On 5/14/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said
> [T]o learn more about current proposals for government
> policies to reduce housing foreclosures . . . two excellent
> websites are:
>
> Center of Economic and Policy Research (Dean Baker):
> http://www.cepr.net
>
> Center for Responsible Lending:
> http://www.responsiblelending.org
>
> * * * Baker's [preferred] proposal is . . . an
> "own-to-rent" plan, which would allow homeowners
> to stay in their homes as tenants (for up to 10 years),
> and would pay the prevailing rent in the area. More
> details on the CEPR website . . . .
. . . which claims that
"without any big bailouts or new bureaucracies[,]
Congress can simply [sic] change the rules on
foreclosure (just as it changed the rules on
bankruptcy two years ago), so that homeowners
facing foreclosure will have the option to rent
their home indefinitely at the fair market rent
. . . . determined by an independent appraiser,
appointed by [a court administer[ing this program]
in the same way that foreclosures are already
overseen by judges . . . . simply [sic] chang[ing] the
rules under which foreclosures can be put into effect]
. . . ."
The Baker/CEPR proposal would also provide:
"Rents will be adjusted in later years by the Labor
Department's consumer price index for rents in
the area [subject to reasonable procedures for a
challenge by] the owner or renter . . . . After the
foreclosure, the mortgage holder is free to resell
the house, but the buyer is still bound by the
commitment to accept the former homeowner as a
tenant indefinitely."
Not to point too fine a point on the matter, but -- besides and apart from
the use of "simply" in the Real Politick sense (though what might occur on
a state by state basis, but over a very long period of time, may be a
different matter, how realistic/probable is it that Congress would pass
such a law?) -- on what grounds would both each of above different elements
of such a (federal) law avoid being ruled unconstitutional?
> The CRL supports a bill . . . introduced in both the
> House and Senate which [makes most sense to me
> and which] would allow bankruptcy judges to modify
> the terms of mortgage contracts to make them more
> affordable . . . . [re. which see] the CRL website.
As desirable, as far as it goes, including as fair as this proposal may be
(such a provision has long been in effect for commercial debtors in Ch.XI
bankruptcies), wouldn't this proposal affect only a comparatively very tiny
number of even the most "moral hazard" free homeowners?
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
