----- Original Message ----- From: "Becca Vargo Daggett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:56 AM Subject: Re: [Mpls] Predatory Lending - Taking a stand to end the practiceinMpls
> Aaron, Oakland's ordinance was taken down because the California > Supreme Court invalidated it, and all other local anti-predatory > lending ordinances in the state. > See http://www.newrules.org/preempt/#anchor8 > > Michael Thompson, we have lots of law that protect individuals from > themselves (e.g. drug possession and use, seat belts). We choose to > enact such laws when it is helpful to the community for individuals to > make one choice over another (to do drugs or not, to use a seat belt or > not). We also have laws to minimize the risk that opportunists will > take advantage of people whose situations make them vulnerable (minors, > the elderly). Do you object to all these laws, or just the ones that > interfere with corporations making money? I object to most laws that infringe on my ability to make decisions about myself, even if that decision is not in my best interest. The seat belt law is a great example. Why is that the government's business at all? The answer lies in the inherent nature of law-making in Minnesota: if it's a good idea, it should be a law. I use a seatbelt because it's a good idea, not because it's a law. Besides, the seat belt law in Minnesota is a fine example of legal-creep. First it was a suggestion, then a non-primary offense (you couldn't be stopped for it), now it's a primary offense that allows a cop to stop you. We all know that the legislature allowed this to happen NOT for the "safety" of car occupants....... but because it gave cops another way to stop cars and to (maybe) see what's inside. End of tangent. > Michael also asks if there is evidence of Wells Fargo engaging in > predatory lending. This is from a shareholder resolution put forth by > Responsible Wealth in April 2005: > > � In 2003, California regulators filed suit against Wells Fargo > Financial California seeking approximately $38 million in penalties for > failing to meet state disclosure standards when mailing draft loans > (also known as "live checks") to prospective borrowers. After Wells > Fargo represented that it had corrected the problem, regulators alleged > that they found evidence of continued violation and brought "willful > disregard" charges in the matter, which is still pending. > > � In April 2004, the Maryland Commission on Human Relations subpoenaed > Wells Fargo documents in an investigation of predatory lending and fair > lending complaints. In June the Louisiana Attorney General issued a > civil investigative demand following numerous consumer complaints about > Wells Fargo's lending practices > > � In June 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed against Wells Fargo in > Illinois alleging that the company charged fees on loans of up to 11%, > well above the 3% state limit on fees for high rate loans. The same > month a representative action was filed in California alleging broad > unfair and deceptive lending practices. > > � In September 2004, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, > found Wells Fargo in violation of federal law prohibiting mark-ups on > fees for such things as credit reports, title work and flood plain > certifications. > > Wells Fargo lags other major industry players in developing policies > protecting borrowers and shareholders from predatory lending abuses. > For example, unlike Citigroup and others, Wells Fargo has no clear and > public commitment that customers will be charged similar rates no > matter which part of the company they do business with. Wells Fargo has > not established policies requiring that mortgage refinancings provide > net benefits to borrowers, as is the current industry best practice. > [end quote] Thanks for the info. The previous poster didn't come up with it. Clearly the answer lies in not doing business with Wells Fargo, and spreading the word. Is passing yet another law going to do anything tangible? All it will do is make less loan money available. Is that going to help the people that supposedly need the help? Education is the answer here, not more laws. > A greater problem than predatory lending by national banks themselves > is "charter leasing" by national banks to store front payday lenders. Why is that a "greater problem"? > Nathan Hunstad taps into the important idea here about lending and > community good. These laws might not be necessary except that national > banks are far removed from the consequences of their policies. > Individual responsibility is good, yes, but businesses have a > responsibility to the community. National banks have no community. > We've written about this at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance > (proud members of the "cult of localism"), So, in other words, "community good" can be legislated? Interesting.......... Mike Thompson Windom LRT: 2 MPPA: 0 REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
