News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by dmk23 on Sunday October 06, 2013 @05:42AM (#6503616)
Moreover, the property values there will go even lower because of dried up financing.

This could become a textbook case of government power abuse backfiring at the people the politicians claim to be "helping"

There is a better description of what this city did: Theft

Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by zero_intp on Sunday October 06, 2013 @08:08AM (#6503828)
While I agree with railing about bad decisions, it is almost willfully ignorant to continue to argue against settled law. This is as much theft as it was in Connecticut.

As much as I hate it, "Wickard vs Fillburn", and "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission", "Gonzales v. Raich", and lastly "Kelo v. City of New London" ARE the laws of the land.

If the investment classes are going to be leveraging laws against homeowner to take property at 'current market prices'; how is it wrong for cities to force investor classes to do the same?

Change the laws, but don't decry the victims of fraud and systemic false market inflation turning the current laws against those who perpetuated the pump and dump scheme on them in the first place.

I think it will cost some financing issues/property costs, but then it will lead to the rise of a Community Trust bank or Credit Union. These are things that truly change communities.

Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by dasil003 on Sunday October 06, 2013 @07:15AM (#6503741)
That's one way to look at it. Another way is that they're fully bursting the real estate bubble that the entire nation's financial systems have furiously been forcing compressed air into for the last 5 years in the name of "preserving home values" even though normal people can't actually afford a home anymore.