T1B

BSmack wrote:

War Wagon wrote:

88 wrote:
How can you get people to afford homes without stabilizing and re-energizing the economy?

That is the $64,000 question and I wish I knew the answer.

I just don't believe tearing down livable homes is the answer.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with 88 on this.

The problem with almost all of the homes 88 is talking about is that they are not livable. Just about any urban house that has been allowed to stand vacant for any serious period of time is in an absolute shambles. You're usually talking about having to do a complete gutting of the house, all new plumbing, all new electrical, a new roof, new furnace, new hot water heater and a full paint job. Not to mention the possible lead paint, radon and asbestos remediation. For that kind of money, it would be cheaper to tear the units down and either convert the land to other use, or let the land lie until there is a demand for new homes.

I disagree.

In most cases, these homes are structurally sound. They may need windows. They may even need to be gutted internally. This can be done by messicans low skilled labor and isn't that expensive...... until the gubmint gets their meddling hands involved with the asbestos/lead debacles.

Intact asbestos is easy to deal with. If it is wrapped around pipes, you leave it the fukk alone or cover it over. It does it's job better than whatever it's replacement would be. Same with lead paint. Scrape the loose stuff and cover it with new stuff. None of this is difficult and it shouldn't be expensive, but, as with anything else, once the gubmint starts making the rules, the price goes through the roof.

Vacant properties may have depreciated considerably and some will continue to, but, to say that it makes financial sense to take something that has value and spend even more money to destroy it, doesn't seem very smart too me.

Rehab these properties or sell them to the highest bidder so he may do the same. It might mean selling it for $1 dollar. I think this is still smarter than spending money to destroy it.

rack smackie.

"hot water heater" is a long running joke in the bidness.

smackaholic wrote:$1 dollar

Sin,

Dept. of Redundancy Dept.

Smackie Chan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:$1 dollar

Sin,

Dept. of Redundancy Dept.

The Smackie giveth and the Smackie taketh.

smackaholic wrote:rack smackie.

"hot water heater" is a long running joke in the bidness.

And what bidness would that be? The wasting company time bidness?

Smackie Chan wrote:

BSmack wrote:new hot water heater

Hot water doesn't need to be heated.

It does if you want it hotter

88 wrote:I have a general policy of not responding to dipshits...

Living the life of a dipshit seems to be enough for you.

poptart wrote:LA Times article written in 1999 ... PRAISING ... Clinton for his policy.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains.


Clinton intentionally dicked with what is SUPPOSED to be a free market.

By doing so, he created a bubble ... an ILLUSION that things were roarin'.

And they were, for a while.


*POP*


And now the left says the economy has tanked BECAUSE of free market capitalism.

Very funnay.

Who was President in 1992?

Another dipshit.

In 1992, Congress, who made the mandate which I cited, was democratically controlled.



From the 1999 article ...

The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer.


Do you agree that lenders ought to be required to devote LARGE percentages of their lendings to low and moderate income borrowers?

I assume you do.

By what authority, then, was the government making such demands?

Oh boy, another game of who's to blame.

smackaholic wrote:

BSmack wrote:

War Wagon wrote:
Believe it or not, I actually agree with 88 on this.

The problem with almost all of the homes 88 is talking about is that they are not livable. Just about any urban house that has been allowed to stand vacant for any serious period of time is in an absolute shambles. You're usually talking about having to do a complete gutting of the house, all new plumbing, all new electrical, a new roof, new furnace, new hot water heater and a full paint job. Not to mention the possible lead paint, radon and asbestos remediation. For that kind of money, it would be cheaper to tear the units down and either convert the land to other use, or let the land lie until there is a demand for new homes.

I disagree.

In most cases, these homes are structurally sound. They may need windows. They may even need to be gutted internally. This can be done by messicans low skilled labor and isn't that expensive...... until the gubmint gets their meddling hands involved with the asbestos/lead debacles.

Intact asbestos is easy to deal with. If it is wrapped around pipes, you leave it the fukk alone or cover it over. It does it's job better than whatever it's replacement would be. Same with lead paint. Scrape the loose stuff and cover it with new stuff. None of this is difficult and it shouldn't be expensive, but, as with anything else, once the gubmint starts making the rules, the price goes through the roof.

Vacant properties may have depreciated considerably and some will continue to, but, to say that it makes financial sense to take something that has value and spend even more money to destroy it, doesn't seem very smart too me.

Rehab these properties or sell them to the highest bidder so he may do the same. It might mean selling it for $1 dollar. I think this is still smarter than spending money to destroy it.

^^^^^Rack it.

I was once going to vinyl-side a rental unit of mine that had asbestos siding. Having the asbestos removed would have damn near exceeded 40% of the value of the house (2 bdrm, 1 level). A contractor actually told me to remove the asbestos siding in the middle of the night and bury it in some farmer's pit!

Goes to show how the government impedes everything. I decided to just repaint the siding and add new windows and doors.


Although, I like 88's idea of razing dilapidated housing....how are you going to build demand in blighted areas of say, Detriot? Or East St. Louis? Shoot, there's blighted areas in Lincoln NE that no one in their right minds would build a new home if the ground was 50 cents!

poptart wrote:

Diego wrote:Could you please explain how decreasing supply will make homes more affordable

There is no reason to TRY to make homes more affordable.

If a person can't afford a home then they live in an apartment.

We all should know the reality here.
Bubba fugged up big time by "forcing" homes to be sold to folks who had no business being a homeowner.

The stock market soared in his years and now it's tanked, in large part BECAUSE of him.

He will never admit it and of course his loyalists never will, either.

Such is the political game.

Nobody "forced" anyone you fucking idiot. Realtors and closers made a shitload of money off of signing these loans and not giving a fuck about credit scores or how retarded the home buyer was.

smackaholic wrote:rack smackie.

"hot water heater" is a long running joke in the bidness.

Why do you self claimed "Republican" posters post this stupid shit of "bidness" "gubment". You sound like a bunch of fucking popped collared faggots hanging out at a Friday's, drinking beer discussing how you may lose your jobs at Rent-A-Center.

Guntslinger wrote:Nobody "forced" anyone you fucking idiot.

The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer.

poptart wrote:Another dipshit.

In 1992, Congress, who made the mandate which I cited, was democratically controlled.

And Clinton, whom you blamed, was not a member of Congress in 1992, either. And of course, the President retained veto power over any legislation passed in Congress.

Besides, in any event, the housing meltdown is not the be-all, end-all of the current economic mess. Big Three automakers out front should have told you so.

GOSD wrote:

smackaholic wrote:rack smackie.

"hot water heater" is a long running joke in the bidness.

Why do you self claimed "Republican" posters post this stupid shit of "bidness" "gubment". You sound like a bunch of fucking popped collared faggots hanging out at a Friday's, drinking beer discussing how you may lose your jobs at Rent-A-Center.

Fukked up purposeful misspelling or gloss or whatever you wanna call it, has been a hallmark of this dump since day one. Why this particular example, "bidness" annoys you, is beyond me. Weren't you moaning about this a few weeks back?

And I wasn't aware it was a republican thing.

BSmack wrote:

smackaholic wrote:rack smackie.

"hot water heater" is a long running joke in the bidness.

And what bidness would that be? The wasting company time bidness?

That would be the plumbing bidness. Call it a hot water heater to a plumber and he is likely to point out the fact that hot water doesn't need heating. I was nosing around a HVAC bulletin board a few years back looking for info and saw multiple examples of it.

Terry, Bush Sr. could have vetoed the 1992 Congressional mandate, yep.

He's a dipshit, too, and on MANY levels, I already said.

However it was under the Clinton Administration that all of the social engineering garbage which produced the housing bubble really took off.


from the 1999 LA Times article.

Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat "redlining" by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.

And HUD (under Clinton's watch) REQUIRED Fannie and Freddie to devote LARGE amounts of their loans to low and moderate income borrowers.



Why should a bank be REQUIRED to give loans to bad risks?


Bueller?

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Stop listening to talk radio & mix in a newspaper.

After all..because it is printed in the paper, it must be right, accurate and checked for truth and facts. That is if the newspaper is in business tomorrow.

Sin,

The New York Times

Derron wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Stop listening to talk radio & mix in a newspaper.

After all..because it is printed in the paper, it must be right, accurate and checked for truth and facts. That is if the newspaper is in business tomorrow.

Sin,

The New York Times

I agree....the L.A. Times can't be trusted.

GOSD wrote:

smackaholic wrote:rack smackie.

"hot water heater" is a long running joke in the bidness.

Why do you self claimed "Republican" posters post this stupid shit of "bidness" "gubment". You sound like a bunch of fucking popped collared faggots hanging out at a Friday's, drinking beer discussing how you may lose your jobs at Rent-A-Center.

btw, dork snorkler, it's "gubmint".