I urge you to read Dean's writing about Right to Rent (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/r2r/) and the housing bubble (http://www.cepr.net/index.php?option=com_issues&task=view_issue&issue=11&Itemid=22) and then decide for yourself. As most readers of pen-l know, Dean has never argued against letting house prices drop back to where they belong -- in fact, quite the opposite. Please read the information from the source, rather than only other folks' analyses and summaries, before dismissing ideas out of hand and making snap criticisms.
> > Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:21:39 -0400 > From: Joseph Catron <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] LETTER IS SENT TO NY TIMES RE "RIGHT TO RENT" > To: Progressive Economics <[email protected]> > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Nicole Woo <[email protected]> wrote: > > To clarify, a bill signed by the President last spring (S. 896) already >> > provides key renter protections, including: >> > >> > * 90-day pre-eviction notice to tenants whose homes have gone into >> > foreclosure. >> > * The rights of tenants to remain in their homes for the terms of >> > their leases. (However, if the new owner will live in the home, leases >> > can be terminated subject to the 90 day notice.) >> > * Tenants with vouchers able to remain with both their lease and >> > rental assistance payments intact, subject to the rights of a purchaser >> > who wants to occupy the home after 90 days notice. >> > > All of which adds up to considerably less than the five years of protection granted to homeowners under the Grijalva/Kaptur bill. Given that the measure your organization advocates both A. Excludes renters; and B. Has as one of its goals to, in Michael's words, avoid "depress[ing] housing prices further" (which is to say, to screw renters, the lowest-income participants in the housing market); I'm hard-pressed to see it as a good thing. On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Michael Meeropol <[email protected]>wrote: In response to Joe, I don't see how this law changes anything with respect >> > to renters. The law only applies to owner-occupied primary residences. To >> > the extent that there is a second family/individual renting from the current >> > owner (or a third family/individual for that matter) that contract would >> > remain in force if the owner switches to a 5 year rental as per the law. >> > >> > Landlords who were buying houses on spec and renting out the place who now >> > default will leave renters in the house with the bank now having to make >> > decisions. That is no different under this proposed law as it is now ... >> > > It may be me, but I'm not entirely sure what most of your message is supposed to mean. Are you informing me that the Grijalva/Kaptur bill doesn't affect the rights of renters, other than inflating their rents? Well, yes, that was my gripe to begin with. However, this line jumped out at me: >> > Why bankers who foreclose would kick out renters if they're actually paying >> > the rent is beyond me. >> > > That is, in fact, exactly what banks do. If there are any exceptions to the rule (and at this late stage in the game, there may very well be), I have yet to hear of them. -- Nicole Woo Director of Domestic Policy Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) 1611 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20009 202.293.5380 x108 woo @ cepr.net www.cepr.net _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
