He's Taking Law Into His Own Hands To Help Broke Homeowners

Source: Wall Street Journal

PHILADELPHIA -- Sheriff John Green has spent 37 years in law enforcement. But these days he's best known around town for the law he won't enforce.

With the economy soft and thousands of Philadelphians delinquent on their mortgages, Sheriff Green this spring refused to hold a court-ordered foreclosure auction. His move raised eyebrows on the bench and dropped jaws among lenders and their attorneys, who accuse him of shirking his duty to enforce legal contracts.


It also prompted a sweeping, court-endorsed deal, scheduled to go into effect next week, that aims to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. Even as Congress moves forward with a federal plan that could insure up to $300 billion in refinanced mortgages, Mr. Green's unilateral approach has pushed Philadelphia to the leading edge of local responses to the national crisis.

"More of our neighbors, our families and our friends are falling behind on their mortgages and losing their homes" to foreclosure, the 60-year-old Mr. Green writes in a "Declaration of Neighborhood Stability" on his Web site, www.phillysheriff.com. "My staff and I watch the suffering every day and witness the heart-wrenching scenes as families lose their primary means of wealth-building and face eviction."

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121271135166050537.html

---

People like John Green restore my faith in humanity.

because we've seen so much of it the past 8 years, but somehow this feels right.

Sheriff John Green should be replaced. His heart can be with the unfortunates but his head should be with what he was hired to enforce. Law enforcement selecting what laws to enforce is more dangerous than the loss of a few homes.

were there to uphold and prevent breaches of criminal law. Is that not so ?

move into the criminal offense category?

Eventually the situation becomes criminal trespassing.

Hot Damn, way to go people. It takes a few brave people like this guy.

I'd say the same for stop-lossers, who just need to start refusing to go back.

which is where forcelosed property, property with back taxes, etc. gets auctioned off

I mentioned his REAL job is keeping his community stable and NOT just enforcing contracts and thanked him for being a brave and principled sherrif!

I'll do that as well!

What is this guy some sort of socialist?

Sounds more like a capitalist to me. Don't they keep workers happy to better exploit them. How can they work if they have no home. Maybe I am not sure what a socialist is.

The type of capitalist condition to which the US seems to have evolved amounts to prioritizing profits over people in every conceivable circumstance.

He took the moral action in spite of a risk that he may lose his job.
In countries all over the world people take real personal risks to stand up to oppressive and unjust laws and regimes. Green did just that.

Oh, it must be because it's the big bad evil corporations (and their employees) being harmed, while the deadbeats get to temporarily keep their stolen property. Some fine morality you've got there. :eyes:

or do you just have an issue with people questioning those who are in power with compassion and logic?

You got it JAVA.. just question any of the PTB (powers-that-be) or show some compassion and its flame city. I can't believe the number of trolls on this board! Where were all these do-good stanch law enforcement types a few weeks ago when Bernake illegally used tax payer money to bail out Wall Street? Not a peep. Not a word. Man, I can't believe the Conservative Wingnut Mindset. Shoot and rape their own mother for a lousy nickle....

when lenders don't want to make loans in places where there is questionable enforcement of contract law...

So why do we keep bailing out the "big bad evil corporations" that can't tell the left side of the ledger from the right? And why do those corporations then immediately put the screws to the very taxpayers that pulled their bacon out of the fire? Maybe we should start confiscating CEOs' multiple homes when they run a corporation into the ground rather than having the US public pick up the tab again?

May your ride on this political bandwagon be as informative and as much fun as mine has been.

:toast:

try and find a little compassion in that cancerous growth you use as a heart. probably never had a hard day in your miserable fucking life.

The deadbeats sold those loans to me and you (through the fed approved banking boondoggle) so we could take the hit when they went bad. The deadbeats are laughing at you and me and the people losing their homes.

One of those deadbeats is an 79-year-old hispanic woman who doesn't speak English, and who relied on her not-so-bright son to handle her affairs. She worked on the factory line for almost 40 years before retiring, owned her home outright, and refinanced to put a new roof on the house. Now she's in danger of losing it. Deadbeat? Open your eyes!

If you love your community, you do not want to see it destroyed. Especially by enforcing contracts that were more of a con game than a good faith business deal.

bankers who sold crappy loans? Or do we try and uphold some small scrap of morality and ethics?

Someone has to stand up to the loud mouthed blow hards who hide behind a desk and buy the muscle to the dirty work of taking from the less fortunate.

I applaud the sheriff.

city council members, and lenders are working on helping the borrowers figure out a way to stay in their homes, along with the borrowers getting free legal advise in their meetings. I would work on the premise, as other judges have done, which is to prove that the 'lender' actually holds title to the property. Because of the slice & dice CDO's, the 'lenders' can't prove they are the legal holders in court.

re the CDOs...if the mortgage is wrapped up in some CDO though, there is some financial institution that is servicing it and they will be responsible for getting all interest and principal payments. They will be the ones that will go after them...no matter which tranche they happen to be in.

...riding at the front of the bus used to be against the law, too. Just because something is a law doesn't mean it's right.

Kudos to this Sheriff for caring more about justice than a salary and a pension!

America is desperate for heroes right now. Here's one standing up.

Indeed.


Now everyone dust off your Shakespeare and read "Measure for Measure"....a play about unjust laws, and more importantly the dangers of enforcing all laws with equal force and without looking at the circumstances. Some laws under some circumstances if enforced fully cause more harm than good.


Doncha just love "3 strikes you're out", "He lied about sex!" Repugs, who also think it's OK to out CIA agents and ignore subpoenas? Hypocrites!

I don't think that civil disobedience is reserved to the realm of civilian population only....

I have no sympathy for people who made bad real estate business decisions.

are doing it you seek advice. You expect it from progessional sellers (those who make money and are operating through a licensed establishment). Depending on who you ask, you might get an answer like the one many of these people got - everyone is doing it - the banks are approving it - the risk is xxxx. You are totally dependent on advice. Mainly, you have someone in the business telling you it's ok - not some jerk on a corner with a long coat that opens up to show you the gold watches he wants you to buy. These mortgages were not bought on the street corner - they were entered into on advice of supposedly knowledgeable companies.

No one bails me out of my bad business decisions in any of my several failed businesses in the past, whether or not the failure was due to bad advice, unexpected market conditions, or whatever. Why should the government do that for real estate investors and not me?

what a cold heart, or perhaps you're just not thinking any further than how the world works in your own experience. I know of one old woman who's about to lose her home because her own son "took her to the bank" and she has dementia and doesn't even know why she's about to lose her home. Screw her, eh?

If you had a heart you would be saying I should be bailed out too, but no, you are quite happy to throw me in the gutter, take my tax money and hand it to real estate lenders via the saps they duped in shady business deals.

Show some compassion for renters. Show some compassion for business owners in other fields of business than real estate.

I suspect poor potty training led you to this:silly:

because of everyone else's bad real estate loans. I don't get what you are talking about. It is very serious out there. Close to bread lines. Bet you have a cush job or very rich. What are you doing here?

"There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."




I understand your frustration considering our current president, but there are some instances where breaking a law means standing against injustice.

Such a tragedy that Dr. King was killed.

:sarcasm:

The law can be used as a means to keep the people under the thumb of the ruling class. Is that moral? Should such laws be obeyed?

Bake

If more people did this reform would happen quickly.

It's just postponing the inevitable.

At least they are working on a new concept in dealing with this rather then just throwing the people out.

able to work something out. Even if the house is lost, giving a family a little more time can ensure they land somewhere. Most people end up on the street because of the first, last, and month security they need to rent a place. If people can't pay their mortgage, than they probably can't scrape that together. And once you're on the street all kinds of shit happens.

Three areas where the right thing to do trumps all:

Keeping people clothed
Keeping people fed
Keeping people with adequate shelter

If it was for other reasons I would agree with the other bourgeois assholes who have already posted about "the rule of law".

no home...no ability to earn. Too busy trying not to die.

Authoritarian assholes are everywhere, by the way. These are 30% of the population who worship power and will do anything it says while designating it's utterances as mana from heaven. We have a fucked up authority in this country that is eating people's livelihood alive for the sake of the mighty dollar, but as long as they are running things, these authoritarians will worship them. This underscores the importance of who runs things.

that the ONLY way to accomplish those goals is to violate the rule of law. It isn't, and a person with an ounce of creativity and compassion would have no trouble reconciling the two.

Oddly enough, letting people stay in their homes reduces crime and raises equite.

In Lancaster, California the sheriffs are in trouble. They are busy breaking up parties in abandoned (formerly foreclosed) homes. The crime rate is up, duis are up, and there are homeless families with no place to go having lost their homes. Despair is a good reason not to foreclose because it leads to so much social dysfunction and instability, especially since lawmakers are now working on bailouts for those in foreclosure. An ounce of compassion is worth miles of law enforcement.

A big SHOUT OUT TO Sheriff Green!

They are few and far between here in San Diego. Sales of REOs, foreclosure auctions, etc. are picking up and people are buying property for pretty good discounts.

aren't maintaining them.

I think it's time for you to do some serious and intensive soul-searching. I really do. You have something missing inside you.

To the sheriff: You, sir, are the very definition of the word mensch.

:applause:

Why are people celebrating that a law enforcement officer decided on his own volition which laws he's going to enforce and which ones he isn't? You can pontificate all you want about these laws being unjust (though how in the world you even get there is a mystery), but you're being completely disingenuous to claim that it's always crystal clear and unambiguous which laws are moral and which are not, and that any ordinary Joe is justified is using their own judgement about it whenever they feel like it. How would you like it if judges started doing that too? Would you be OK with some judges refusing to convict someone who was clearly guilty under a statute, just because they personally thought the law was a bad one, while the judge in the next courtroom would convict them? Is that your idea of a fair, just and moral legal system? Was taking those kids away from the FCJCLDS in Texas moral or not? Well gee...some people thought it was entirely proper, but then a court said it was not legal after all. So please don't be so self-righteous about your own ability to distinguish good laws from bad ones...it ain't that easy. And we have ways to change laws you don't like that still preserve the rule of law.

What about all the people who won't be able to afford a loan at all now because all of the deadbeats have tightened lending restrictions and raised interest rates for marginal borrowers? What about all the people in the mortgage industry who lost their jobs because of people who walked away from their loans? What about the construction workers whose livelihood is drying up for the same reason? Do you have any sympathy for them or do you just see this teeny little slice of the pie and image that's all there is? Grow up and open your eyes to the real world.

And do you really claim that the only way for these people to be helped is for someone to break the law? Does nothing else come to your compassionate mind?

how does that affect the homebuilders? the mortgage industry? like countrywide; people who enabled the ridiculous rise in the cost of homes so they could roll in a hummer, a bimmer, a caddy and vacation four times a year in hawaii?! lending restrictions should be tightened. this is how this mess started in the first place.

ever lived on the streets, because that's where those families go. it's a little hard contributing to society when your main concern is to put a roof over your fucking head.

"What about all the people who won't be able to afford a loan at all now because all of the deadbeats..."

Ah, yes. The reason Joe six-pack can't get ahead is because of the Welfare Queens and the bleeding-heart liberals who raise Joe's taxes so they can pay her to sit on her ass and collect the checks. It is always those in trouble, those who have come upon hard times, those who have gotten sick, or lost a job, or whatever, who mess things up for us "hard-working, white Americans" (we know who said that, don't we?). Never, of course, oh never, the endless greed of the wealthy and the speculators' endless schemes to make a quick profit for themselves by flipping one piece of paper into another and selling it to some other sucker who ends up being left holding the bag. Stuff like that never caused us any of our troubles, not the Crash of '29, or the S&L crash, or the dot-com implosion, or the Asian financial collapse, or mortgage crisis. No, it is always the deadbeats, wanting something for nothing, and who won't just shut the fuck up and go away when life kicks them in the teeth. Should these people simply be thankful that we don't have debtors' prisons? Like Oliver Twist, should they be happy for their gruel and not ask for MORE?

"What about all the people in the mortgage industry who lost their jobs because of people who walked away from their loans?"

What about the mortgage bankers who, like we saw with Enron, took care of themselves quite well right before the whole thing imploded and all the employees got caught holding nothing? Are we supposed to think that if only the criminals at the top had been allowed to keep ripping everyone else off that those employees would have been taken care of? Since we have hard evidence of executives encouraging employees to flex underwriting criteria past the breaking point, and actually lie and commit fraud, are we supposed to reward those executives in the name of protecting their employees (who were, of course, the first thrown to the sharks by said executives when the ship started taking on water)?

And, please, please, tell me more about the mythical people who "walked away from their loans"--if they've "walked away," do you think this sheriff would be concerned about the impact that foreclosure would have on the community? Of course not, because they would have already WALKED AWAY! These are people who are desperate to stay in their homes and work something out. They aren't asking to live rent-free. They just want a "hand-up, not a hand out," as it were, to deal with the reality of interest rates rigged against them (so-called "adjustable" rate mortgages that never adjust down, only up), combined with skyrocketing costs of living and flat or plummeting wages (all of which enrich the bankers and their buddies, at the expense of the rest of us). These are the people who want to STAY and BUILD UP their communities, despite everything, unlike the absentee holders of these "securitized" loans who are in it for one thing and one thing only--to make a buck.

"What about the construction workers whose livelihood is drying up for the same reason?"

They are the victims of a greedy and misguided homebuilding "industry" that is happy to build bigger and bigger houses farther and farther out in auto-dependent exurbia, which require bigger and bigger loans, but who refuse more personalized development within existing neighborhoods, since it it doesn't have the "economies of scale" that turning farmland into subdivisions has. When you look at the builders who restore and renovate homes in existing neighborhoods, or who build infill development that is proportional to the infrastructure already in place, you don't find the multi-state, multi-national mega-builders--you find small, independent community-based businesses. They ARE going to have a hard time if homeowners are kicked out, but will thrive if the financial system is re-balanced to benefit communities and homeowners instead of corporations and shareholders. Plus, the big builders have *monstrous* lobbying operations which thwart meaningful community zoning and land-use laws which could reduce housing and commuting costs, increase energy and agricultural independence and reduce our contribution to climate change (plus make us healthy by getting us out of our cars, etc., etc.). If construction workers have to start working for mom-and-pop shops instead of mega-builders, my guess is that they will be better off.

"And do you really claim that the only way for these people to be helped is for someone to break the law?"

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! The people who CREATED this situation are the same bankers and traders that begged, pleaded and bribed the Feds to relentlessly deregulate the mortgage, banking and securities businesses--that's made this situation possible! EVERYTHING that they've done would have been "breaking the law" 30 years ago. Back then, individual savings rates were twice or more what they are now, union membership was over 5 times what it is now, mortgage foreclosures were a tenth of what they are now, and middle-class families could afford a middle-class lifestyle on a median income--with only ONE adult in the family earning a paycheck.

My dad had a BA (thanks to the GI bill) and supported us by writing manuals and instruction books. After he died, my mom was a kindergarten teacher. I was able to go to an expensive, private college, with very little financial aid, and came out at the end with student loans that amounted to about one-fifth of one year's tuition.

NONE of that could happen today. Instead we have families with two professional income-earners struggling to deal with outsourcing, downsizing, inflation and stagnant earnings AND still hold on to their house. All while the corporate cronies of Bush et. al. get to WRITE the laws to make whatever they want to do legal.

And you have the temerity to chastise this sheriff, a true hero for working people, for helping people "break the law"??

Have you no decency, man?

Please return to Freeperville where the greed-stricken, brainwashed and heartless go to feel like they belong to something, even while they advocate a world view in which it is OK to stab your neighbor in the back if there's money to be made. At least that's one case where people get the community they deserve.

The Republican Party. Home to selfish, greedy, bitter people who support policies that screw themselves in the hopes that one day they'll be the screwer, not the screwed.

I'm talking about people who accepted HUGE amounts of money with a promise to pay it back...does it not bother you in the slightest that when some of them saw their situation going south, they just bailed on their loans? It's not just free money...everything effects everything else. Oh, and those "mythical" people? Here's just one example: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-walkingaway2808apr28,0,1946686.story It's happened all over the country.

As far as chastising the sheriff for helping people break the law, I have this funny thing about keeping your word being a very important moral principal. He swore to uphold the law when he took his office and now he feels entirely justified in breaking his word when it's no longer easy and convenient to keep it. He could have done many, many other things to help these people without violating the integrity of his office, but he chose none of those options. Sue me for being indecent.

And I'll tell you a little story. When my stimulus check came, that same day I sent half to the Chicago Food Depository and half to an agency that helps with heating bills for low income families. Did you spend your check on yourself or did you consider that someone less fortunate that you might need it more? Let us all in on it...then come and talk to me about "greed stricken, brainwashed and heartless"

that was beautiful!

:thumbsup:

Wow. That was amazing. :thumbsup:

People have no idea what happens to small communities when these homes are all sitting empty. It is much more important to fight for them to stay in their home and work out a way for them to be able to stay.

When we bought our home a little over 5 years ago, we were put under so much pressure to *not* go with a fixed rate mortgage. Luckily, I had experience in owning a home (even if that was in Australia) and our families were there for us when it came to closing, paperwork etc. It took my hubby 2-3 hours going around and around with the lending company to ensure we got a fixed rate. They tried really hard to be really shady, even saying that once interest rates increase all we had to do was "re-finance" - what we did was say NO. I can see how easily it would have been to be in a position where you do not get the fix rate. (and unlike John Mcsame stating we should not bail out those who were so called "irresponsible" in their borrowing practices - it's the *minority* of the current foreclosures that happen because people are in a home they never could afford to begin with - Joe-Middle-Class usually wasn't trying to buy more than they could afford had they been on a fixed rate 6.5% rather than a 5% start non-fixed rate. And yet that asshole stands behind corporations being bailed out - utter bullshit! It's the new and improved 'welfare' queen persona being pushed around - joe-blow buying Mc-Mansions on min. wage income - poor real-estate investments/house flipping for a quick buck guys that are suffering *WRONG*!!)

There were many people out there that did not understand the difference between fixed-rate and flexible interest rate mortgages and think they are getting the better deal with the super LOW starter interest rate. It's not their fault that high pressure sales tactics and slick deals put them in a position, had everything been explained properly and/or had family support or experience with mortgages would have prevented this situation. Not to mention, from our own experience, unless you know how to stick to your guns about *exactly* what you want - for us, a fixed-rate 30 yr, we would be in the same position as these other families are in - scary thought.

As it is now, since we live in FL - and our home owners insurance is tied to our mortgage, (we pay it yearly, but first it's paid monthly at the time we pay our mortgage and put into escrow to be doled out once a year - which is done by the mortgage company) our insurance is burying us. We went from paying about 700 a month (mortgage/insurance) to now 900 a month. Our interest hasn't changed, just our insurance - and yes, we are shopping for new home owner's. Oh and NO, we do not live in a flood zone or even close to the Atlantic, nor the Gulf. After Katrina the insurance rates went up everywhere in the South, not just in the area that Katrina hit the hardest. In fact our original insurance company went bankrupt last year!

The Sheriff takes an oath to protect and serve his community. He is doing *exactly* that by not kicking out every family who's home has come up for foreclosure. It protects them by not leaving vacant buildings, keeping them from being homeless while a better solution could be worked out. It serves the community all around.

If Bears and Stern can be bailed out by the feds - than the 'nuclear' family should be allowed to refinance and the past interest owing on the property forgiven, so they walk into the refinance like a new buyer with a fixed rate loan. Let's face it, the bank/loan company would *NEVER* recover those funds anyway if they foreclose, kick the current residents out then the place sits vacant until someone else comes along and picks up the property. So instead of someone different making 'out' on the deal by getting a place cheap because it was a foreclosure, the current residents should be given a break. It benefits everyone concerned, the community, the families being foreclosed on, heck even the finance companies benefit from logical thinking in the end.

I could rant forever about how pissy this mortgage/loan crisis makes me - and don't *even* get me started on how the 'credit' rating in the US is used and abused. Honestly, WHY THE FUCK would 99.9% of employers need to know if you have good credit or not?! And, if your credit is wonderful - your probably not out trying to find a job. I think it should be illegal to discriminate against those with shitty credit for ALL entry level job positions based on your credit. And only legal for the .1% of jobs that would put you in total control over large sums of money - there again, unless you have a felony record for theft - there is NO reason to *assume* that your bad credit will suddenly give you the urge to steal from your employer!

/rant off


Cheers
Sandy

Are you effing crazy? The lenders gave out $$ like candy for years, in many cases writing outright fraudulent loans. Now the people who were defrauded can't keep up with those bad mortgages and much of the time can't even find the person at "the bank" to talk to to work them out, due to their mortgages having been packaged and resold 4 times over.

So you think that 1. it's a good idea to throw the defrauded out into the streets so their homes can sit empty (or become the latest crackhouse in the neighborhood and their lives and the lives of their children ruined, and 2. it's a bad idea to go back to having a few rules to keep the cheaters in line.

Back before the 2000+ housing boom that turned farm land into rows of McMansions on postage stamp lots, there was a robust housing market.

Yes, you had to actually qualify for credit. No, you couldn't borrow a bazillion dollars for a mcmansion. And yes, you had to actually save a down payment and prove you were credit-worthy. Sorry if you think that's a bad idea, but in the long run, it provides some stability. It also teaches people to work for things instead of expecting them handed to them.

BTW, 1 house in 10 that has been built since 2000 is now sitting empty.

God bless that sheriff for refusing to do his job.

Law Enforcement Officers enforce the laws they are hired to enforce, and ignore the ones the people who are paying their salaries do NOT want enforced. That happened during prohibition when Honest Police ignored the speakeasies. It happens today with some drug dens, the Officers know where there are, but have been told to ignore them, for the local government want other laws enforced.

What laws that Police or in this case a Sheriff wants to enforce, is what the person controlling his position (in the case of most Police, the local elected politicians, in the case of Sheriff, who tend to be elected, the voters).

Think about it, I go by several intersections with illegal no pedestrian crossing signs on all four corners, so that it is illegal for pedestrian to cross a public street. The local police will enforce those signs for that is what the local businesses want (i.e. cater to automotive traffic NOT pedestrian Traffic). That is true even through it is clear such signs are ILLEGAL in themselves (i.e it is illegal to bloke people from walking down public roads, except if the road was built from day one for cars only i.e. Interstates highway. It is legal to ban pedestrians on Interstate highways, for such travel NEVER was allowed on such highways. but if you upgrade an existing highway to interstate specs, you have to provide for Pedestrians).

My point is Police do NOT enforce all the laws they can, they enforce the laws they want to, and what laws the Police want to enforce reflect what laws the people who are paying the Police want enforced, NOT all laws or even most of the laws.

Do you really WANT things to be that way? Should we applaud the police for that type of selective enforcement or should we hope for something better?

Kicking someone out of their home to improve the ROI for shareholders of some securitized investment?

Bite me.

We do NOT have enough money for the Police to enforce every law, so based on how many police we hire often decides what laws get enforced. During Prohibition the State of Pennsylvania refused to raise taxes to enforce Prohibition, not because the Legislature opposed prohibition, they just did not want to pay to enforce it. Do to this failure to raise money to enforce the law the Governor had to turn to the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) for funds, and the WCTU came up with some funds so some enforcement of the law could be done, but even that amount was not sufficient to enforce the law.

In many communities, the role of the Police is NOT to enforce the law, but to collect fines, mostly traffic Tickets. Why? Traffic Tickets fines are the source of money to pay for the Police. Without the fines, the local government would have to fire the Police Officers do to lack of funds (Again the Governing Politicians prefer NOT to raise taxes, rather then have the Police enforce all the laws). The local Drug Task forces are noted for going after people with assets who are involved with drugs, ignoring drug dealers who have no assets, for arresting poor drug dealers does NOT pay the Drug Task Force Salaries. Some cities are noted for Police along the highways to get speeders, but avoiding high Crime areas for Traffic Tickets pay their salaries, arresting a criminal robbing someone brings little money into the Police Department, and the Local Government wants the money from Tickets NOT the arrest of criminals that may cost the local government to prosecute.

If we go back to the old west, Sheriffs and other Law Enforcement officers went after people with bounty on their heads NOT local thieves that would only cost them money to arrest and hold for Trial.

My point is the people hiring the Police decide what laws the Police will enforce. The Police can not and will not enforce all the laws, just the ones their employers want the Police to enforce. Someone has to make that decision, what laws will the Police Enforce? The Police can not make the decision, for if the Officers enforces the wrong law, he may be fired (Even if that means the whole Police force is abolished, which some municipalities have done).

I am just pointing out the sad reality of life, no one can afford a Police Force that can enforce all of the laws. Such a policy would bankrupt ALL of the taxpayers. Given that funds are to be rationed, such rationing is done by the people who are in charge of the Police and that is the way it has always be and always will be, no matter how we dislike it.

Those with wealth and celebrity generally never suffer the consequnces as those with neither.

Tatum O'Neal, Robert Downey Jr., OJ Simpson, Baretta... are just a few examples of that.

The death penalty is enforced more often against men than women.

Many of us are one health care crisis away from financial ruin.

This sheriff is trying to maintain community stability while allowing borrowers and lenders to work something out.

Joblessness, homelessness spells disaster for all of us.

Have a heart.

those people have most likely never met with any real hardship in their lives. i can't imagine someone making such statements otherwise. it's rather disappointing to come here and read that crap.

all these ass wipes that are going south on this sherrif should stop and think just what they are saying , alot of the people in forclosers now had no choice about what when down , they lost there jobs , or had there wages cut , talked to a man the other day , boom , 20 years with his company and some holding firm bought 3 businesses out and layed off workers to shave the payrolls , here this man is in his middle 50's and has to go job hunting , so screew any body who is - on this 1

:patriot:

What's with all the heroes, lately?

This guy deserves to be fired immediately.

In my view you have obviously lost your heart.

"the WALL STREET JOURNAL!" or "Murdoch's mouth piece," etc.

Always one of the first choices.

We are a country based on the rule of law. You can't just cherry pick which laws you want to follow and which ones you want to disregard. Don't go complaining about electoral fraud and the like if you are going to turn a blind eye to this kind of thing.

Especially if they have children. Actually, why not just throw them in jail..since they're probably headed there anyway. Or better yet, send them to Iraq, or just kill them. Who wants to pay for their upkeep? I can't wait until Americans have to go to Mexico to find a job. I so hope they are treated the same way they treat others.

Why do peope feel like they need to OWN their home. If they can't afford their mortgage, then rent. Nobody is saying that these people should be thrown out on the street.

If these people can't pay their mortgage you think they can scrape up the first, last and months security to rent? If they sell everything they own, they might be able to scrape it together, but chances are they've already done that. Some people have family to fall back on. Lucky them. Once you hit the street, it's hard to get back up to the curb.

because it is always necessary to act morally. Stealing elections is immoral, even if it is done "legally". Leaving an elderly hit-and-run victim to die in the middle of the road is perfectly legal, and shockingly immoral. Tossing people out on the street is immoral, even if it is "legal".

As alluded to above, there have been people who've spent the rest of their lives in prison because they followed "legal" orders. Morality always comes first.

to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from someone with a promise to pay it back, and then refuse to do so? A truly moral person doesn't walk away from keeping their word, but finds some way to fulfill the obligations they entered into freely. I hope you're not suggesting that the relative wealth of the people involved changes what's fundamentally right and wrong. And yes, some of these people may have been deceived by their lenders and for them there should be some relief (though they still bear some responsibility for their situation), but many of them simply got greedy and knowingly took out loans they couldn't really afford, thinking they could always sell and still turn a profit, and now they want the taxpayers (ultimately) to bail them out and bear the consequences of their risk-taking.

more ocncerned about some possible "deadbeat" getting over than thousands of innocent victims of Wall Streets latest ripoff scheme being put out in the street.

Do you really think everyone who was told not to worry, that they had a perfect right to a mortgage on a house far beyond their means, should tell the guy pushing the paper that he was full of crap?

It always seems the rightwingers who are so afraid of some possible swindler succeeding that they'll willingly let the unlucky, misinformed and/or misled drown to make sure the bad guys get theirs. That's why its odd to find these opinions expressed on a progressive site like DU.

Do you think the guy running Bear Sterns had no inkling that these bundled mortgages were a fraud?

Do you really think people of his ilk did not fully expect the feds to step in and save them if the shit hit the fan?

Do you really think they were wrong to beleive that in this corporate/socialist nation?

Give me a break.

If a rich person loses $100,000, they can shake it off. If a middle class person loses $100,000, they become homeless, hungry, without health care, and at grave risk of death. Those are not equivalent moral states.

The very premise of the left is that inequality of wealth is a social issue, a moral problem, and must be addressed by redistributing that wealth from the haves to the have-nots. If you don't believe that, you're on the wrong message board.

Those aren't moral states at all...they're financial states. And by your logic, it's perfectly and completely moral to steal from anyone who can afford to lose the money, as long as the money goes to someone who has less. Makes me hope I never live in a country where you write or enforce the laws.

And "the very premise of the left"? Please. That may be the premise of the totally wanking socialist left, but is sure isn't mine or that of many people on this board. Many people believe that the idea that government can and should play an important role in protecting the social welfare of its citizens is the central idea of liberalism, but that's a heck of a long way from what you seem to be proposing.

BTW, still waiting for an answer as to whether it's moral to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from someone with a promise to pay it back, and then refuse to do so? You certainly have an opinion on that, don't you?

Our laws too often are "need blind." It SHOULD be considered by the legal system how much each party will be harmed if a contract is or is not enforced. Besides, it is never that black and white anyway--they aren't GIVING these people their houses, free and clear, and telling the mortgage company to fuck off. They are MODIFYING the contract, to serve the GREATER PUBLIC GOOD. Right now, our system only cares about the private good, and that's a big reason why we are in this and so many other messes we're in.

And if you don't agree with THAT, you DON'T belong on this or any other progressive board. The concept of PUBLIC GOOD balancing and in some cases overriding private benefit IS central to liberal and progressive thinking and has been a part of the platform of the Democratic Party since at least FDR. FDR came right out and said that the promoters of private interest were doing so at the expense of the public interest AND that they had to be stopped. Wouldn't mind seeing words like that coming out of a Democrat's mouth these days.

It ISN'T the same, morally, to expect an unemployed home owner to pay $20,000 in back payments and lawyers fees or get evicted from their home as it is to expect hundreds or thousands of securitized mortgage shareholders to accept a lower rate of return while said homeowner is given a real chance to get on their feet. The impact of the one on society is huge, the other not nearly so much, and that SHOULD matter.

Besides, if you have a lot of money, you can spend it to get the outcome you want in court, either criminal or civil. Where's the morality in that?

the inevitable consequence. Given the current housing prices the lenders would much rather people live in their house and continue to pay the mortgage. It is hard to imagine that the current system advantages either party.

The impact of a contract on the people involved should only matter so long as it represents a major failing in the implicit notion of a contract. For example if one party is entering the contract with less then ideal information or if the contracts place costs on others. Even then the ideal situation is to regulate the nature of contracts and businesses before the fact rather then changing contracts ad hoc. Moral issues are best dealt with in the general institutional framework rather then the perverse incentives that are generally caused by altering contracts half way through. This is not a moral consideration but rather a practical one. Once you put in place the right institutional structure the details fall into place. Trying to fix many different details without looking at how the work together leads to many unintended issues. This I believe is a general problem with American liberals. They get lost in the details without looking at the greater picture.

"And "the very premise of the left"? Please. That may be the premise of the totally wanking socialist left, but is sure isn't mine or that of many people on this board."

Oh really?

Explain then why, ever since FDR, the gap between rich and poor decreases under progressive administrations, and increases under right-leaning administrations.

Could it be, oh, the effect of intentionally adopted public policy? Do you think that's why taxes on the rich go up, and spending on education, housing, veteran's benefits, welfare programs, etc., goes up? Or do you think it's some kind of accident?

Clearly you've never thought of the end purpose of liberal social programs. It's to redistribute wealth. It's intentional. In fact the point of such programs is so flamingly obvious that anyone who survived Econ 101 can recognize what the object of such an agenda is.

Oh - and last time I checked, we've never had a socialist administration.

they would gladly pay the money back, IF THEY COULD.

i also think you're really deluded. Is that intentional?

:shrug:

Those thousands of dollars were doable when they were employed...unemployed not so much. And who plans to be unemployed? Who plans for a recession to wipe out their buisness or job? Who plans on their jobs being shipped to India?Sorry if people don't all go into something secure like banking or hedge funds or make money screwing other people over. I have encountered several people on this board who were scammed by dishonest brokers. I have read threads now about the prosecution of dishonest brokers. There have been mistakes made with paperwork and deeds as they get shuffled back and forth between lenders. It is not always the borrower's fault. Not when our de-regulated banking system is full of criminals. It is important for all situations to be accounted for before we write all borrowers off as 'deadbeats'. You claim it's so cut and dried, but it is not.

If you'd go back and read what I wrote:



you'll see that I clearly acknowledge that not every borrower is at fault, even though people who sign contracts that require them to pay money should understand them before they sign.

And duh....lots and lots and lots of people plan for bad financial times, including unemployment. It's called setting money aside for a rainy day. No, not everyone can afford to do that, but for you to pretend that no one even thinks about it is very disingenuous...makes me wonder why.

defaulted on their pension (and other) obligations and been reorganized in bankruptcy court to continue business? I don'tunderstand why defaulting on a loan and accepting the consequences is 'immoral' for an individual and perfectly okay for a corporation.

some people can break laws and other people can't. the rule of law is and has always been selective.

Welcome to "the uptight citizens brigade".


edit:speeling

N/T

these threads always bring out the fucking worst in people. just another honeypot for my ever-growing ignore list.

Hell All McCain did was phuck up and get shot down, Tortured, and signed false confessions

Green is the Hero not McCain


By the way - McCain Still owes us for the planes he crashed.

would have done the same thing. In fact, he'd have gotten the mortgage companies' CEO's and the home owners together for a cookout down by the ol' fishin' hole with some ice-cold lemonade.

To his detractors: FUCK YOU, heartless swine!

bid on a foreclosure on a farm only to return it to the owners. Good people.

When a house is abandoned drug dealers and the other lot move in without telling anyone while a family has to hit the streets. Overall a HUGE waste of resources as both have to be dealt with.

Sickening to see the people on this thread going against this. WTF is wrong with you? Not only are you without a heart and ethics in my view but also lack education about homes and the home market.

If you could care less anyway? Piss off!

It's refreshing to see examples of how one person can make a difference, and how we can all stand up and be counted if we choose. It's so easy to believe that all our circumstances are beyond our control, and that no solution can be implemented without a big government agency or a big corporate conglomerate backing it. I salute Sheriff Green's courage in taking this stand.

6. As the strikes spread, evictions multiplied. Illustration 6 shows rent strikers in Brownsville, having been evicted by their landlord for refusing "to pay exorbitant rents imposed on them," with their furnishings piled up on the sidewalk. Courtesy UPI/Bettmann Newsphotos.




http://www.tenant.net/Community/history/photo06.html

There is a time honored tradition of populism in this country when the chips get down. It is not as if our capitalists have not tried to eat the population alive before when they make bad business deals.

in the US. They had their ankles nipped and they've been squealing like stuck pigs ever since!

Incidentally, I wonder if the bizarre myth that Republicans are macho and Democrats wishy-washy, which the Republicans' noise-machine has been touting for so long will hold ANY water, now that it's been revealed that their leaders will lead anywhere but in a theatre of war. How many Republicans politicos, in total, have served in the Armed forces? Three? How many Democrats? I think, somewhat more.

It's such a shame when a family gets to the point where they may lose their home. Hopefully, they are doing something to help these families longer term finances.

Sheriff Coon did this in 1983:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,951851,00.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E7D91238F935A35752C0A965948260

His action forced the State Legislature to address the problems of people who had been laid off do to the shut down of the Steel Industry and had fallen behind in their mortgage payments. The solution was the Homeowners' Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (HEMAP) Act 91 of 1983. Under Act 91, as it is called (It being the 91st law passed into legislature in 1983), Mortgage Holders of residential mortgage homes must give what is called an Act 91 notice to the home owner BEFORE the Mortgage holder can even start mortgage foreclosure actions. The Act 91 notice informs the owner of the property of the Homeowners' Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (HEMAP) and where to apply for assistance.

Under the Homeowners' Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (HEMAP), if the owner is behind in the mortgage for no fault of their own (i.e. laid off from work, became disabled etc) AND have a good prospect of being on their feet in three years (Later changed to two years under a subsequent GOP Administration to "save" money) the Mortgage Assistance Agency will pay the mortgage up to date, pay up to three years in the future (Now two years) and the mortgage holder can NOT foreclose of the property (the Mortgage assistance Agency will then put a second mortgage on the property for the loan has to be paid back, but only when the home owner can do so).

If the Home owner acts within 30 days of receiving the Act 91 notice, the Mortgage holder can NOT proceed with the Foreclosure UNTIL the Assistance is approved or denied (And this includes the period for any Administrative appeal if assistance is denied). If he home owner applies after the 30 period, the Assistance may still be granted, stopping the foreclosure, but in such cases the legal proceeding of foreclosing can commence (i.e. even if you filed AFTER the 30 period, you are sill eligible, all you lose by filing late is that the foreclosure action itself can commence while waiting for the decision on the Assistance).

Over all Homeowners' Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (HEMAP) is a very good program. Coon forced the State Legislature to pass it by refusing to sell homes that would meet those requirements. I suspect the Sheriff of Philadelphia County is trying to do a similar maneuver, maybe even return it to a three year program instead of he present two year program. Hopefully this will work as well as Coon's refusal did in 1983.

Pennsylvania Mortgage Assistance Agency:
http://www.phfa.org/consumers/homeowners/hemap.aspx

I've never heard of this before. Is this only in Pennsylvania?

The basic principles are beyond reproach and solve 99% of the true hardships out there (and shut up the "deadbeats have themselves to blame" crowd):

"...if the owner is behind in the mortgage for no fault of their own (i.e. laid off from work, became disabled etc)"

Unemployment, layoffs, downsizing, outsourcing AND out of pocket healthcare costs--that's probably 90% of the personal bankruptcies right there, and almost as high % of foreclosures (the rest being shady dealings favoring the bankers--"adjustable" rates that only adjust UP--they should called them "Increasing Rate Mortgages"!!)

"AND have a good prospect of being on their feet in three years (Later changed to two years"

Another gem! Being laid off or facing huge medical bills is NOT something you can recover from in a month or two. Right now, the most common "solution" that a mortgage company offers if you are behind one or two payments is to put you on a "payment" plan where you pay 1 1/2 or 1 1/4 payments every month till the arrears is caught up. If you're trying to recover from months of unemployment, say, even IF you have a new job, just making your *regular* payment is a struggle--paying more is often impossible. But if you miss just one of your "extra" payments (even if you pay your normal 1X payment), then the payment plan "breaks" and your on the road to the courthouse. Giving you 3 (or even 2) years to get your financial house in order is HUGE!

"Mortgage Assistance Agency will pay the mortgage up to date, pay up to three years in the future (Now two years)...then put a second mortgage on the property for the loan has to be paid back, but only when the home owner can do so)."

Again, this is huge, because nobody's getting "a free ride," the mortgage holder is getting paid, and the state will get paid, too, but the homeowner gets time (years, not weeks or months) to get their financial house back together. If, it turns out, their problems are not going to get better, or they really were over-extended, then they have time to sell the house for a decent price and not simply be a victim of the flippers and speculators.

I will be sending a copy of this bill and looking for info on the impact on the Penn. housing and mortgage markets and sending to every state and federal legislature I can find. (And the Obama campaign--might be a great thing for the swing-state battles for Barack to say, "I think we should have a program at the Federal level that does what they've been doing in Pennsylvania, successfully, for 25 years!"

Other states may have similar programs, but I know of none. As I said it came out of the Collapse of the Steel Industry in the early 1980s. To many people where caught with a mortgage and no job. Sheriff Coon refused to sell the homes and the local courts upheld him, but the movement first started with Denominational Ministry Strategy (DMS). DMS caused a lot of problems in the Pittsburgh area, by showing how Corporate America was rewarding itself while workers suffered.

For more on DMS:
http://www.confessingsynod.com/index.htm
http://www.confessingsynod.com/dmsvictory.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFD7113AF934A35757C0A96E948260

DMS was effective, so effective that not only did Pennsylvania Home Owner Emergency Assistance Program was started, so was the CHIP program. I attended a seminar in the early 1990s where CHIP was first being introduced in Pennsylvania (This was years before it became a Federal Program). The speaker told us that various charities had been embarrassed by DMS when DMS showed how LITTLE they were giving to help people who had lost their job to get medical coverage. To answer this attack the Charities started what was to become the CHIP program. A medical Program for those people who technically were NOT eligible for Welfare Medical Assistance do to being over income or over asset (They owned their home). It become so successful that it was made a National program in 1997. The key was these two improvements were started by two local parishes protesting the their community was being treated by Corporate America.

http://www.chipcoverspakids.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children's_Health_Insurance_Program

people have to take back their power

I've long thought there could be a connection. Desperate situations require desperate measures. And just as villainy abounds, you seem to produce outstanding people who will move hell and high water to right wrongs or, as in this case, "temper the wind to the shorn lamb".

As sheriff, he no doubt had a lot of influence in his community. He could have organized financial help for these people, he could have persuaded people to open their homes to those who had lost theirs, or any of a number of other things (all of which I'm sure you've thought of too). If he had taken any of those choices, I'd be patting him on the back too. Or if he'd simply said that he couldn't stomach what his job required of him, and resigned, that would have been fine too. And yet his first choice, before trying any other option, was to forgo his sworn duty and fail to do what he promised to do when he freely accepted his office, while presuming that he was still entitled to keep it. Forgive me if I don't start carving a statue of him just yet.

If Nazis had refused to murder the innocent, you'd obviously have given them hell! They should have resigned and started a shelter for fugitive trade-union leaders, Jews, etc.

In that Sheriff's place, would you have given up your job? Invited people to share your home? Organised others to do so? If not, shut up and bury your head in shame. I'll bet you're a pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstrap tout, too.

But here are the two things you're equating:

A. Enforcing a law that says people must be killed because they're Jews.

B. Enforcing a law that says people can't stay forever in property they're not paying for, under the terms of a legal contract that they signed freely and in good faith.

Notwithstanding your lame and hostile attempts to psychoanalyze me, I have no problem making a distinction between the two.

And yes, if my conscience wouldn't permit me to carry out the sworn duties of my job, I'd walk away from it. Wouldn't you? Anyone can do the right thing if it's no detriment to them. The true test of a principle is whether you'd give up something important in order to adhere to it.

What a pathetic, disgraceful attempt at self-justification!

You have a situation in your country, worsening by the hour, wherein the victims of the kind of hucksters, you are trying to protect could not have foreseen what they were signing themselves up to. AND YOU KNOW IT! That is your disgrace, and no unctuous invocation of the legal propriety of pursuing the letter of the law can exculpate your callousness.

As you well know, their bankruptcy or near bankruptcy was caused by individuals who knowingly created a false "thriving" economy a simulacrum of a thriving economy, built on sand, and which had to collapse causing widepread misrey throughout the land. The only questin was "When?"

But I'm not wasting my time talking sense to someone who clearly has no wish to know the truth - or he/she would have seen it. None so blind...

"I have no problem making a distinction between the two."

That is precisely where your problem is. "If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. (Matthew 12:7) ..".

You're assuming, based on emotion and not fact, that ALL of the mortgage contracts that people have defaulted on were deceptive and fraudulent, and that the borrowers were NEVER indulging in self-delusion and over-extravagance. If you'd care to actually think instead of foaming at the mouth, you'll have to acknowledge that neither of those things are true. And "could not have foreseen"? You mean except by reading and understanding what they were signing and doing a little simple budgeting? Guess that's too much to ask of people any more.



So these "individuals" lent out billions of dollars, knowing that the economy was going to collapse and that they wouldn't be paid back, that they'd be left holding a bunch of undervalued houses falling into disrepair? Yeah, that makes sense.

the point here.

I've always had a tendency to 'look' both ways at a situation.

Yes, a person's word and taking responsibility for ones self *IS* important.

NO ONE HERE has advocated that anyone, should benefit if they knowingly and willfully entered into the contract, with the knowledge or intention of never repaying the loan. Or willfully and/or knowingly made no attempt to follow-thru on a fully legal binding contract if the loan was now defaulted on; that every attempt had been made to contact all parties to the contract that you would no longer be able full fill your responsibility.

There is nothing wrong with giving people *MORE* time to work through a situation like the sheriff is doing, that program in PA is a wonderful idea, the very fact that the loan must be repaid should stop all the bitching about free hand outs etc. A lien on the property that the state would have would guarantee that the loan could be repaid, the moment it is sold or transferred.

Cheers
Sandy

On his website, it says

"In response to City Council's resolution asking for a moratorium on mortgage foreclosure sales, the sheriff has postponed the sale scheduled for Tuesday, April 1st. Information regarding rescheduling of future sales will be posted as soon as it is available."

http://www.phillysheriff.com/

It looks like they are still having tax lien sales for unimproved lots, but that's not making someone homeless.

hold the auction, but the predatory realtors would be salivating at a chance to pick up a deal. I mean, if they have no character when it comes to dumping the cost of poorly built infra-structure on unsuspecting homeowners, why not making a mint out of foreclosures?

Really moving story.

whatever *he* thinks it would take......

I want to lol, but it's too true to actually laugh =(

Cheers
Sandy

He just locked up his re-election forever. That's awesome to someone in his position take a stand for us little guys. I have a new respect for Philadelphia.

Why would any bank ever agree to a mortgage if they know that they will not be able to foreclose if the borrower stops paying?

Banks always make money, they could care less is people, they actually like it. They get to make whatever money they can before the person goes default, then they get to resell the house finance it again, and make more money from it. As much of they cry, banks always win.

Isn't life grand when you can buy politicians at the expense of the little guy?

Maybe you've not being paying attention to the financial news, every lender has taken (or will take) massive write-downs of of their assets. Notice I didn't say "write offs" I said "write downs", such as it would look to you if that $1,000 you had in an emergency savings account were suddenly to show up as $700.

The lenders got themselves in this predicament, no doubt, but they're getting burned for it, and anybody they passed the pain on to (such as investors who bought securitized mortgages) is getting burned, too. There will be significant disincentives for lenders to make home loans in the next ten or twenty years, we don't need to add "breakdown of the legal system" to the list. I saw what happened twenty five years ago in the housing market when I worked in title insurance then, I'm sure glad I'm selling medical diagnostic equipment instead.

When you enter a high risk market and make it much worse by your behavior as a business, you
need to accept that it's ultimately a battle of power and wills. The banks sold crap, some people
bought it, and it's now being investigated by the FBI as a possible criminal enterprise.

The banks, btw, are being bailed out in a big why. Why not the citizens?

And the little guy and his pathetic Constitution and vote.....who the hell needs him except to get him in line after his mind has been softened a bit to pull a lever for more bought politicians?

Good to see you!

The color barrier laws that were broken to cause change are the best example. :dem:

GEEZ! Laws are made by man and can be changed by man - with a fair majority.

For those that say the banks will not loan - RUBBISH, the banks would love to be paid forward if that law could happen in a county like this. Mortgage companies love money in advance, the faster they can collect interest on it and move it about......

Cheers
Sandy

It takes a person of conscience and compassion to put human welfare over corporate bureaucratic greed

and a big FUCK YOU to all the corporate cheerleaders condemning him
Go back to freeperville where you belong. You have no right to call yourself Liberals.

Who Would Jesus Evict?

and the police decided not to prosecute, because the thief is much poorer than you and he may go hungry if they make him repay the stolen money.

Following the logic of this thread, I guess this would make the police "good guys", "true mensches", "brave" "modern day heroes" who deserve "statues in their honor".

And if you complain then you're guilty of "pseudo-social Darwinism".

This is an entire (dwindling) middle and working class, being taken advantage of, through a bewildering variety of means, by an entire elite, monied, ruling class, and one, single, elected law enforcement officer trying in his own small way to tip the balance just a bit back towards the working people who been screwed up one side and down the other.

No one is "stealing" anything. Buying them a little time is not giving them the title to their house, free and clear.

And, friend, we may be soon upon times where, in fact, the poor may need to steal from the rich, because the rich have made everyone poor, and left them (us) with no other way to survive. Karma's a bitch. But if someone is starving and comes to my house, and I have food to share, I will. People did it all the time in the Depression. And if some of the after Peak Oil scenarios come true, that's going to look like the freakin' French Riviera.

Banding together, we have a chance. Looking out for each other, like this Sheriff is doing, we might make it out alive. But letting them pick us off, one by one, labeling some of us "deadbeats" to protect their profits literally over people's dead bodies, then we're going be in a living hell, sooner than we'd like to think.

...by putting him into a deal that I knew would end in his getting screwed while running for political cover (which kept me rich and insulated me from said bad deal), then yes, I would think that he should get away with it and the cop should take my ass to jail.

Here's another thin analogy. If a con-man befriended you and stole your life savings, do you have the right to call the cops and get your money back? Because nowadays, you can call the cops, but they will not come any more. The con-men own the cops, see?

Except this guy.

If you are starving, stealing to eat is not a sin. That is quite apart from the precept expressed by several saints and popes that when you give to the poor, you are only giving to them what rightfully belongs to them. God made the world and all its bounty for all his children - not just for the more worldly-wise, still less, for just the most implacably covetous; which latter, as it happens are the very ones responsible for this crisis, of course.

could not afford it. As a loan officer, your job is to deny if the borrower clearly cannot afford the mortgage.

spot on

Who has more of a burden...the person who goes into these deals under good faith who may not know his rights/the law or the person whose job it is to know the law who does not act in good faith, but rather is just looking to make a quick buck?

Don't know if anyone has noticed, but the primaries are over. All of the Ditto heads, Freepers, Trolls, and Disrupters that infested GD-P are now looking for another pot of shit to stir. It's clear to me that DU still has a metric butt load of right-wing stooges that needed a good tomb stoning. It's on threads like this where they really out themselves. Can't disguise your bullshit as Obamahating or a Hillarybashing anymore? What the fuck else are you gonna do? Your glowing personality ain't exactly camouflage.

Now obviously, not everyone on this board can agree on everything. We all have different backgrounds, life experiences, beliefs, and passions. I mean, it's not like the vast majority of us are Caucasian males, over the age of 50, who earn well over $200,000 a year, I think that's another political party. As an inclusive organization we don't believe in leaving anyone behind. America is comprised of people of all races, creeds, cultures, religions (or lack thereof), and sexual orientations. We believe all those elements are equal, and that our government should be representative of and respectful to, that equality.

What you obviously lack is a basic understanding of what it means to be on the Left. To my understanding, liberals believe that our primary obligation is to our fellow man. Not obliterating our enemies, not the acquisition of wealth, or power for powers sake... but that when confronted by a situation where someone needs our help, we try to help them. We believe that if someone gets sick, and they can't afford health care, dying should not be the only option available to them. We want everyone to be self sufficient, we want everyone to be successful, but we realize that sometimes you can't get there on your own, especially if circumstances beyond your control have knocked you on your ass a couple of times. We believe that it's hard to keep your balance while your pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, if you need someone to lean on, to keep you stable while you're trying to get back on you feet, that's us.

If you don't get that, your time amongst us has taught you nothing.

:thumbsup:

Thank you for everything you just said so well.

some people cannot feel until the loss is theirs, and thats sad.

The Animator,... Thank You!

after all, Jesus spoke again and again of doing exactly what you've described. He was a true bleeding heart liberal. That's an inconvenient truth for the Right Wing, who would rather focus on the notion that he "died for our sins" rather than do the things that He asked them to, as the Sheriff has.

He shows what it means to take an oath to protect your community.


FROM ALL CRIMINALS

that make me wonder if the mods are slacking off in their duty to ban libertarian and freeper trolls. For those opposed to Green's righteous actions, feel free to leave DU, where your idiotic comments are unwanted, and see www.freerepublic.com. They're as cold-blooded and soulless as you all are. Unless you've already been banned by freepers for being too evil for them, too.

Oh, and The Animator, you are dead on the money with your comments.

there reasoning certainly exposes what they think of those who are getting screwed over. it also exposes how little they know about the mortgage swindle..

The Animator stated so succinctly what I believe is the true essence of what it means to be liberal.

8643

He must be a communist! He's trying to stop an industry in its tracks! This is HUGH! What a MORAN! He's trying to kill the CONstitution that begins with CON as in CONservatIve!!! He needs to be reedumacated!!!11!!

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
Yes, 'n' how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they're forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

How many years can a mountain exist
Before it's washed to the sea?
Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

But don't believe it's wise to buy when prices are over-inflated.

Gotta support the good guys, there are so few of them left.

had to walk away from her townhouse in California after her mortgage payment jumped $700/month. She is now paying almost as much in rent as she was just prior to her raised payment. She tried time and again for 2 months to renegotiate with her lender (in Texas) when she saw the firestorm coming, and never once spoke to the same person. They just jerked her around repeatedly.

Who benefits and who loses in the "empty house syndrome?"
NO ONE benefits and EVERYONE loses.

This sheriff is dramatizing our horrendous mortgage meltdown crisis, and I'm trying to comprehend the implications if his actions are replicated across the country.

How did it jump?

Was it Insurance? property taxes? Assessments?

If it was the actual mortgage payments why would she have to walk away? It's not like she didn't know what the amount would be when she signed it?????

If she lost her job or had a medical emergency I understand and think the lender should work with her. But rates haven't exactly zoomed of late so obviously she had a mortgage payment that was scheduled to go higher and she choose not to pay it cause her house price went down.

If I am wrong please correct me but it sounds like your friend is the problem.

Like environmental laws where companies get away with toxic dumping for years, maybe get charged a nominal fine at most - but if I took a bucket of toxic crap and got caught dumping it in a river I'd get busted for sure.

So frankly I think this is a fine law to NOT enforce and a fine time to NOT enforce it. The real criminals as far as our economy and housing market go are not the downsized, struggling homeowners.

Good for the sheriff.

There are still some of the good ones around.

I don't understand why these mortgage companies aren't willing to rewrite the terms on these loans. It seemss better to have a smaller payment than none at all, as houses sit empty. What's the sense in that?

In some cases, it's becoming a health hazard...

Foreclosed Phoenix homes become havens for mosquitoes
The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 05.27.2008

PHOENIX — That green pool in the backyard near the tall weeds of the foreclosed house that hasn't been lived in for several months has become a major mosquito breeding ground, health officials say.
Maricopa County health officials are bracing for an unprecedented surge in mosquito-infested swimming pools this summer, as foreclosures and temperatures rise.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/240875.php

:applause:

rapid devaluation of property values, and trying to prevent assets from becoming targets of crime or neglect. I hope it works out for him and the community. Time and patience are two things that can be helpful.

:kick: