagree even on the facts or we are talking in different time frames. Since that is the case, it would be fruitless to go on and on about the housing market, the Federal Reserves policies, what caused the collapse and how to fix it. My points concerning the Fed were intended to fall into a time frame of around the mid 90's to today. I would like to speak about the Constitution though. Are you saying that since Thomas Jefferson broke the Constitution that anyone should be able to? Should we do away with the amendment process, which is how you change the Constitution etc., and just do everything outside the rule of law? I'm not sure what you're suggesting in that point. I follow the Austrian school of economic thought. What you are saying sounds more like a Keynesian view. That may be where we miss each other. The problem is, the Keynesians got us into this mess, didn't see it coming and now are trying to do more of the same to get us out. The Austrian school saw it coming, warned of the consequenses and now offer the real solutions. Also, the program that allows you to refi or modify your loan ONLY if you are late is a GOVERNMENT program, not a financial institution program. Here is my main source for economic opinion: www.mises.org . Good link June.

Report a Violation

Chris R.
Cottage Grove, MN     07/09/2009 1:05 PM

No argument from here Jamie - I agree it stinks - especially with so many homes under water. I was just stating the "why" to the question of why banks will refi for people who are ready to default and have turned a deaf ear to the people who have been making the payments. That's why I like the rehab program. It will take those foreclosed homes that have been junked (one family foreclosured near us even took the trees in the backyard before being evicted), and bring them up to market value. This will improve or at least stabilize the property value of the neighborhood so when value starts to return to the housing sector, the climb won't be nearly as steep. That is what the market is looking for now is stability, not a false bottom that will artificially drop prices to allow more people to move back in that can't afford a home and allow the cycle to start all over.

Report a Violation

Jamie S.
07/09/2009 12:42 PM

I understand your point Chris, but it's still a bunch of crap that they force you to fall before they will help you. Our loan to value is the problem not our credit and that is due to the foreclosures and the upkeep of those homes. Even if your house is all updated it doesn't matter. Drop the rate to the current and help the people that deserve it so their money can go and spend and stimulate the economy again. The banks can sit their and gain off of us I guess and let people dump thier houses if they think that works better.

Report a Violation

June M.
07/09/2009 11:17 AM

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

Report a Violation

Chris R.
Cottage Grove, MN     07/09/2009 11:16 AM

The Constitution allowed for slavery and counting of slaves as three-fifths of a person. The great thing about the Constitution and our government is that it is adaptable to the progress of our nation, whereas other governments do not have that flexibility. That was the true vision of the founding fathers. Jefferson, arguably the most staunch protector of the Constitution broke it with the purchase of the Louisiana Territory because it was done on credit and with tax dollars - which in the literal sense would have been unconstitutional. First, the local governments are providing federal dollars to rehab the homes and using local agents to resell. It is budget neutral. Second, the government isn't influencing the price. A rehabbed home is still going to be sold most likely for the principal left on the mortgage. If you look, that is what the banks are doing now - just looking to recoup the initial investment. Third, the point isn't to make it more affordable - who ever said that? The point is to not have a false bottom and introduce buyers into the market who can't afford the investment of buying a new home. Fourth, the investment banks led the charge, not the Fed. Investment banks created the products that allowed banks to offer sub-prime mortgage options at the possibility of an incredible return for investors - this was the free market at work. When the foreclosures start to hit, the Fed lowered rates to keep the credit markets going and to slow the downward economy. We were bound to have a dip, but without the lowering of the credit rates, it would have sank like a rock and the results would have been much more severe. Fifth, it's not just the property owners, but the citizens as well. A home bought at true market value will be taxed accordingly, meaning revenue for the local government and hopefully avoiding a tax hike. Finally, I have no argument with you about the refi. But, that isn't the government, that is the bank and lender themselves. They will refi the risky loans first to try and keep a homeowner in the house and paying the mortgage. The bank doesn't want to be owning thousands of houses. I agree, why not reward those who have paid their bills. But, from a market perspective and an investor perspective, why would a bank refi someone who is paying their bill at a higher rate and lose out on the profit?

Report a Violation