Comments on: Bulldozing homes

By: John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:42:41 +0000

Was GW Bush doing that warning before or after complaining about the unfairness of down payments keeping people from buying houses? Before and after?

By: Adam Greenwood

Adam Greenwood — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 02:23:45 +0000

Doubtless the bank sees some value in not letting people stop paying their mortgage and still live in the home.

Also the bank may not have realized that the home was worthless until the bank took it over.

Finally, just because the home has been destroyed doesn’t mean the value of the land is gone. The land may even be worth more.

By: zen

zen — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 01:14:22 +0000

While there is a lot of truth to what you say, Bookslinger, what I find particularly abhorent, is that these were foreclosed homes. The bank forced people out of their homes, and then decided it wasn’t worth anything TO THEM. So they tear it down.

By: Bookslinger

Bookslinger — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:06:22 +0000

This is the direct consequence of congress mandating that banks give mortgages to people who otherwise didn’t qualify for mortgage loans. Thank Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, and Teddy Kennedy.

GW Bush warned that most of those sub-prime mortgages would fail, and he was right. That was was pushed the boulder off the cliff.

By: zen

zen — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:02:33 +0000

If we look at simply the amount of value owned, or even just existing, it is appearent we are making ourselves poorer, not richer. And we are doing it because of greed. It appears we are slowly digging our own grave.

By: Bookslinger

Bookslinger — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:11:53 +0000

Many are being sold for the value of the tax liens.

It’s all an adjustment. The market self-corrects when left alone.

By: Adam G.

Adam G. — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:10:52 +0000

Shades of farmers burning oranges in the Great D.

Though if the homes cost more in property tax and maintenance/repairs than their actual sell value, that’s different.

By: Vader

Vader — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:28:10 +0000

If the homes are in fact in rotten shape, that does change the picture.

By: agellius

agellius — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:18:39 +0000

I think it’s more like, it costs the bank more to keep them than to donate them in exchange for a write-off, or in some cases pay to have them demolished.

In the case of the cash-for-clunkers thing, I thought that was disgusting since it was basically a mass destruction of wealth, and by reducing the supply of used cars could only make them more expensive for poor people.

This home thing is different, because we’re talking about homes that are simply not economically viable in that it would cost more to make them habitable than they’re worth.