T1B

88 wrote:Start knocking down vacant homes.

Dr_Phibes wrote:... seems a bit silly and impractical.

88 wrote: Start knocking down vacant homes. There is an over-supply of housing units in this country.

Mikey wrote:Maybe instead of knocking them down we should dismantle them piece by piece.

88 wrote:

War Wagon wrote:

88 wrote: Start knocking down vacant homes. There is an over-supply of housing units in this country.

Tell that to the folks living under bridges.

The problem isn't a over supply of homes. There can never be enough homes. The problem is an under supply of those who can afford those homes.

The government won't knock down the bridges, so the folks living under them should feel secure.

And there definitely can be too many homes.

How can you get people to afford homes without stabilizing and re-energizing the economy? Do we just give the unemployed keys to the vacant homes and a government check?

88 wrote:

.m2 wrote:

Mikey wrote:Maybe instead of knocking them down we should dismantle them piece by piece.

Spit it out... it's called a "Mechanic's Lien".

You are generally incoherent, but this rises to a new level. What does a mechanic's lien have to do with anything in this discussion?

88 wrote: Apparently you can't read. There are millions of vacant homes. An oversupply. They are not needed. )

88 wrote:Educate me, m2 Esquire.

The assumption is that the owner of the property will eventually pay the contractor, who will in turn pay all of the subcontractors, and so on. However, construction projects are often started and finished without such guarantees, which gives the property owner much more leverage over the contractor. If the property owner doesn't feel like paying, it's not as if the workers can just remove the building and sell it elsewhere.

It is this inequality during the contracting and construction phase that makes a mechanic's lien so appealing to contractors and vendors. Instead of finishing a project and hoping the property owner is a scrupulous business person, the very threat of a mechanic's lien can guarantee payment. In fact, many states require that any contractor or vendor must first file a 20 day notice before pursuing an official mechanic's lien. Some property owners may dread receiving this 20 day notice, but the contractor must file it in order to qualify for the actual lien.

88 wrote:

.m2 wrote:

88 wrote:Educate me, m2 Esquire.

The assumption is that the owner of the property will eventually pay the contractor, who will in turn pay all of the subcontractors, and so on. However, construction projects are often started and finished without such guarantees, which gives the property owner much more leverage over the contractor. If the property owner doesn't feel like paying, it's not as if the workers can just remove the building and sell it elsewhere.

It is this inequality during the contracting and construction phase that makes a mechanic's lien so appealing to contractors and vendors. Instead of finishing a project and hoping the property owner is a scrupulous business person, the very threat of a mechanic's lien can guarantee payment. In fact, many states require that any contractor or vendor must first file a 20 day notice before pursuing an official mechanic's lien. Some property owners may dread receiving this 20 day notice, but the contractor must file it in order to qualify for the actual lien.

Well, you managed to locate some prose that explains a little bit about mechanic's liens. But you haven't related it to the present discussion. Keep trying.

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

.m2 wrote: This shit (the thread topic) went down 6 years ago.... when I first mentioned it on this board.

Manufacturing.

88 wrote:I give up, .m2. I'm too tired to try to decipher your ramblings.

88 wrote:Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)

.m2 wrote:

88 wrote:I give up, .m2. I'm too tired to try to decipher your ramblings.

Pssst... when "sales rep's" of the largest manufactures in the WORLD... tell you that their sales have gone down 40 to 60 percent... it tells you more than.... the owners of property's... can't pay their bills.


This shit should have been headed off by Bush and his cronies in 2003.

88 wrote:

Start knocking down vacant homes. There is an over-supply of housing units in this country. Read the following article for the details:

http://www.thelindseygroup.com/pdfs/It' ... 060908.pdf

By the way, that article ^^^^ was published in the Weekly Standard on June 9, 2008. The Dow closed at 12,280.32 that day...

Knocking down vacant homes would be a win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win proposition.

First, it would put people to work, tearing them down.

Second, it would take vacant homes, which are often used for manufacturing and dealing drugs, out of commission for that purpose.

Third, it would acceleration a reduction in the housing over-supply.

Fourth, it would protect the property values of neighboring occupied homes.

Fifth, it would provide space for new construction, which produces more jobs and moves the entire economy.

Sixth, it would allow housing prices to stabilize by adjusting the supply side of the supply/demand equation.

Seventh, it would reduce vacant home buying/speculation, which is bad for the economy.

Eighth, it is very quick. A crew with proper equipment can complete raze a residential structure in less than a week.

Ninth, the new housing that would replace the old housing would be more energy efficient.

Tenth, it would require the purchase of heavy equipment and motor vehicles, which would help the domestic steel and motor vehicle industry.

War Wagon wrote:
Such keen insight from sales reps, 6 years ago, no less.

How could've we been so blind?

.m2 wrote:

War Wagon wrote:
Such keen insight from sales reps, 6 years ago, no less.

How could've we been so blind?

You live in.... Kansas City (what a shock)... and have the educational level of a "Bush chimp".

"Did I mention you're from Kansas City.... and VOTED... to have a chimp take a 2nd term ???

Yeah, KC doesn't have the sharpest tools.

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

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.

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.

BSmack wrote:new hot water heater

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.

smackaholic wrote:$1 dollar

Smackie Chan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:$1 dollar

Sin,

Dept. of Redundancy Dept.

smackaholic wrote:rack smackie.

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

Smackie Chan wrote:

BSmack wrote:new hot water heater

Hot water doesn't need to be heated.

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

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.

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.

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.