I happened upon a quite disturbing first-person essay the other day in the New York Times Magazine, you might have seen it, titled "The Closer", by one Albert Clawson. Mr. Clawson, as he describes it, has the "job" of being the last guy to turn out the lights when a family leaves its home following a foreclosure action...
When a lender forecloses on a property, one of the first things he does is send somebody out to see if there is a house still standing and whether there’s anybody living there. That’s my job. Sometimes the houses are crack dens or meth labs, sometimes the sites of cock- or dog-fighting operations, sometimes the backyard is filled with pot. And sometimes the house is a waterfront mansion in a gated golf community worth well over seven figures. Variety is the rule.
Mr. Clawson continues by describing in detail other aspects of his "job", including facilitating what's known as a "cash for keys" deal with the homeowners.
We'll get back to Mr. Clawson and the details of his particular chosen profession in a moment.
Career choices are dictated by many factors of course, with economic security being paramount. While many of us can claim to "love what we are doing" despite being compensated less than we would like, an equal number can likely be counted on to readily admit they "hate their job", a sentiment that could be day-to-day or career long.
One of my children happens to be a law enforcement officer, a life-long dream for him. While following the scarce news and blog accounts of the ongoing Wall Street occupation protests, and the use of mace on some of the protestors, I think about the mindset of the typical police officer who is being given the order to fire, be it mace, rubber projectiles, or worse. Training and professionalism, as well as career-protection, are primary in any police officer's mindset (although self-preservation comes first, no matter what). A police officer, much like a soldier, is expected to take orders without question.
When questionable orders come from a superior, at what point in time does such an employee determine their course of action? In the case of the NYPD, will some of these officers seek review post-facto, or will they just accept that these couple of protesters on the streets of Manhattan constituted enough of a threat to be handled in the manner in which they were? Or will they go home secure in their world, knowing that they handled things exactly the way they were supposed to, no matter the rationale?
These considerations are crucial, as we are likely to see more such protest actions in coming months, including both the Republican and Democratic national conventions as well as other organized actions. Some observers believe street actions will not be as big a factor as they were for past generations, as an arrest record can have a major impact on career choices down the line. Others believe the Arab spring actions and riots in Great Britain are harbingers of what's to come even in US cities if things don't begin to improve for the have-nots.
A larger philosophical question ensues; at what point in time does a citizen of this democracy make the choice that personal gain or benefit, in one form or another, outweigh the benefit of the shared democracy? Are we, or have we already, reached the point of no return? The arguments pro and con regarding taxes, shall the rich pay more of their income to alleviate the debt versus allowing them to continue their "trickle-down" puppet show, clearly define the battlefield, even with Warren Buffett occasionally looking in the mirror and seeing Michael Moore.
I'm sure there are many, many decent individuals who happen to work as what we used to call "peace officers" in various police departments around the country, and we must hope for and call for civil discourse in the decision making as plans are made for handling street protests of all stripes and colors. Mace and paddy wagons should not be the order of the day, nor should molotov cocktails. Let's hope that more and more of our fellow citizens who find themselves confronting these type of dilemmas will begin and continue to have honest conversations regarding limits and responsibilities.
I'm sure there are some people who are working in banks, even in the "too big to fail" banks who are decent people, and who are questioning the activities of their employers. They, individually, will have to decide if and when the time comes to say "enough".
I'm not sure what Albert Clawson sees in the mirror each morning before he goes to work and evicts however many families he can get to in his 8-hour day. I'm going to presume he's a decent man, with a family perhaps, even a couple of kids. I can't presume to know the level of Mr. Clawson's understanding of the vagaries of the foreclosure theatre. He writes
They send letters — one time in crayon — detailing their rights and how I am violating some maritime treaty from the 1700s. In my travels, I have learned that people believe the following: if you copyright your name, you can’t be named in any kind of legal action; if you never write down your ZIP code, then you aren’t subject to federal jurisdiction; and if I tell somebody that their lender is offering them money to vacate and leave behind the staircase (yes, these get stolen) and driveway (yes, these get stolen), then I am guilty of something or other prohibited by the United Nations.
Mr. Clawson smugly and neatly would have us believe that he, and his employers, are doing a large favor to those less fortunate. As many who have taken the time to learn and understand the bigger picture regarding the banks, mortgage servicers, MERS, LPS, etc. realize, there is much opportunistic activity taking place where unaware property owners are being swindled out of their homes under the guise of "you lost, just get it over with", and here's a small token of our appreciation to help you buy some sandwiches.
The "maritime treaty" referenced by Mr. Clawson, might in fact just be his general catch pharase for the very real property laws that have passed to us over the centuries, property laws that are very much still in vogue with full legal standing in many states. "Little" things such as legally transferring your property title with the proper local authorities so as to preserve the rights of the lender, the buyer, the investor as well as the local government budgets. Eric Schneiderman and several other sstate Attorneys General aren't thinking such things are "little" by the way.
I don't expect Albert Clawson to extend his visits with these families long enough to explain their legal rights, to offer some insight on whether a modification with the bank might lead to an affordable mortgage, or even let them know that even if you eventually make a deal and pay your mortgage off there is a good chance they may never receive a free and clear title. Its much more convenient and in line with his self-described job title "The Closer" to simply close the deal.
I do wonder how he sleeps at night.
