- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 10,090
- Reaction score
- 5,056
- Location
- wny
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
"For communities across the land -- North Las Vegas, San Bernardino County, Calif., Chicago -- where too many are stuck with house payments beyond what they can afford, this was the nuclear option. While those cities backed away, Richmond hit the
button.
The mechanism? Eminent domain, the power of the government to seize private property for public use, which has not typically been used to help poor neighborhoods. After five years of the federal government gently nudging banks to forgive homeowners debt they took on in better days, cities have found a legal weapon the financial industry truly fears.
The stability of those housing markets, and the banks that profit from it, could depend on the fallout.
The strategy's complexity has left stakeholders to lean on dogfight rhetoric: From the community activists, "Save homes, stop foreclosures." And the Realtors, "Stop investor greed." And the lawyers for the investors, "Prevent this unconstitutional
investment scheme." "
Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
Is this fair?
Is this different than eminent domain used against homewoners?
If bankers had not been bailed out, would home prices be much lower?
Are we trying to protect bankers again?
Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
"For communities across the land -- North Las Vegas, San Bernardino County, Calif., Chicago -- where too many are stuck with house payments beyond what they can afford, this was the nuclear option. While those cities backed away, Richmond hit the
button.
The mechanism? Eminent domain, the power of the government to seize private property for public use, which has not typically been used to help poor neighborhoods. After five years of the federal government gently nudging banks to forgive homeowners debt they took on in better days, cities have found a legal weapon the financial industry truly fears.
The stability of those housing markets, and the banks that profit from it, could depend on the fallout.
The strategy's complexity has left stakeholders to lean on dogfight rhetoric: From the community activists, "Save homes, stop foreclosures." And the Realtors, "Stop investor greed." And the lawyers for the investors, "Prevent this unconstitutional
investment scheme." "
Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
Is this fair?
Is this different than eminent domain used against homewoners?
If bankers had not been bailed out, would home prices be much lower?
Are we trying to protect bankers again?
Last edited: