At first, only 40 or 50 homes. But when those people start paying it back, then the money can be used to help others. Or am I kidding myself here?
At some point you have to stop pissing good money after bad and get out of a house you cannot afford. I can see when you are talking about a temporary set back ,but when you make 50k and are in a house costing 500k which you could only afford with a teaser 2% mortgage, nothing short of free money is going to make that work.
What we need to do is have a holiday for loan forgiveness counting as income, and set up a system whereby people who are in houses they cannot afford can surrender them to the lender, or sell them in satisfaction, and have a lesser ding on their credit, say three years.
Get people out of places they will never afford and allow them to start renting again with a housing payment they can afford.
elenchos, you're fucking dreaming.
I don't think this idea is as heinous as others but almost everyone is one illness away from doom and gloom.
Eh, it's just a little harmless pandering on the part of the city council.
I'm cool as long as nobody starts talking about anything resembling a real bail-out.
Moral hazard alert.
@4,
Not to worry - they also voted today to spend $15 million to buy property back from Paul Allen (what the City sold him!) to start work on his otherwise-unfunded $200+ million Mercer/Valley beautification project.
They (oops - we) can only afford to bail one property owner out at a time...
...typo alert, "that the City sold him"
I'm also irresponsible with money. May I have a $5000 interest free loan I have no intention of paying back because hey, like I said, I'm irresponsible with money.
The responsible renters paying sales tax and property tax via their landlord won't mind because hey, otherwise housing demand would drop and they might be able to buy a place just like me.
AMIRITE?
Yeah....I have to say that I hate people losing their homes, but once again, let's make provisions for people who can't make their mortgage payments and do nothing about people who lose their apartments due to condo conversions or astronomical rent increases. As a renter (a perpetual renter - I'll never be able to afford a house unless I win Lotto), I feel like a second class citizen. And don't even get me started on the tax breaks.
Let's throw away money!
And guess what -- other people pay for it!
The program is limited to people making 80% median income or below. Why are these people buying houses in the first place? When I had a crappy job and made no money, I rented an apartment. Before that, when I made even less, I had roommates. This is a program for people who in many cases qualify for federal housing subsidies, yet for some reason felt it wise to buy a house. If our city council wants to send taxpayer money to these people, send the $5k in the form of rent payments.
oh boy... i just don't know where to start. i guess i knew all this shit was inevitable, but i'm still very disappointed in our elected officials.
God, I wish I'd bought a house I couldn't afford - I could be getting free money from the city right now!
I was responsible, realized the offers were too good to be true, and kept renting. How could I have been so stupid?
Will Harrel? How about Councilmember Bruce Harrell...or is this a joke?
14) Jesus, I am stupid. Will Harrel is the former head of ACLU Texas. Yours truly, William Holden...
Oh...that makes sense. I was worried you were daydreaming about Will Ferrell! And stop it with that "stupid" talk!
It's beyond ironic - sad actually - that the council can make some money available to 'homeowners' caught in the foreclosure nightmare, but is unable to effectively provide funds to renters who are being evicted due to condo conversion, etc., even when they are at risk for becoming homeless.
Seems kind of a double standard, and one that should start coming back on them, since renters are now the majority of the population in Seattle, and will only continue to be a larger and larger share of the electorate here. You'd think renters would start flexing their political muscles to get a more level playing field . . .
sadly, Bellevue Ave is right @3.
When the city tries to tackle problems like this, it's like putting a Band-Aid on a shrapnel victim.
I'm not going to cast many moral dispersions on this bail out, because I will probably personally benefit most - as a renter - from these people staying in their homes and not causing a wild surge in the already overly-competitive rental market (in San Francisco).
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).