News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by nl on Sunday October 06, 2013 @05:56AM (#6503634)
Now the Government will use Eminent domain whenever a private entity is acting against the social interests of the citizens, whilst many will applaud such a move I fear it gives the Government and elected officials far too much power.

Isn't the purpose of government to protect its citizens when a more powerful entity acts against them?

Also why bother obtaining property and wealth when the Government positions itself as the taker of all things whenever it suits them best?

I agree. That's clearly not what is happening here, though.

For one thing, the people who have taken the mortgage out own at least some of the property, and secondly the banks that hold the mortgages are profiting form fraud (ie, the deliberate strategy of selling sub-prime mortgages to people who couldn't afford them). Finally, this isn't what suits [the government] best. It would suit the local government if the problem could be ignored, which is what other jurisdictions (including at the Federal level) are doing.

Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by JumpCrisscross on Sunday October 06, 2013 @06:04AM (#6503649)
"the people who have taken the mortgage out own at least some of the property"

By definition of being underwater they own no equity of value. When a company goes bankrupt, i.e. when a company's equity value hits zero, i.e. when a company's assets are worth less than its liabilities, shareholders are wiped out. At that point they have no residual claim to the assets.

Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by nl on Sunday October 06, 2013 @06:20AM (#6503673)
Yeah, but that's an outcome of the way US mortgage system works (ie, the mortgage holder is preferred over other equity holders).

It doesn't have to be this way; for example in the event of a liquidation all parties with an equity interest could have money distributed to them in proportion to the interest the hold.

Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by josephagoss on Sunday October 06, 2013 @06:28AM (#6503680)
I actually agree with your last point, but the correct course of action would be for the Government to sue the banks based on this fraud. Using Eminent domain is the nuclear option.

I'd rather see a court where the banks are ripped apart for their crimes, but for some reason this never happened.

Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by nl on Sunday October 06, 2013 @07:28AM (#6503768)
I think the analogy "the nuclear option" is unfortunate. But if you remember the cold war, "the nuclear option" always was that: a real, actual option. Warsaw Pact forces in East Germany were far stronger than NATO forces, but they knew NATO policy was to use tactical nukes in the event of an invasion.

From the mortgaged home-occupant point of view, the banks have all the power here. Government power is the only thing they fear, but government power is a fairly blunt stick - governments generally don't intervene in individual cases and have to attempt a systematic solution, and so far it has been very ineffective.

In this case the mere threat of government intervention that will actually help consumers may be enough to change bank policies (if not in Richmond, perhaps elsewhere). I see that as a positive thing, and one that will help correct a distortion in the market.

Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by makomk on Sunday October 06, 2013 @07:49AM (#6503790)
Not just that, many of the subprime mortgages were missold to people who could actually obtained a much cheaper prime mortgage that would've been less profitable for the bank.

(Often on the basis of race - which is one of the things that makes all the people who blame the Community Reinvestment Act for the mortgage crisis really misguided. All the CRA did was ban redlining, a practice where banks excluded everyone in predominantly-black areas from prime mortgages even if they'd otherwise be eligible, leaving expensive subprime mortgages as their only option.)