Minneapolis lefties (ACORN, in this case) want to freeze foreclosures in the city:
An advocacy group has started a campaign calling on the Minneapolis City Council to support a three-month voluntary freeze on foreclosures in the city to give some borrowers more breathing room.
The proposal by the local chapter of Minnesota ACORN, a community advocacy group, would target loans made by the 25 largest subprime lenders to owner-occupants. Subprime lenders typically offer less favorable terms to borrowers whose credit record disqualifies them for conventional loans.
ACORN turned to the City Council after getting turned down by the Hennepin County Board. ACORN also will talk to St. Paul officials.
Will they ever learn – “buyer protection” legislation makes it impossible to be a buyer? I’m no economist (paging King Banaian!), but if you gut the lenders’ recourses for dealing with bad loans, all you do is prevent all lending?
Remember five years ago, when the last of the Ventura-era legislatures (controlled by the DFL) passed “buyer protection” legislation against insurance companies, and made it nearly impossible to buy homeowners’ insurance?
There seems to be just a whiff of sanity in Minneapolis, at least:
Just three of the 13 council members — Gary Schiff, Don Samuels and Cam Gordon –have spoken in support of the proposal. Council President Barb Johnson said she isn’t sure how the proposal will fare in the full council.
It’s Minneapolis. I call it a tossup.
You can also call this system a “don’t sell homes in poorer areas of Minneapolis ‘cuz the risk is too high”.
Rule of thumb. Whenever a liberal passes a bill to help someone, it tends to raise prices for everyone.
Mitch, how about a thread on Sen Barbie (Klobo) trying to screw up the sweet deal I get with Sprint. Every two years I get a free phone from them (if I want, usually keep it longer). I pay $33 a month for all the service I would ever use. She wants me to pay more so other people can switch phone companies more often.
I wish it were a landlord protection act. It’s just the opposite.
The quote says they’re aiming at loans made to “owner-occupants.” That means the owner of the house who also lives in it rather than renting it out. This proposal is targeted at helping people who bought too much house, stay in the house.
The proposals for landlords are just the opposite: zero month redemption period. If you bought a house and can’t afford to keep renting it because, say, the City raised property taxes 15% at the same time your adjustable rate mortgage jumped 2%, then you lose the house and the renters (who aren’t in a position to buy or they wouldn’t be renting) look elsewhere.
Both remedies are bad medicine.
.
Talked about that on the show; it’s worth an article. Actually, yet another piece on unintended consequences might be in order.
Cam Gordon…one of the most ignorant boobs ever elected to public office.
ACORN…also known as the group of socialists who have had members found GUILTY of election fraud (voter registration cards).
So what will happen is Minneapolis will blow millions of taxpayer dollars on this…then scream about how they have to cut street cops because they don’t get more than a 10% increase in LGA every year. Perfect.
You can also call this system a “don’t sell homes in poorer areas of Minneapolis ‘cuz the risk is too high”.
Didn’t they use to call that “redlining”?