|
Home > Archive > Architecture > April 2008 > Why isn't this a crime?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Why isn't this a crime?
|
|
|
|
| RicodJour 2008-04-02, 5:25 pm |
| Don wrote:
> And if it is, why isn't it being prosecuted?
For the reasons mentioned in the article.
R
| |
|
| "RicodJour"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> For the reasons mentioned in the article.
>
> R
(The former owners, who couldn't be located,)
(Banks rarely pursue charges against destructive homeowners; it's not worth
the cost and trouble.)
I bet that attitude changes by the end of the year.
| |
| Pierre Levesque 2008-04-02, 5:25 pm |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ft0g0d01i1r@news4.newsguy.com...
> And if it is, why isn't it being prosecuted?
> If it was prosecuted and the word got out in short order it would stop.
> Supposedly.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120...day&mod=WSJBlog
>
Which part? The paying off or the trashing or the place?
| |
|
| On Apr 2, 3:42=A0pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
>
>
>
> (The former owners, who couldn't be located,)
> (Banks rarely pursue charges against destructive homeowners; it's not wort=
h
> the cost and trouble.)
>
> I bet that attitude changes by the end of the year.
You can't get blood out of a stone. They've just had their house
foreclosed upon. Obviously they have some sort of financial problems
and no money in the bank. Why bother to sue them. So what. If you
win, you're not getting anything but a bill from your lawyer. So
spend the money on a carrot instead of a stick.
| |
| RicodJour 2008-04-02, 8:26 pm |
| On Apr 2, 5:55 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 3:42 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
You'd be wrong. Lawyers and courts aren't about to stop their black
hole ways.
[color=darkred]
> You can't get blood out of a stone. They've just had their house
> foreclosed upon. Obviously they have some sort of financial problems
> and no money in the bank. Why bother to sue them. So what. If you
> win, you're not getting anything but a bill from your lawyer. So
> spend the money on a carrot instead of a stick.
Spoken like someone who just likes to "get'r done". It's the
difference between ideology and practicality.
R
| |
|
|
"Pierre Levesque" <pierrelevesqueNOSPAM@connarch.com> wrote in message
news:LbTIj.5657$ie3.4703@trndny02...
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:ft0g0d01i1r@news4.newsguy.com...
> Which part? The paying off or the trashing or the place?
The trashing.
Why is it that when people are making loan payments on something they assume
the thing belongs to them when in reality it does not?
These homes obviously don't belong to the residents, as the home is under
mortgage and is being taken from the delinquent owner, but the owner(s)
react like children and tear the thing up.
Evidence that they were not mature enough to support the concept of
homeownership, the gist of the subprime base.
I'm trying to imagine my father or grandfather doing such a thing.
I think they'd put a gun to their head first.
The lenders should force the trashers to pay restitution.
| |
|
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:318b22bc-f805-444c-96ac-2699ea93be6d@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 2, 3:42 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
>
>
>
> (The former owners, who couldn't be located,)
> (Banks rarely pursue charges against destructive homeowners; it's not
> worth
> the cost and trouble.)
>
> I bet that attitude changes by the end of the year.
You can't get blood out of a stone. They've just had their house
foreclosed upon. Obviously they have some sort of financial problems
and no money in the bank. Why bother to sue them. So what. If you
win, you're not getting anything but a bill from your lawyer. So
spend the money on a carrot instead of a stick.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I made no reference to the carrot and blood has nothing to do with it.
The evictees have assets and they have a future so they can pay restitution.
I imagine as thing shakes down more streamlined means of securing the
property will evolve.
| |
|
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:befd47ed-6f47-4f88-b53e-43200bfe9982@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 2, 5:55 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
> You'd be wrong. Lawyers and courts aren't about to stop their black
> hole ways.
>
>
> Spoken like someone who just likes to "get'r done". It's the
> difference between ideology and practicality.
Oh come on.
Some of the stuff described in that article are very expensive to fix and
would eat up any profits in the property.
I've read quite a few articles about this stuff lately and I can see a need
to avert the situation somehow.
If I came into your home and trashed it you'd do something about it and the
lenders will too when this thing reaches critical dimensions.
There's a difference between getting r done and getting r done right.
| |
| RicodJour 2008-04-03, 9:26 am |
| On Apr 3, 7:47 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:befd47ed-6f47-4f88-b53e-43200bfe9982@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh come on.
> Some of the stuff described in that article are very expensive to fix and
> would eat up any profits in the property.
Reading that article I thought the people weren't very creative in
trashing a house. They're beating up the cosmetics which is not the
most expensive parts to fix.
> I've read quite a few articles about this stuff lately and I can see a need
> to avert the situation somehow.
I'm not sure why averting reading would help, but whatever floats your
boat.
> If I came into your home and trashed it you'd do something about it and the
> lenders will too when this thing reaches critical dimensions.
They are doing something about it. They also did something in the
first place that got them into the situation. I don't grieve for a
greedy bank.
> There's a difference between getting r done and getting r done right.
Maybe you missed the part about ideology vs. practicality.
R
| |
| Pierre Levesque 2008-04-03, 9:26 am |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ft2fri01nc0@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> "Pierre Levesque" <pierrelevesqueNOSPAM@connarch.com> wrote in message
> news:LbTIj.5657$ie3.4703@trndny02...
>
> The trashing.
> Why is it that when people are making loan payments on something they
> assume the thing belongs to them when in reality it does not?
> These homes obviously don't belong to the residents, as the home is under
> mortgage and is being taken from the delinquent owner, but the owner(s)
> react like children and tear the thing up.
> Evidence that they were not mature enough to support the concept of
> homeownership, the gist of the subprime base.
> I'm trying to imagine my father or grandfather doing such a thing.
> I think they'd put a gun to their head first.
> The lenders should force the trashers to pay restitution.
>
It is a crime. And the *true* owners could go after the *fake* owners but
decide not to because there would be nothing to take from fake owners who
have no more money. They figure that it would be too expensive to prosecute
for no return.
Maybe you meant to say a felony crime punishable in criminal court and
subject to jail time...
| |
| RicodJour 2008-04-03, 1:26 pm |
| On Apr 3, 10:21 am, "Pierre Levesque"
<pierrelevesqueNOS...@connarch.com> wrote:
> "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote in message
>
Do you mean like French worker throwing their sabot into the new-
fangled machinery, or union organizers beating up scabs and trashing
the owners' buildings?
[color=darkred]
> It is a crime. And the *true* owners could go after the *fake* owners but
> decide not to because there would be nothing to take from fake owners who
> have no more money. They figure that it would be too expensive to prosecute
> for no return.
>
> Maybe you meant to say a felony crime punishable in criminal court and
> subject to jail time...
Which, of course, it is, but, of course, the banks have determined
that pressing charges against a 'hapless homeowner pressed by
financial difficulties to commit a much-regretted desperate action' is
a lose-lose situation for them.
Curious that Don's outrage and sympathy extends to the banks, which,
of course, are licensed and backed by the government. Seems to me
that a 'fook 'em, let them take care of themselves' attitude would be
more appropriate and in keeping with his political sensibilities.
R
| |
|
|
| Ken S. Tucker 2008-04-03, 1:26 pm |
| On Apr 3, 6:56 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 10:21 am, "Pierre Levesque"
>
> <pierrelevesqueNOS...@connarch.com> wrote:
>
>
> Do you mean like French worker throwing their sabot into the new-
> fangled machinery, or union organizers beating up scabs and trashing
> the owners' buildings?
>
>
>
> Which, of course, it is, but, of course, the banks have determined
> that pressing charges against a 'hapless homeowner pressed by
> financial difficulties to commit a much-regretted desperate action' is
> a lose-lose situation for them.
>
> Curious that Don's outrage and sympathy extends to the banks, which,
> of course, are licensed and backed by the government. Seems to me
> that a 'fook 'em, let them take care of themselves' attitude would be
> more appropriate and in keeping with his political sensibilities.
> R
I could understand things better, but I think some of
lenders *nearly* conned the buyers. Myself I have
contract law experience and higher math training and
I need to figure out the mortage contract. I doubt many
of the buyers knew what the hell they were getting into.
If banks are leaving vacant buildings lying around,
they can pay for the extra security or insurance.
Ken
| |
| RicodJour 2008-04-03, 1:26 pm |
| On Apr 3, 12:17 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> I could understand things better, but I think some of
> lenders *nearly* conned the buyers. Myself I have
> contract law experience and higher math training and
> I need to figure out the mortage contract. I doubt many
> of the buyers knew what the hell they were getting into.
It's not a con, it's more like loan sharking.
> If banks are leaving vacant buildings lying around,
> they can pay for the extra security or insurance.
And they are. Banks don't want to be in the real estate business -
there are too many risks. That's why it's a great time to be
approaching banks offering to take properties off of their hands.
R
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2008-04-03, 5:25 pm |
| On Apr 3, 9:15 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:17 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> It's not a con, it's more like loan sharking.
A similiar thing is rent increases - controls.
The tenant signs a 1 year lease, moves in get's
the kids enrolled in school, and dozens of other
details to move. Then the 1 yr lease expires and
the LandLord puts up the rent 30%.
In pure free enterprise, LL has that right, so the
tenant either moves or pays. Well it costs time
and money to move. In advertising it's called a
loss-leader. Maybe tenant can't afford +30%.
Suppose the tenant does move out, and next
month the LL rents it for what the previous tenant
was paying to do the same Nifong thing.
Something stinks.
>
> And they are. Banks don't want to be in the real estate business -
> there are too many risks. That's why it's a great time to be
> approaching banks offering to take properties off of their hands.
Agreed. The banks made the boom-bust cycle
it's time for them to pay for the bust from the
profits of the boom.
Ken
| |
| Kris Krieger 2008-04-03, 5:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:ft2g0e01nid@news1.newsguy.com:
>
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:318b22bc-f805-444c-96ac-2699ea93be6d@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.
> .. On Apr 2, 3:42 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
> You can't get blood out of a stone. They've just had their house
> foreclosed upon. Obviously they have some sort of financial problems
> and no money in the bank. Why bother to sue them. So what. If you
> win, you're not getting anything but a bill from your lawyer. So
> spend the money on a carrot instead of a stick.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I made no reference to the carrot and blood has nothing to do with it.
> The evictees have assets and they have a future so they can pay
> restitution. I imagine as thing shakes down more streamlined means of
> securing the property will evolve.
>
IMO, the peiople who ought to pay are tthe gits who made many multi-
millions of bocks by handing out laons to epopel who obviously would not
be able to carry them. A mrotgage also has to include other factors -
for exam[ple, when we bough tthis place, teh land was still being valeud
as farmland, and we were told that the tax rate would go up once
everything was built and the land reassessed. SO, it isn't just the trap
of ARMs that get people into places they won't be able to afford; there
is also the issue of tax rates, HOA fees, and other costs taht need to be
considered when applying for a mortgage. IMO, the inept morons who
pretended to be "loan experts" and handed out these loans, and especially
the sneaky slimeballs who put that sort fo thing into practivce, are the
one's who ought to be paying for the mess they created.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2008-04-03, 5:25 pm |
| "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1a4e3714-fd80-4ce4-9d82-e9ffe11afc14@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 3, 6:56 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> I could understand things better, but I think some of
> lenders *nearly* conned the buyers.
I don't think there is anything "nearly" about it. I think that policies
were instituted for the sake of immediate and huge profit for the people
who ran these loan operations, with criminal disregard for the
predictable result.
> Myself I have
> contract law experience and higher math training and
> I need to figure out the mortage contract. I doubt many
> of the buyers knew what the hell they were getting into.
Yup. When it takes a PhD (or equvalent) and a genius IQ to figure out
what is actually in a contract, IMO, it becomes, for all intents and
purposes, a scam - a scam is where you try to convince someone that X
will benefit them, when the reality is that X will be detrimental.
And the main probelm, BTW, goes way beyond the fact that someone was
careless and made a foolish decision - the problem is that everyone
*except* the scammers and the scammed end up paying for all the fallout.
>
> If banks are leaving vacant buildings lying around,
> they can pay for the extra security or insurance.
> Ken
>
|
|
|
|
|