Comments:Chula Vista, California becomes model for blight control laws in the US
Does Chula Vista's solution save neighborhoods or worsen the financial crisis?
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Chula Vista's solution may soften the blow of the financial crisis
Banks tend to be stupid when it comes to owning Real Estate. To them nothing exits beyond their rules, formulas, and paper. Not even the physical world. They think that the value of real estate is only determined by interactions in their bureaucratic space. In fact this is the reason that we are having a financial crisis, the banks ignore realty. When a property is destroyed, its value is greatly diminished, so if the banks want their assets to keep its maximum value, the real estate will have to be physically maintained. If maintenance puts a financial strain on the banks then they should sell the properties at their true market value, before the properties get destroyed. They should also not buy a property that they can't afford to maintain. This way ownership of properties would only be ideal for people who would use them (i.e. homeowners for houses, and businesses for commercial property). If in the banks' minds the market value is much greater then what people are willing to pay, then the banks are still making up values that do not exist. Chula Vista's laws might alter the banks equations to reflect reality more. The Banks must not be allowed to print money anymore. If the Banks want to survive then they are going to have to change their formula to more closely model reality, otherwise sooner or later the universe will smite them. Banks will have to lend based on the legitimacy of a project, not based on meaningless credit scores and artificial market values. The poor Banks will have to earn their money. Sparky1 (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line here is that the bankers need to get with the program. Home prices are falling and that means that mortgages must be renegotiated to a lower amount of principal due. The bankers are going to lose money for their own folly no matter how they cut it. This ordinance will make it even more expensive to foreclose on a property. The sensible alternative is to renegotiate with present owners. If they refuse to do that, they will pay for it. Makes sense to me ....
you forget that it is sometimes the property devalue will be less than the upkeep.also, banks do not care about property value, they do not deal with property, they deal with loans. Making banks responsible for property seems silly, that's not what a bank's job is. Maybe there should be a third party involved with mortgage loans. I don't know what the solution is, but what I do know is that a highschool kid with no relevant education, training or experience has no place to call banks "stupid", except in cases of blazing obviousness (ie don't give loans to people have no chance of paying it back). The current economic problems although start with a simple cause are greatly complicated past just their beginning, and fixing it wont be such a simple matter either. the long and short of it is, don't talk like you know everything just because you read a few articles. People train in post secondary education for years and have a truckload of experience to do exactly what you are belittling, somehow I'm thinking they probably have a better idea of what is going on than you do. drewthedude 22:29, October 28 (Eastern Time)
Bring the Neighborhood Banks Back
It seems to me that the banks should be -- at the very least -- partially responsible for the maintenance of the properties. After all, if they have reclaimed ownership of the properties, it only makes sense that they should take care of them. All they would have to do is hire a landscaping/maintenance contractor to tend to the properties until they are re-sold. This is one of the problems with large banks which have become detached from their local communities. There executives don't have to walk or drive down the streets where these blighted homes are located. We need to bring our community-/neighborhood-based banks back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen477 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)