In this case the banks are forced into these actions by nearsighted small towns.
Found by Mad Dog Mike.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
This sucks. But, even if they gave me one of these homes, I wouldn’t care to much to live in Victorville.
A bit to “desert” for my taste.
At the very least, they should have let people recover and recycle some of the material.
I guess I don’t understand what the problem is. The homes are empty, and many incomplete, the bank can’t sell them at this time (or anytime soon), and they are being charged/fined monthly. So, to be honest, this is probably a good thing. Reduction in the number of homes on the market = less homes on the market = increase in value of homes actually owned by people. (if you follow the whole supply/demand thing) Now, I could see that maybe these homes could have been turned into some type of shelter, halfway house, etc, but unless the banks were given some actual tax break or financial incentive to do so, this step seems logical.
Are bricks too expensive in America? These ‘dwellings’ look very flimsy and impermanent, like they could have been demolished by the gust of wind from a passing car. Maybe the poor quality construction is why nobody wanted to buy them. (Coupled with the barren, out-of-the-way location, of course. Not a tree in sight. What a dump.)
Turning them into tracts of low income housing on the outskirts of town guarantees future social problems that the town probably doesn’t want. Better to demolish them now, before they are vandalised and blighted.
#5: It’s in California. You can’t build with bricks in an earthquake zone. Too dangerous.
It’s also a new development in Southern CA which is mostly desert. Wouldn’t have any trees until they were planted.
#8, Ayatollah1
So the banks should just destroy all these unsold vehicles?
http://tinyurl.com/bbs79x
I wonder if they got a demolition permit?
#5: Those are good reasons! Ceramics + earthquakes doesn’t seem like a good combination. There is no real seismic activity where I live, so I didn’t think of that.
Still, it IS barren and uninviting.:P I guess they were going to plant some trees after finishing the building. Oh well.
Er, I meant number 7!
Destroying houses has been suggested by serious economists as an option for all foreclosures including the ones in your neighborhood. When the foreclosure houses sell so cheap, they lower the value of the surrounding neighborhood. Tearing the house down instead, lowers the housing supply and props up existing house prices helping everyone. Giving the houses to poor people doesn’t work if they don’t have enough money to pay utilities, taxes and maintain them. Even rich people have found out you can get poor by owning a mansion.
#14,
This is asinine. So instead of letting the value of the houses fall to where the market wants them, we are enforcing a supply limit? That smacks to me of paying farmers to NOT grow something to keep the prices up.
Personally, I like the fact my house has dropped in value. My taxes have gone down (not far enough but I plan to challenge).
I agree with #3. If it’s cheaper to raze than pay, bring in the dozers.
A better option is to give these homes at incentive prices to gays. Let me explain this missed opportunity.
In 2 years time you’ll see Starbucks, Art stores, pooch parades, gyms, bicycle trails, etc. Then, Lesbians move in bringing Home Depot, bait and tackle stores, etc.
A whole ecosystem that makes for a desirable and high value neighborhood is created in 3 years time.
Then, the yuppies move in with noisy kids, nagging wives, Walmart, teenage gangs, churches, schools, higher taxes,etc.
Finally, gays move out eventually leaving Walmart and the church as the anchor tenant of the whole community followed by lower wages, dead grass and blight.
The cycle of life.
Then, straights move in with noisy kids, gays would leave
Par for the course, gov’t being the major problem.
#17, Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are.
There’s a big difference between partially finished houses that will probably never be finished and existing houses that people were living in and were foreclosed on.
I think the city has a valid point in fining for leaving an unfinished, possibly dangerous, eyesore in that state.
If the owner — the bank I assume since it sounds like the builder got foreclosed on — wants to tear them down, then tear them down. The bank isn’t in the construction business and probably has no buyers. What else should it do with them since it’s getting fined daily?
Love the armchair quarterback commentary…until it’s on YOUR dollar. Think about it…if you owned these houses, couldn’t sell, and were getting fined daily by the city what would you do? I just have a hunch if it was your dollar, you’d do the same.
Now move along, there is nothing to see here.
# 22 Uncle Dave said, “I think the city has a valid point in fining for leaving an unfinished, possibly dangerous, eyesore in that state.”
ROLF!
Dangerous? To whom? Eyesore? In the middle of a barren wasteland? Drive it sometime. No, the local gov is loony and destructive, like most governments.
This bailout has resulted in micromanagement by Congress and the Administration. They will be cranking out new regulations by the truckload. We have to get use to a more stable market, which means stagnation, and sluggishness. They want to prevent the bust and boom cycles, but you get low returns for lower risks. My bank only offered 1.2% on a six month six figure CD. No I’m not rich, it’s just combined inheritance from our parents.
What’s wrong with a derelict suburb with devalued houses undermaintained and Gang ridden neighbourhood? Then the municipality would have to bring cops, and they would bring diners and doughnut shops, and lite #17 example, a community would grow.
They own them, they’re getting fined for having them, so it’s their right to demolish them. I don’t see a problem with that. If you don’t want them demolished I’m sure the bank would be happy to sell them to you. They’re doing everyone in that neighborhood a favor.
Mr. Dvorak,
It’s called “wiping” your balance sheet clean as Buttcrack Obama wants banks to do.
Fewer. The word is “fewer” folks, not “less”. If the thing you’re talking about can be counted, the word is “fewer”. You know, like, “fewer homes”. One of the simplist of fourth-grade grammar rules, but it drives me nuts that so many people just don’t seem to get it.
#30,
Well that’s is one less thing I knew.
Plus it’s great in lowering the banks property taxes too. 😉
I used to live near victorville, moving back to that area soon actually.
I think it’s kind of a waste to destroy the homes, they’re nice homes. But If my memory serves me correctly, those houses being destroyed have been there for probably 2 years or more. It looked like they were going to build a huge lot of homes, but they only built some. So it would look pretty odd to have a few homes in a pretty empty area.
Wow Alfred. Obama started the California housing bubble too. Who knew?
OMG WHY CAN SOMEONE TEAR DOWN A HOME THEY OWN?! IZ NOT RITE!
# 10 Mr. Fusion said,
#8, Ayatollah1
So the banks should just destroy all these unsold vehicles?
http://tinyurl.com/bbs79x
Actually they should destroy all those vehicles and use the steel to build up war machines to crush our enemies before us.
Now where did I put my Attila the Hun beer mug….
#34, Ayatollah1
Recall former labor Secretary Robert Reich who didn’t want stimulus dollars go to whites…
Would you please cite Reich saying that and second, explain why it is relevant?