They say using Eminent domain as if thats the solution, take the banks property away. I am thinking the fallout from this move will be disastrous. These are the ideas that fundamentally change the fabric of a society. 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 elect…
Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
21–30 of 79 posts
Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
#22Good luck to anyone ever getting a mortgage in that town ever again.
Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
#23And that's the very first thing they said! I couldn't tell you the second thing, because I closed the video.
What is it about these activist organisations that compel them to so consistently throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
#24The US constitution says: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
#25The US constitution says: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
> The Framers of the Constitution added this [no Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts] clause in response to the fear that states would continue a practice that had been widespread under the Articles of Confederation—that of granting "private relief." Legislatures would pass bills relieving particular persons (predictably, influential persons) of their obligation to pay their debts.
However it seems that in the Great Depression the Supreme Court held it to be okay for States to modify morgages under the "emergency exception doctrine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Building_%26_Loan_Associat...
Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
#26They say using Eminent domain as if thats the solution, take the banks property away. I am thinking the fallout from this move will be disastrous. These are the ideas that fundamentally change the fabric of a society. 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 elect…
Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
#27While I am pretty sympathetic to the anti-TPP cause, the video is awful . It started off with ridiculous scaremongering about "frankenfoods", ie GMO foods, which have the potential for incredible benefits for mankind. It even specifically calls out food grown in a lab - do these people not realise the environmental damage we could prevent if we could grow meat? The nutritional benefits? The cruelty averted? And that'…
Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
#28Mortgage lenders will put huge premiums on mortgages in the town in the future because of "default by eminent domain" risk, if the government pulls freddie/fannie mae it'll be even more expensive. Basically they're robbing future mortgage owners in order to pay current ones.
Worse yet, other towns with similar profiles might have their risk profile increased too, so they'll get extra premiums because of Richmond's behaviour without getting any of the benefits.
So while it might seem like they're just taking the money from pension funds and other investors, in the longer term they'll be taking far more from future mortgage owners.
Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
#29Good luck to anyone ever getting a mortgage in that town ever again.
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 Street up at night
#30They're making the fundamental mistake of fixing a problem now in a way that will cause huge problems in the future. Mortgage lenders will put huge premiums on mortgages in the town in the future because of "default by eminent domain" risk, if the government pulls freddie/fannie mae it'll be even more expensive. Basically they're robbing future mortgage owners in order to pay current ones. Worse yet, other towns with…
Is that a bad thing? The investment becomes risker and more expensive, so less money is available, so fewer mortgages are made. More people rent instead of buy their own homes. I would submit that fewer owner-occupied homes would be a positive thing for the national economy.