Skip to main content

View Diary: Can a Small California City Take on Wall Street - And Survive? (298 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fine... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, Tonedevil

    seize the land, pay market value to the mortgage holder, and resell the land to the occupants.

    When the reality is unpleasant and hard to believe, it's easiest to cloak it in the camouflage of CT.

    by kharma on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 08:35:51 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You can't legally do that. (4+ / 0-)

      You can seize the LAND and pay the homeowner the market value of THE LAND and the House.  But that does not affect the bank's mortgage rights at all. You can't force the bank to take less on its mortgage unless you seize the mortgage (which is what I'm not sure they can legally do).  

      •  You can apologize for wall street all you want... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar

        I'm supporting the peoples rights.  If a condo developer can say they want my land because they will get generate more taxes, then the community can do it right back.

        When the reality is unpleasant and hard to believe, it's easiest to cloak it in the camouflage of CT.

        by kharma on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 09:56:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If you spent half the energy... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, peregrine kate

        you use to defend big money, you would probably have come up with a solution for the little guy.  Telling in who you spend all your time defending.

        When the reality is unpleasant and hard to believe, it's easiest to cloak it in the camouflage of CT.

        by kharma on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 09:59:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not "defending" anyone. (6+ / 0-)

          I'm a lawyer, so I weigh in where I have some expertise -- the law.  Explaining the law is not "defending" anyone.  

          Any solution has to comply with the law.  Or you have to pass a new law.  

          If California law limits eminent domain to real property (as I said, a Court is going to have to address that), theoretically California could pass a law allowing the seizure of mortgages for FMV.   Nothing in the 5th Amendment would prohibit that, I think.  

          That would, however, make mortgages in California more expensive and harder to get, as it would increase the risk to lenders.  

          There's no such think as a "free lunch," where nobody pays.  If you push additional risk on to banks, they are going to pass that along in the form of increased payment for the increased risk.  You can certainly make the policy decision that it is worth it to deal with more expensive, and much harder to get, mortgages (and the attendant drop in property values that accompanies that kind of thing) in exchange for helping underwater homeowners.  That's a policy decision.  All I advocate is that, when people make these policy decisions, they are aware of all the consequences -- even the unintended consequences.  

        •  jpmassar does an excellent job of writing (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, jpmassar, coffeetalk

          interesting diaries and keeping comments civil.  please don't barge in and piss all over it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site