Photo By John HoffCheck out this story on CNN.com, click here.
If this country had a few more such "vigilante sheriffs," it would be a better country. Rumor has it vigilante blood runs in my veins, but I just think of it as "aggressively good citizenship."
The sheriff in question can justify his action--or inaction--by a sensible argument of "man hours." Really, sheriff's departments have more important things to do--like catching drug dealers and murderers--rather than functioning as private goons for banks. Let the banks hire security guards, mercenaries, whatever.
Really, doesn't it make more sense to figure out the drastically devalued market value of the home, and renegotiate the mortgage accordingly, rather than kick people out and then sell the house for a pittance? So it can become a rental, again, ANYWAY?
(Do not click "Read More")
4 comments:
My hat's off to the Sheriff!!! It's about time someone takes the side of the working stiff. The hell with the Greedy banks and blood sucking lawyers!! They, for the most part, are why we are where we are today making millions off the backs of the working middle class!! Hey Sheriff...need any deputies?????
Sheriff Dart for President!
Tenants should be offered the opportunity to form a "group investment" to purchase the buliding at current market value and continue to live there. It would be in in both their and the bank's best interests as opposed to simply tossing them out because the landlord did not live up to his end of the rental agreement. At the very least, tenants should be given at least 90 days notification and not be immediately evicted, no different than what the bank would do if they were the owners of the building.
The idea of emptying apartments and sending the people who had no idea such evictions were coming in the cold winter months is not only unfair, it is irresponsible. There's a big difference between what is considered legal and what anyone would consider justice.
This whole idea of punishing innocent people for the inabilities of someone else is certainly not justified.
Actually, the sheriff is acting in the county's financial interest when a home goes into forclosure--the property owner is supposed to be paying the taxes and if they aren't paying the mortgage, they aren't paying the taxes either.
I agree, it's stupid to empty out a house of rent payers, the banks and the tenants should try to come up with some kind of agreement that prevents this from happening.
I don't know that it's a great idea to have a moratorium on foreclosures because it sure does complicate things if people are in the house and there is no clearly responsible party controlling the house. For example, if a crime is committed in the house, is it the bank's fault for not preventing it if they can't actually take possession of the house? Also, if I am a homeowner who has been forclosed on, whether I am occupying or not, my interest in taking care of the house has just gone to 0. I don't own the house, I am not really even a tenant that can be evicted for bad behavior. I am just there, with an ill defined right to be there.
As a temporary measure, it's OK but it won't work and will create problems down the road.
Post a Comment