Gov't considers turning foreclosures into rentals
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration may turn thousands of government-owned foreclosures into rental properties to help boost falling home prices.Gee, what could possibly go wrong? I mean, we're talking about combining two things that are already shining beacons of excellence: public housing and government oversight. There's no way that this could be abused to reward certain blocks or punish others. I mean, we're talking about the Federal Government here, the same entity that lost money running a whorehouse... Yeah, these are the same people I want renting out foreclosed properties...
The Federal Housing Finance Agency said Wednesday it is seeking input from investors on how to rent homes owned by government-controlled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.
I'm trying to think in what universe this sounded like a good idea. I mean, we have pretty much the past 100 years worth of evidence that points to the US Federal Government not being able to manage much more than getting involved in wars and screwing up the economy. Every attempt the government has made towards "fixing" a problem has only made the problem several orders of magnitude worse. Social Security. Welfare. Universal Health care. The list is nearly endless.
And now they want to add "landlord" to the list of things the FedGov has ruined? Good luck to them and the Red Sox...
That is all.
15 comments:
Forget the possibilities of abuses. Think about the job the federal government has done as a landlord for subsidized housing before this. This proposal will diminish the value of the homes and the neighborhoods around them
Spitballing here. What about a new homestead act?
Houses are rent free for 5 years to welfare/HUD recipients. Within those 5 years you must finish a GED (if you dont already have one), successfully complete vocational or college level program, and then be employed. Welfare and HUD benefits are protected until you are gainfully employed to the point where you don't need them.
If you fail to complete the program in 5 years your welfare and HUD benefits will be reduced 20% / year and you gotta move out.
The idea here is to do something useful with that property and do something that is a hand up and not a hand out.
Plan B is to just have a fire sale and auction the properties off. If it doesn't sell, then it gets razed and the lot gets donated to the city.
Just look up how well Section 8 Housing has done, and that's WITH a Slum Lord getting his Free Gooberment Ice Cream in the Mix. Besides, aren't they supposed to put those Houses up for Sale at Auction? Or do I smell another round of "Stimulating Agency Creating, Jobs for Cronies" coming?
What Tim said! This will crash the value of the surrounding homes (and if they spawn crime like Section 8 does, any town with more than a few "Rentals" will crash as a whole) This very well could turn somebody who's ahead of their mortgage upside down, and certainly make it difficult for people who are relocating (possibly to find work, possibly to take an early retirement package) to sell their homes so they can recoup what's left of their investment.
The .gov could fuck-up a steel ball!
Tim beat me to it. The government has never been a land lord, it's only been a slum lord.
I see a rash of tragic but mysterious house fires in vacant foreclosures in upscale neighborhoods. Probably will be caused by the same types creating all the havoc in England. Such as shame....
How dare you wish the FedGov luck in the same sentence as the Sox?! Are you TRYING to jinx them???
I have to ask... what's the reference to the government running a whorehouse? Other than Congress, that is!
"How dare you wish the FedGov luck in the same sentence as the Sox?! Are you TRYING to jinx them???"
Who, the government or the Sox? ;>
Another in a very long line of stupid government ideas. I have a small hope that someday they might finally get it, that the best thing they can do is just get out of the way of free markets.
Where do go to find out if one of these empty houses is in our neighborhood?
If this runs as well as their filtering of Title 8 housing; arson is better than the people they select to live there.
Burned out hulks on empty lots will have less impact on my property values.
geeknotes said...
"I have to ask... what's the reference to the government running a whorehouse? Other than Congress, that is!"
True story: The IRS seized a brothel in Nevada, and tried to keep it open while arranging to auction it off. It went broke and shut down.
Thanks John... oh good grief!
Not to mention destroying the rental market...
As Tim and Les have already stated, there's just the ripe smell of Section 8 entitlements all over this. Houses which may appraise out fairly consistently within the neighborhood comparable sales which get this treatment will undoubtedly decline in value (and likely habitability) in short order. I certainly don't condone or suggest arson, but there will doubtless be some therapeutic burns.
Will the tenants/occupants be responsible for repairs/maintenance/upkeep, or will the .gov or the (euphemistic) titleholder?
I owned some rental property years ago. It's amazing how many toilets and hot water heaters a house can go through in a year. I've seen houses where not only the air conditioning compressors were stolen for scrap but the copper plumbing and wiring were stripped out through the drywall.
It's another Cash for Clunkers deal at a couple of orders of magnitude, since houses are generally worth more (unless they're in, say, Detroit) than used cars and the .gov will still put a bullet through the engine block and send it to the shredder.
I can see it happening before the 2012 elections as pre-payment for a voting block.
Post a Comment