I read an article written today that was so bleeding heart liberal it hurt. It is about a town in California, Richmond, that is looking at stealing from banks. In fact the article speaks of how the town is going to use massive loopholes to steal a lot of property owned by banks and then sell it at a cut rate to others. Oh, does that sound illegal? It should be and yet the article is praising the town for its forward thinking.
The issue: The town is facing a housing crisis. Many people live in homes they cannot pay for any longer. The Banks are looking at forclosure as is part of the CONTRACT signed by the home owners and the banks. Not satisfied with obeying the legal contract signed by the borrower of the banks money, the people of this town are crying foul. The town counsel in response is using some pretty slimy legal techniques to threaten the banks.
Side Note: The article has a decidedly negative tone when it speaks of the banks, constantly making it known that these banks are owned by Wall Street. The whole tone of the article is David and Goliath, which is false and a horrible spin. Oh, and as icing on the cake, there are several allusions to the "people of color" here, which mean that one way or another the media will play this out like a racial situation.
Back to my rant: The town is giving the Banks two options. 1: Sell the titles to the town, who will then sell them back to the home owners for a cut rate. 2: If the Banks balk at option 1, the town will utilize eminent domain to steal the property and then sell it to the home owners at a cut rate anyway. The article is written to celebrate the forward thinking of this town, as if the town is saving unsuspecting victims from a monster.
Here is the problem: When you borrow from a bank, you are saying that you will eventually pay back what you borrow, with interest. You know that up front and you are aware of the consequences if you do not pay it back. But, instead of facing the consequences, these people are screaming foul on the banks part. They seem to forget that it is the Banks property, not theirs. Until they make the final payment, the Bank is the legal owner of that house and has every right to throw out anyone who isn't paying his/her bills. No one is stealing anything from the home owners, in fact they are stealing from the bank by not paying their bills and threatening the bank with eminent domain.
But, this article is written to play up the town as genius and forward thinking and the Banks as horrid monsters who want to steal candy from babies.
Sorry, you borrowed it, you owe it back. You sign a contract, heaven forbid that someone hold you to it.
I would be most interested in finding out if any of these residents or town counsel had ever lent anything to anyone. I wonder if they wanted it back?
Take a look for yourself, here is the article in question.