The Scars of Losing a Home

[babylonsister]

The Scars of Losing a Home

By ROBERT J. SHILLER
Published: May 18, 2008


ACROSS the United States, there were 243,353 foreclosure filings in April alone, nearly three times the total in the same month just two years ago, according to RealtyTrac, a company that follows the numbers. The trend is unmistakable, and suggests that, without government intervention, many millions of American families will be losing their homes before long.

What would this mean in human terms? Picture a line of moving trucks extending for hundreds of miles: they are taking the furniture of countless families to storage lockers. Picture schoolchildren saying goodbye to their classmates. They aren’t going on vacation: they are being abruptly moved to the other side of town.

It’s easy to take a stern view of this spectacle. The arguments go something like this: Foreclosure is not the end of the world. There are valuable lessons to be learned from such a life experience. After all, we live in a capitalist economy that thrives on the sanctity of contracts. The founders of our nation put the contract clause into the Constitution to make it clear that people need to live up to the documents they sign.

This stern view may, in fact, be winning the battle of public opinion. On May 9, the House approved legislation aimed at helping some of the people facing foreclosure, but the president has said he would veto it.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/business/18view.html?ex=1368763200&en=2bda4fe17042fcbd&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

[undeterred]

1. What about the millions who could never afford to buy a home

in the first place? It seems odd to me that there is so much more concern for people with property losing it than for the even less secure people who could not afford it in the first place who are in danger of being evicted.

[flashl]

2. A good point that seldom receives a response but needs to be discussed. nt

[Warpy]

3. Foreclosures with evictions are a stupid tactic

and the banks themselves are going to have to come to this conclusion as property after property fails to sell and becomes a target for vandals, vagrants and vermin, eventually becoming uninhabitable.

Here in this town, most of the foreclosures are oversized spec houses on the edge of town, houses that were snapped up by out of state speculators. Most of them have never been lived in. All are out of style and falling into disrepair and all are the wrong type of housing for working families.

It's hard to summon any sympathy for people who bought these barns hoping to make a quick buck while keeping affordable housing from being built. Now those places are surrounded by weeds and starting to be covered with graffiti. Copper thieves and squatters are next, and neighborhoods are starting to deteriorate because of it.

Banks are going to have to wise up and soon, keeping people in houses being foreclosed even if the rental they pay is far less than a mortgage would bring in. Leases here are for a month only, and occupants would know that they'd have a month's notice to vacate instead of having a sheriff and moving van just show up.

It would keep properties occupied and allow families a grace period to get their act together to find more permanent situations, benefiting everyone.

Nothing will save those spec houses, though, except a quick sale at a steep loss.