http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...operty-fallout

UN meets homeless victims of American property dream


A home advertised for sale at a foreclosure auction in Pasadena,
California. Photograph: Reed Saxon/AP

There were not many people packed in to the Los Angeles "town hall"
meeting who had heard of the foreign woman with the unfamiliar title
who had come to listen to their tales of plight. But many took it as a
good sign that she had worried the last American government enough for
it to keep her out of the country.

Deanne Weakly was among the first to the microphone. The 51-year-old
estate agent told how a couple of years ago she was pulling in $80,000
(£48,000) a year from commissions selling homes in LA's booming
property market.

When the bottom fell out of the business with the foreclosure crisis,
she lost her own house and ended up living on the streets in a city
with more homeless than any other in America. She was sexually
assaulted, harassed by the police and in despair.

She turned to the city and California state governments for help. "No
one wanted to listen. They blame you for being homeless in the first
place," she said.snip


Welcome to housing in America. Let's build these rigid structures,
price them to hundreds or thousands of times what they are worth, and
fleece the populous, If you try to live anyway else, or we feel your
home is not up to our codes, we are going to get you. Sieg Hei...I
mean Good day.


\=.\ /.=/ '-,

On Mar 8, 8:51*am, enough wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...ons-us-propert...

UN meets homeless victims of American property dream

A home advertised for sale at a foreclosure auction in Pasadena,
California. Photograph: Reed Saxon/AP

There were not many people packed in to the Los Angeles "town hall"
meeting who had heard of the foreign woman with the unfamiliar title
who had come to listen to their tales of plight. But many took it as a
good sign that she had worried the last American government enough for
it to keep her out of the country.

Deanne Weakly was among the first to the microphone. The 51-year-old
estate agent told how a couple of years ago she was pulling in $80,000
(£48,000) a year from commissions selling homes in LA's booming
property market.

When the bottom fell out of the business with the foreclosure crisis,
she lost her own house and ended up living on the streets in a city
with more homeless than any other in America. She was sexually
assaulted, harassed by the police and in despair.

She turned to the city and California state governments for help. "No
one wanted to listen. They blame you for being homeless in the first
place," she said.snip

*Welcome to housing in America. Let's build these rigid structures,
price them to hundreds or thousands of times what they are worth, and
fleece the populous, If you try to live anyway else, or we feel your
home is not up to our codes, we are going to get you. Sieg Hei...I
mean Good day.

What is your suggested solution?

For starters, outlaw real estate speculation, at least the out of
control kind.

zeez wrote:

For starters, outlaw real estate speculation, at least the out of control kind.

Impossible to define, and so impossible to outlaw, stupid.

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:37:49 -0800 (PST), zeez
wrote:
For starters, outlaw real estate speculation, at least the out of
control kind.

There's no such thing.

Outlaw speculation that suddenly jacks housing prices up many times
what they are worth. Outlaw the kind of speculation seen during the
dot-bomb era that saw apartments that were $500
suddenly turn to $5000 apartmentd with zero change to them (a lot of
San Fransisco residents can tell you stories of just a thing that
happened to them

Rod Speed wrote:
zeez wrote:

For starters, outlaw real estate speculation, at least the out of control kind.

Impossible to define, and so impossible to outlaw, my lord and master (fixed that for ya)

zeez wrote
Rod Speed wrote
zeez wrote

For starters, outlaw real estate speculation, at least the out of control kind.

Impossible to define, and so impossible to outlaw, stupid. zeez wrote:

Outlaw speculation that suddenly jacks housing prices up many times what they are worth.

Impossible to define, and so impossible to outlaw, stupid.

Outlaw the kind of speculation seen during the dot-bomb era

Impossible to define, and so impossible to outlaw, stupid.

that saw apartments that were $500 suddenly turn to $5000 apartmentd

Pure drug crazed fantasy.

with zero change to them (a lot of San Fransisco residents
can tell you stories of just a thing that happened to them

Just because they have abused various 'mind' altering substances.

On Mar 8, 4:37*pm, zeez wrote:
For starters, outlaw real estate speculation, at least the out of
control kind.

Actually, I was most curious about this:

Welcome to housing in America. Let's build these rigid structures,

I like rigid structures. Rigidity helps keep me and my stuff safe.
I
would not have wanted to live in a tent when the temperatures dipped
below 0 F this past winter.

price them to hundreds or thousands of times what they are worth, and
fleece the populous,

Housing prices are pretty much set by the buyers. Anybody who is
foolish enough to spend $1 million on a three-bedroom ranch deserves
what they get.

As far as new housing goes... In 2006 my husband and I built a 20- x
40-foot workshop from a kit. It cost about $20,000, and was
basically
a garage, slab on grade. Building houses isn't cheap. Nobody is
going to build them and give them away.

If you try to live anyway else, or we feel your
home is not up to our codes, we are going to get you.

I assume that the OP wants to eliminate building codes, which would
result in buyers having no protection from incompetent builders--
unless
buyers become experts themselves in the construction trades, and
oversee the construction process. Not likely.

Cindy Hamilton wrote
zeez wrote

For starters, outlaw real estate speculation, at least the out of control kind.

Actually, I was most curious about this:

Welcome to housing in America. Let's build these rigid structures,

I like rigid structures. Rigidity helps keep me and my stuff safe.

Or safer, anyway.

I would not have wanted to live in a tent when the
temperatures dipped below 0 F this past winter.

Plenty have done tho, most obviously in the gold rushes etc.

price them to hundreds or thousands of times
what they are worth, and fleece the populous,

Housing prices are pretty much set by the buyers.

Nope, they're actually set by the surplus of the building rate over the purchase rate.

Anybody who is foolish enough to spend $1 million
on a three-bedroom ranch deserves what they get.

In some places the land alone costs half that.

As far as new housing goes... In 2006 my husband and I built a
20- x 40-foot workshop from a kit. It cost about $20,000, and
was basically a garage, slab on grade. Building houses isn't
cheap. Nobody is going to build them and give them away.

Quite a few do give away older houses.

If you try to live anyway else, or we feel your home
is not up to our codes, we are going to get you.

I assume that the OP wants to eliminate building codes, which would
result in buyers having no protection from incompetent builders--unless
buyers become experts themselves in the construction trades, and
oversee the construction process. Not likely.

Plenty do, including me. I actually had the hilarious result where the
code inspectors told the local builders to have a look at how I had
done my concrete slab, because that is how its supposed to be done.

I'm talking about building codes that are used as a cludgel to prevent
people from building homes that cost little by knickpicking about
stuff that really have nothing to do with the safety of the home. Even
worse are HOAs that scream about your house not being the right shade
of white and will actualy try to take yiour home for it. Of course
full disclosure should be required in regards of the homes condition/
build when selling

zeez wrote:

I'm talking about building codes that are used as a cludgel to prevent
people from building homes that cost little by knickpicking about
stuff that really have nothing to do with the safety of the home.

Those arent building codes, those are covenants.

Even worse are HOAs that scream about your house not being the right shade of white

That doesnt affect the cost of the house.

and will actualy try to take yiour home for it. Of
course full disclosure should be required in regards
of the homes condition/build when selling

You're always welcome to pay for an inspection etc.

rob speed,
muttered out of the corner of his mouth...
' Impossible to define, and so impossible to outlaw, stupid.'

ah, yes...
de-regulation cannot and should not be regulated.
obviously.
so why try.

so sez the "great debater"

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 05:51:03 -0800 (PST), enough wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...operty-fallout

UN meets homeless victims of American property dream


A home advertised for sale at a foreclosure auction in Pasadena,
California. Photograph: Reed Saxon/AP

There were not many people packed in to the Los Angeles "town hall"
meeting who had heard of the foreign woman with the unfamiliar title
who had come to listen to their tales of plight. But many took it as a
good sign that she had worried the last American government enough for
it to keep her out of the country.

Deanne Weakly was among the first to the microphone. The 51-year-old
estate agent told how a couple of years ago she was pulling in $80,000
(£48,000) a year from commissions selling homes in LA's booming
property market.

When the bottom fell out of the business with the foreclosure crisis,
she lost her own house and ended up living on the streets in a city
with more homeless than any other in America. She was sexually
assaulted, harassed by the police and in despair.

She turned to the city and California state governments for help. "No
one wanted to listen. They blame you for being homeless in the first
place," she said.snip


Welcome to housing in America. Let's build these rigid structures,
price them to hundreds or thousands of times what they are worth, and
fleece the populous, If you try to live anyway else, or we feel your
home is not up to our codes, we are going to get you. Sieg Hei...I
mean Good day.


\=.\ /.=/ '-,

I am one of the idiots that paid $350,000 for a basic ranch with a full finished basement in 2004 on
Long Island. The house sold 2 years before that for $175. But, it was the cheapest house in the best
condition that I could buy.

Houses do not cost much. I know builders that could make a beautiful 3000 sq ft house for under
$200000. The problem is the location. Here on Long Island, you arent going to be able to by a 60x100
lot for less to $250,000. That is without the house. The majority of the price of the house is the
school district. The better the district, the more you pay. Have no kids? Doesnt matter. The school
district adds the value to your home. When I bought my house, there were plenty of houses in less
desirable neighborhoods with schools that have metal detectors that were selling for $175,000 and
they were bigger and on bigger properties. Didnt matter to me. Location, Location, Location. I dont
have to live here but I want to because I grew up here. I suppose I could move upstate NY or far
away to somewhere like Nebraska and buy a new home in a great area for $150 or so but I am not going
to. Are there jobs there? How are the doctors, etc? I'll stay right here even though it kills me to
pay $3000/mo for a small 1200 sq ft house. People set the prices. If some idiot like me pays the
$350,000 asking price for a ranch, then when someone else sells there house, they look at the comps
and they say that they want the same or more.

Houses are a luxury and not a right (as the Clintons wanted to make it).

Everybody should always have access to housing no matter what, even if
its just a patch of land and a tee pee or shack built by hand. To do
otherwise is pure evil+we might as well declare food, water and air a
luxury. Imagine living in a world where you pay a 'king' to breathe.

zeez wrote:
Everybody should always have access to housing no matter what, even if
its just a patch of land and a tee pee or shack built by hand. To do
otherwise is pure evil+we might as well declare food, water and air a
luxury. Imagine living in a world where you pay a 'king' to breathe.
Arkansas does not have a building code. My neck of Ozark woods has
thousands of owner built cabins... that have been abandoned.

The owners knew enuf carpenty, but didnt know how to build the land, ran
out of food, and left.

On Mar 8, 3:19*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
zeez wrote:
For starters, outlaw real estate speculation, at least the out of control kind.

Impossible to define, and so impossible to outlaw, my lord, master of high renown(fixed)


It's very simple: hold the speculators criminally liable for their
actions if they drive up housing prices to insane levels or tank the
market.

zeez wrote
Rod Speed wrote
zeez wrote

For starters, outlaw real estate speculation, at least the out of control kind.

Impossible to define, and so impossible to outlaw, stupid.

It's very simple:

We'll see...

hold the speculators criminally liable for their actions
if they drive up housing prices to insane levels

Impossible to define, or to prove, stupid.

or tank the market.

Impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a criminal conviction
requires that it was speculators the tanked the market, stupid.

Let alone one particular speculator, stupid.

For starters, outlaw real estate speculation, at least the out of
control kind.

Impossible to define, and so impossible to outlaw, my lord, master of
high renown(fixed)

Real estate speculation won't last long without a lot of use of
someone else's money. How about banking regulations that say banks
can't lend more on a house than the minimum amount it sold for in
the past 5 years? (exceptions allowed if the property has changed
from a vacant lot to a house with land). If someone really thinks
the property is worth a lot and has a big down payment to risk it,
they can buy it at an inflated price at largely their own risk.
Wage slaves probably won't be able to afford a house with a rapidly
inflating price in the first place, so they wouldn't end up upside-down
on a huge mortgage and on the edge of bankruptcy. Perhaps the
prices wouldn't inflate so much if the suckers you want to sell to
can't afford such high prices.

The sales price history for a piece of property is public information
(at least according to local realtors and the local property appraisal
folks). The Federal government exerts a lot of control over what
mortgages can look like to be acceptable to government agencies
like Fannie MAE.

You don't have to outlaw private investment. If the private investors
go broke, it won't endanger the banking system.

Gordon Burditt wrote

For starters, outlaw real estate speculation, at least the out of control kind.

Impossible to define, and so impossible to outlaw, my lord, master of high renown(fixed)

Real estate speculation won't last long without a lot of use of someone else's money.

Wrong. Plenty speculate with their own money.

How about banking regulations that say banks can't lend more on
a house than the minimum amount it sold for in the past 5 years?

MIndlessly silly. That would cripple the mortgage
market for those who just want somewhere to live.

(exceptions allowed if the property has changed from a vacant lot to a house with land).

Not clear what you are saying there. Presumably that the
bank cant lend the amount that the house cost to build.

If so, that is even sillier.

If someone really thinks the property is worth a lot
and has a big down payment to risk it, they can
buy it at an inflated price at largely their own risk.

Wage slaves probably won't be able to afford a
house with a rapidly inflating price in the first place,

Wrong. If that was so, the percentage of house ownership wouldnt have increased dramatically.

so they wouldn't end up upside-down on a
huge mortgage and on the edge of bankruptcy.

Being upside down has no relevance what so ever to bankruptcy.

Perhaps the prices wouldn't inflate so much if the
suckers you want to sell to can't afford such high prices.

Yes, if you beat the loan market to death, that would certainly produce
an effect on the price of houses. Pity about those who need a house.

The sales price history for a piece of property is public information (at
least according to local realtors and the local property appraisal folks).

Not for new property built on vacant land or with the old house demolished.

The Federal government exerts a lot of control over what mortgages
can look like to be acceptable to government agencies like Fannie MAE.

And real estate bubbles happen anyway.

You don't have to outlaw private investment. If the private
investors go broke, it won't endanger the banking system.

But that will have a significant effect on the housing industry.