Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord

Chick this out:

"[BOULDER, Colo.] A jury will be asked to decide this week whether a
Gunbarrel woman's pyramid of Peeps and other Easter decor on her apartment
door became stale enough to warrant her eviction."

Tenant claims the Peeps were a religious icon.

http://www.coloradodaily.com/news/20...y-woman-asks-/

In their defense, the apartment claims the Peeps were "unsanitary."
Obviously, the landlords don't know about Peeps.


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,353
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Chick this out:

"[BOULDER, Colo.] A jury will be asked to decide this week whether a
Gunbarrel woman's pyramid of Peeps and other Easter decor on her apartment
door became stale enough to warrant her eviction."

Tenant claims the Peeps were a religious icon.

http://www.coloradodaily.com/news/20...y-woman-asks-/

In their defense, the apartment claims the Peeps were "unsanitary."
Obviously, the landlords don't know about Peeps.


Speaking as a Landlord, the rental market must be far better there than it
is here OR there is a lot more to this story.

Pay your rent on time and keep the darned things up year round if you rent
from me.







  #3   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord

Colbyt wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Chick this out:

"[BOULDER, Colo.] A jury will be asked to decide this week whether a
Gunbarrel woman's pyramid of Peeps and other Easter decor on her apartment
door became stale enough to warrant her eviction."

Tenant claims the Peeps were a religious icon.

http://www.coloradodaily.com/news/20...y-woman-asks-/

In their defense, the apartment claims the Peeps were "unsanitary."
Obviously, the landlords don't know about Peeps.


Speaking as a Landlord, the rental market must be far better there than it
is here OR there is a lot more to this story.

Pay your rent on time and keep the darned things up year round if you rent
from me.


There's a lot more people looking to rent now that their credit is
trashed...

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,353
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord


"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

There's a lot more people looking to rent now that their credit is
trashed...

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel


Actually a lot of them never had "credit". The moronic loan companies
loaned money to people I would not rent to.

And we wonder how the "crisis" came about?




  #5   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,926
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord

On Jun 21, 4:15*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Chick this out:

"[BOULDER, Colo.] A jury will be asked to decide this week whether a
Gunbarrel woman's pyramid of Peeps and other Easter decor on her apartment
door became stale enough to warrant her eviction."

Tenant claims the Peeps were a religious icon.

http://www.coloradodaily.com/news/20...easter-bunnies...

In their defense, the apartment claims the Peeps were "unsanitary."
Obviously, the landlords don't know about Peeps.


The word gunbarrel is what got my attention


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,040
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord

In article ,
"Colbyt" wrote:

"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

There's a lot more people looking to rent now that their credit is
trashed...

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel


Actually a lot of them never had "credit". The moronic loan companies
loaned money to people I would not rent to.

And we wonder how the "crisis" came about?


Not all of us wonder. Some of us know. The international pool of
investment money doubled in a few short years, while the supply of
investments didn't. American real estate was about the best investment
around. The people with the money demanded more loans to buy. The loan
companies, far from being "moronic," supplied the loans. And they got
filthy rich in the process, knowing damn well that they were selling
worthless paper to people who were even greedier than they were.
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord

Smitty Two wrote:
"Colbyt" wrote:

Actually a lot of them never had "credit". The moronic loan
companies loaned money to people I would not rent to.

And we wonder how the "crisis" came about?


The people with the money demanded more loans to buy. The loan
companies, far from being "moronic," supplied the loans.


More like the guidelines for loaning money for homes were relaxed due to the
incessant whining from groups such as Acorn and idiots such as Ted Kennedy.
You see, to those individuals, it just wasn't "fair" that people who were
too risky to loan money to didn't own their own homes.

That is what started this whole ball rolling.

Jon


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 944
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:22:13 -0700, Jon Danniken wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
"Colbyt" wrote:

Actually a lot of them never had "credit". The moronic loan
companies loaned money to people I would not rent to.

And we wonder how the "crisis" came about?


The people with the money demanded more loans to buy. The loan
companies, far from being "moronic," supplied the loans.


More like the guidelines for loaning money for homes were relaxed due to the
incessant whining from groups such as Acorn and idiots such as Ted Kennedy.
You see, to those individuals, it just wasn't "fair" that people who were
too risky to loan money to didn't own their own homes.


That is what started this whole ball rolling.


Bull****. Nobody forced the lenders to make risky loans. They did it
to make a quick buck and to toss the loan like a hot potato.
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,746
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord


AZ Nomad wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:22:13 -0700, Jon Danniken wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
"Colbyt" wrote:

Actually a lot of them never had "credit". The moronic loan
companies loaned money to people I would not rent to.

And we wonder how the "crisis" came about?

The people with the money demanded more loans to buy. The loan
companies, far from being "moronic," supplied the loans.


More like the guidelines for loaning money for homes were relaxed due to the
incessant whining from groups such as Acorn and idiots such as Ted Kennedy.
You see, to those individuals, it just wasn't "fair" that people who were
too risky to loan money to didn't own their own homes.


That is what started this whole ball rolling.


Bull****. Nobody forced the lenders to make risky loans. They did it
to make a quick buck and to toss the loan like a hot potato.


Perhaps you need to research the various "community reinvestment act"
type laws that forced lenders to lower standards.
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 944
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:39:17 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:22:13 -0700, Jon Danniken wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
"Colbyt" wrote:

Actually a lot of them never had "credit". The moronic loan
companies loaned money to people I would not rent to.

And we wonder how the "crisis" came about?

The people with the money demanded more loans to buy. The loan
companies, far from being "moronic," supplied the loans.


More like the guidelines for loaning money for homes were relaxed due to the
incessant whining from groups such as Acorn and idiots such as Ted Kennedy.
You see, to those individuals, it just wasn't "fair" that people who were
too risky to loan money to didn't own their own homes.


That is what started this whole ball rolling.


Bull****. Nobody forced the lenders to make risky loans. They did it
to make a quick buck and to toss the loan like a hot potato.


Perhaps you need to research the various "community reinvestment act"
type laws that forced lenders to lower standards.


Perhaps you need to get your news from sources other than right wing radio
shows.


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:22:13 -0700, Jon Danniken
wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
"Colbyt" wrote:

Actually a lot of them never had "credit". The moronic loan
companies loaned money to people I would not rent to.

And we wonder how the "crisis" came about?

The people with the money demanded more loans to buy. The loan
companies, far from being "moronic," supplied the loans.


More like the guidelines for loaning money for homes were relaxed
due to the incessant whining from groups such as Acorn and idiots
such as Ted Kennedy. You see, to those individuals, it just wasn't
"fair" that people who were too risky to loan money to didn't own
their own homes.


That is what started this whole ball rolling.


Bull****. Nobody forced the lenders to make risky loans. They did it
to make a quick buck and to toss the loan like a hot potato.


No, they were forced.

Banking regulators evaluated how much investment the financial institutions
were making in "underserved" areas and that proportion weighed heavily on
the regulator's decisions regarding expansion, mergers, etc.

If you doubt this, take a spin through the most disreputable parts of your
town. You'll find a Wells Fargo branch next to the pawn shop, a Bank of
America store front adjacent to a bodega. Heck, you'll find branch banks on
streets where the only retail businesses are hookers and dope dealers. Some
of these banks go for DAYS without a bona-fide customer.

Believe me, these banks didn't open where they are out of either a profit
motive or altruism.

Specifically, from Wikipedia:

"The Community Reinvestment Act is a United States federal law designed to
encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of
borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and
moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce
discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice
known as redlining. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial
supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet
the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered,
consistent with safe and sound operation. To enforce the statute, federal
regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and
take this information into consideration when approving applications for new
bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

This all started under Carter in 1977, but the regulatory insistence was put
in under Clinton in 1995.

You are correct in that the banks tossed this loan as soon as they could -
banks may from stupid regulations but they're not stupid themselves.


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

Perhaps you need to get your news from sources other than right wing radio
shows.


You mean like Economist Stan Liebowitz who wrote in the New York Post
that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of
lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the
Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.
You mean like Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior lecturer in economics at
Harvard University, in an opinion piece for CNN, calls for "getting rid"
of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as policies like the Community
Reinvestment Act that "pressure banks into subprime lending."

However, it should also be noted that a Fed study showed approximately
50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies
that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from
only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. (My main
problem with this study is that they did not (or were not) able to tease
out how much of these loans were from the CRA-regulated part. . Another
study showed one in four subprime loans came from CRA-related banks.
(Which sorta backs up the

The upstart is that there is still quite a bit of confusion as to what
(if any) part the CRA played in this mess. Not a big surprise since we
still haven't really been able to get a good handle yet on how big the
mess really is let alone cause(s).

--
"I found what I thought was a REALLY good book,
called _Girl to Grab_. Imagine my surprise when I found
out it was volume 6 of the *Encyclopedia Britanica*!"
-Martin Mull
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 944
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:27:52 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:


Perhaps you need to get your news from sources other than right wing radio
shows.


You mean like Economist Stan Liebowitz who wrote in the New York Post
that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of
lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the
Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.
You mean like Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior lecturer in economics at
Harvard University, in an opinion piece for CNN, calls for "getting rid"
of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as policies like the Community
Reinvestment Act that "pressure banks into subprime lending."


However, it should also be noted that a Fed study showed approximately
50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies
that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from
only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. (My main
problem with this study is that they did not (or were not) able to tease
out how much of these loans were from the CRA-regulated part. . Another
study showed one in four subprime loans came from CRA-related banks.
(Which sorta backs up the


The upstart is that there is still quite a bit of confusion as to what
(if any) part the CRA played in this mess. Not a big surprise since we
still haven't really been able to get a good handle yet on how big the
mess really is let alone cause(s).


I'd be interested in hearing a list of actions taken against lenders
who were "too strict" in their lending policies. All zero of those
actions.

Just because the restrictions were relaxed doesn't mean that lenders
were forced to hand out money without checking qualifications. It should
be obvious that it was in their best interest not to make bad loans.
However it was possible to write bad loans, take a quick profit, and
then boot the loans to another victim by packaging them in a bundle
of other loans.
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,746
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord


AZ Nomad wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:39:17 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:22:13 -0700, Jon Danniken wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
"Colbyt" wrote:

Actually a lot of them never had "credit". The moronic loan
companies loaned money to people I would not rent to.

And we wonder how the "crisis" came about?

The people with the money demanded more loans to buy. The loan
companies, far from being "moronic," supplied the loans.

More like the guidelines for loaning money for homes were relaxed due to the
incessant whining from groups such as Acorn and idiots such as Ted Kennedy.
You see, to those individuals, it just wasn't "fair" that people who were
too risky to loan money to didn't own their own homes.

That is what started this whole ball rolling.

Bull****. Nobody forced the lenders to make risky loans. They did it
to make a quick buck and to toss the loan like a hot potato.


Perhaps you need to research the various "community reinvestment act"
type laws that forced lenders to lower standards.


Perhaps you need to get your news from sources other than right wing radio
shows.


Funny, the only radio I listen to is NPR. Odd that you should call NPR
right wing.
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default Not a Peep From the Landlord

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

O

I'd be interested in hearing a list of actions taken against lenders
who were "too strict" in their lending policies. All zero of those
actions.

Stan Liebowitz wrote that community activists intervention at
yearly bank reviews resulted in their obtaining large amounts of money
from banks, since poor reviews could lead to frustrated merger plans and
even legal challenges by the Justice Department. Michelle Minton noted
that Chase Manhattan and J.P. Morgan donated hundreds of thousands of
dollars to ACORN at about the same time they were to apply for
permission to merge and needed to comply with CRA regulations.
In the 1990s Bill Clinton had Attorney General Janet Reno threaten banks
under red lining rules into giving loans of questionable value.


Just because the restrictions were relaxed doesn't mean that lenders
were forced to hand out money without checking qualifications. It should
be obvious that it was in their best interest not to make bad loans.
However it was possible to write bad loans, take a quick profit, and
then boot the loans to another victim by packaging them in a bundle
of other loans.


No, but it would mean that those qualifications being checked on
might be altered and lessened. Sorta what "relaxed" means. Also the CRA
set up (some say actual, other say de facto) quotas because you had to
get enough into an area to prove you weren't redlining. Thus there was
probably a certain amount of underwriting to the quota.

I think CRA will eventually have a part to play in this fiasco. The
bigger part will be when the Congress and Fed mandated Fannie and
Freddie to start securitizing mortgages so the other banks could sell
them and get some mortgages off their books and make more. The advent of
all the rocket scientists and their methods to "eliminate risk" and
thus mean that this time is different and not part of the paradigm (this
is the one consistent part of every bubble from Tulips forward) The
biggest "uncredited" part will be changes in the tax laws under OBRA
2003.

--
"I found what I thought was a REALLY good book,
called _Girl to Grab_. Imagine my surprise when I found
out it was volume 6 of the *Encyclopedia Britanica*!"
-Martin Mull
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Landlord&Tenant George UK diy 5 November 13th 07 06:36 PM
Advice for New Landlord? Deano Home Repair 37 January 4th 07 04:21 PM
I'm suprised the landlord sold any ale. :-) ben UK diy 13 August 7th 05 08:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"