Participants in the latest San Jose Inside Power Poll share Mayor-elect Matt Mahan’s view of homelessness as the issue underlying most of the city’s major problems — from grime and crime, to economic development and the troubled state of downtown.
In an open-ended survey that invited panel members to share their advice with San Jose’s mayor-elect, who takes office next month, respondents returned again and again to the same interconnected concerns:
- Homelessness does not just afflict people who lack housing, but lowers everyone’s standard of living.
- City officials have long been too tolerant when it comes to allowing the homeless to inhabit and befoul public spaces.
- Dysfunctional city planning and permitting offices are a serious impediment to housing construction and have contributed directly to the region’s dire housing shortage.
- San Jose is underpoliced, though respondents vocally disagreed about whether San Jose’s oversight of its officers is excessive or insufficient.
- Homelessness, crime and the pandemic’s economic impact have left downtown San Jose in truly sad shape.
Here are the specific questions in our survey:
Question 1
Matt Mahan emphasized homelessness and housing during his mayoral campaign. How would you like the city to address homelessness? Are city services sufficient? Are officials too indulgent? Is it naïve to hope that large encampments can be eliminated? Should the mayor try to move the needle on housing construction?
Question 2
Public safety was another of Mahan’s top priorities. How should he approach crime and policing? Please provide your thoughts about policies, staffing levels, needed reforms, and related topics.
Question 3
Mahan also stressed government accountability. Are you completely content with city services? Which departments could be easier to interact with? Are certain departments an impediment to economic development? Are there any city offices you can’t bear to visit?
Question 4
What sort of initiatives would you like to see in the realm of economic development? What should the city do for businesses or workers? How could the city assist its neighborhoods? What about downtown?
Question 5
Finally, what other topics would you like the mayor-elect to focus on?
Analysis of Questions 1-5
Although our questions were siloed into distinct buckets, respondents offered a unified field theory of the ailments afflicting San Jose. Consider the following comments:
“The City of San Jose must be compassionate yet firm on the issue of homelessness.”
“Homeless people and their loud advocates have more rights in this city than tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. City has to crack down on vagrants lying on the streets, setting up encampments, and harassing bypassers downtown. Otherwise, the whole city is doomed.”
“Public land is not for people to camp on, defecate on, pee on etc. There are places for homeless people to congregate, receive services etc. On the city’s terms — not the squatters’.”
“It seems like we have little or no pride in our parks. They should be a reflection of our great city, not the eyesore so many have become. They are the country club of the poor — and we should maintain them that way.”
“No. 1. Crime. No. 2. Homeless encampments. No. 3. Rebuilding downtown to a once-thriving community to work and entertain. A magnet as it once was back in the mid 90s.”
Concern for the plight of the homeless united many of our commenters. Respondents want to see sanctioned encampments, more city services and more tiny homes. But a lack of patience regarding the city’s seeming inability to make progress on the issue undergirded the vast majority of comments on the topic.
“The homeless issue is beyond disgusting,” complained one panelist. “It is dangerous. Many of the ‘unhoused’ are crapping in the streets or creeks in San Jose. Parking rules near my shop are being ignored. This means my employees cannot park to come to work. I am a person who has compassion for those down and out, but this is ridiculous.”
Among the ideas championed by panel members were seeking to make homeless encampments drug-free zones, relocating encampments to infrequently used public lands such as the fairgrounds, and building encampments in locations outside the boundaries of “one of the most expensive cities in the world.”
There was widespread agreement that the city should do more to move the needle on housing construction. Suggestions for how to make progress on the issue ranged from building more public housing, to rezoning select neighborhoods, to getting tougher with “West Side housing developers”.
But most fingers were pointed toward the various city departments that regulate development and housing construction. Participants were witheringly critical of city government, echoing Mahan’s campaign emphasis on civic accountability:
“The building department is Byzantine, and not responsive to the needs of citizens and their builders.”
“Planning! The process is way too slow. Permitting also needs to staff up and get out of the way of more housing.”
“The planning, building and permitting departments are a national embarrassment.”
He needs to attack the bureaucracy that impedes hiring. Many positions are open. Planning, Code enforcement, inspections, etc are almost dysfunctional
“There should be no reason to visit any office. Everything could go online. The time to secure permits is ridiculous.”
“Unless city, county, state, and federal governments and agencies can contribute buildable land, cut the red tape, lower fees, and deal with the NIMBYs, the homeless problem will continue to grow.”
“Fire the housing department.”
On the issue of police reform, panelists offered support for reforms such as greater police supervision, more community policing and using counselors and not officers to respond to mental health calls.
“He should embrace the reforms various groups have recommended for the PD, since their record of complaints is soaring,” one panelist advised. “He should pursue civilian support for calls that can be handled without danger, and when those strategies are under way—ideally by next spring—he should budget for more cops next year. The retirements aren't going to stop.”
But others echoed union complaints that police officers are often prohibited from doing their jobs. And even among advocates of reform, the criminal justice issue that united the vast majority of respondents was enlarging the police force.
“SJPD needs closer supervision and priorities,” offered one panelist. “As citizens, we currently cannot rely on the PD to even come out when we call. Beat cops and localized offices with community affairs officers could go a long way. We need more officers and additional training to keep equitable standards and practices.”
“Increase the number of police,” added another respondent. “Do more to follow up on home break-ins. How about actually running the fingerprints when they are on and around stolen property? “Oh, we have a backlog,” shouldn’t be allowed to stand.”
Several participants faulted county officials for not sufficiently cooperating with San Jose police. One wrote, “police woefully understaffed, need higher collaboration with the county on releases and arresting folks.” Another added: “Increase staffing, expand foot patrols in commercial districts, push county to end revolving door at the jail and Valley Med.” Yet a third commenter was pessimistic about such progress: “I don't know how Matt can deal with crime without having a District Attorney's office who will prosecute and incarcerate bad actors.”
As is always the case in any discussion of San Jose, downtown was a focus of many comments. “Downtown is gone,” one participant mourned. “No longer is it a place to visit. And you see it visibly with all the shuttered stores, homeless on the sidewalks and streets. San Jose government is the root cause. Look in the mirror.”
Homelessness and the pandemic took equal blame for downtown’s plight. “Clear the downtown streets of homelessness and economic development will take care of itself,” wrote one panelist. Several others saw the rise of remote work as a key part of downtown’s perceived malaise. “Need to bring employees back to the offices, not having them in the offices is hurting businesses.”
Suggestions for how to bring people back downtown included tax incentives designed to retain area businesses and increased funding for the arts. Yet a few panelists said downtown already receives too much attention at the expense of the city’s small business districts.
When asked to highlight other issues that deserve the new mayor’s attention, panel members offered a wide range of suggestions, from keeping San Pedro Street closed, to preserving the Coyote Valley, to removing trees from the purview of a city transportation department perceived as hostile to them, to helping the city’s beleaguered animal shelter find ways not to euthanize so many abandoned pandemic pets.
San Jose Inside Power Poll is not a scientific poll. Rather, we ask questions of influential people with a wide range of viewpoints to help advance informed dialogue about the city. Power Poll is studiously non-partisan.
Good Article.
I agree with the respondent that said it the Distract Attorneys responsibility to prosecute crimes, and until he chooses to do so it doesn’t really matter what the New Mayor or SJPD do.
Allow SJPD to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Prosecute criminals, and enforce their sentence. That would fix a lot of our problems.
headline says poll
article says power poll – which is the opposite of a poll
that is border line lying by headline
is this a volunteer gig or are ya’ll paid for this?
Just an Observation
Well, assuming that a homeless person is a criminal, without due process of law?
What you are saying is put homeless people in jail, when they haven’t done any crime?
Being homeless is NOT a crime.
And, homelessness will be the top issue when he seeks higher office in 2, 4, or 8 years from now because nobody in gov is willing to acknowledge the real problems. Moreover, all of their “remedies” are not intended to fix the problem — they just feed the homeless/industrial/progressive agendas and wallets.
If you were speaking to me, I said: “Allow SJPD to enforce the laws that are already on the books”. And if the homeless are prosecuted they have the right and the ability to defend themselves, hence they are afforded due process. So I don’t think you are getting it.
You are correct in that Homelessness is not a crime. But urinating and defecating in public are. So is being drunk or high in public. Not to mention possession of stolen property, trespassing, theft, the list goes on.
So I say again, allow the police to enforce the laws that are already on the books and prosecute the violators. If they are found guilty, enforce the full sentence. Do that and most of these problems go away.
Just an Observation,
When homeless people ore forbidden to use public facilities like bathrooms, then you have forced them to do public urination and defecation. Perhaps there should be a law REQUI(RING all public facilities to be prohibited from preventing the homeless to use them. That takes care of that.
However assuming that any person has stolen proerty is violating due process and the assumption of innocence. so you are convicting homeless people based on an assumption that you haven’t got ANY evidence to support.
Trespassing is a vague legal problem, the reason why the homeless is in plain view is they must be on PUBLIC property if we were to assume you correct. Using Trespassing laws contributes to what I already described above. But again you are making allegations and convicting people without any evidence at this time.
The same goes with theft, you are proposing that every homeless person has stolen something right? the facts are you are making allegation without any evidence.
You are in effect convicting ALL homeless people without a trial or any evidence to prove your point. Thuis kind of logic runs very similar to a particular historical group, the Germans in the 1930-40s
Just an Observation,
Ah yes the homeless persons concentration camps, that will be the answer right?
That is what you called mandatory lock up treatment, right?
Looks like the high school debate team is hard at it, parroting Homeless Industrial Complex (and debug’s thugs?) talking points.
.
The Top Problem facing the new mayor will be the Homeless Industrial Complex and its shameless activists & advocates that profit off of the growing vagrancy and transient problem they have fostered as a self-serving business plan.
.
Poor jacko does not understand that the CRIME committed and caused in the community, mostly attributed to unaccountable vagrants and transients, mostly substance addicted and mentally unsound, is a CRIME and to stop it requires enforcement and detention – with reform programs to follow for the ones that wish to rejoin a functioning community.
.
Even LA, after decades of DEM Decay is starting to get fed up with the activists and advocates.
“LA City Council bans homeless encampments near schools, daycares” (Aug 2022)
and
Maybe State Leaders will finally start to get a clue:
“New bill would ban homeless camps near parks, schools across California.” (Dec 07, 2022)
The ban is something local cities, like Los Angeles and Sacramento, have already done.
.
But it is amusing to see how easily the propaganda slogans and name calling takes hold in the simple minded.
“Being homeless is NOT a crime.”
What will be the next nonsense he blather about…?
“Eat the Rich”
or
“Free Willy”
Just an Observation,
Again, conviction without evidence claiming “Poor jacko does not understand that the CRIME committed and caused in the community, mostly attributed to unaccountable vagrants and transients, mostly substance addicted and mentally unsound, is a CRIME and to stop it requires enforcement and detention – with reform programs to follow for the ones that wish to rejoin a functioning community.”
And now we are invoking the “Homeless Industrial Complex”?
Still no real evidence presented. Just personal attacks against others by ANONYMOUS posters.
And when addressed directly the response is to continue whataboutism again defined as:
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.
The communication intent here is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism, the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy.
We need to stick to the subject, and stop posting things that wind up looking crazy.
Just another MAGA strategy
Sorry, didn’t realize I was “feeding the bears”. Won’t do that again.
Just an Observation,
Someone here reminds me of the saying:
“CAUTION: BE SURE BRAIN IS IN GEAR BEFORE ENGAGING MOUTH”
All I am doing is demonstrating the false conclusions and asking appropriate on topic questions. Will anyone actually admit their opinions were inappropriate? It just seems that instead they try to change subjects. And resort to personal attacks.
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” ― Henry David Thoreau, Walden, or Life in the Woods
.
The above sounds like branch hacking. Clearly, one of the root causes for the unhoused is the price of housing. That is being inflated by investors on Wall Street and abroad. Put a heavy tax on investor owners, and the price of housing will drop along with their demand.
.
“Wall Street’s Barons are Causing Homelessness: Can We Stop Them?
We’re seeing tent cities & massive homelessness in cities across America because a handful of Wall Street billionaires want to make a killing: Will America remove housing from their clutches?” by Thom Hartmann, https://hartmannreport.com/p/wall-streets-barrons-are-causing
Just an Observation,
The Stop Wall Street Landlord Act is currently under consideration. If the Dem House can get it passed, the Dem senate might let it go to.
Then one major source of PRICE FIXING in housing can be damaged. That will fix a lot of problems.
Steven, why did you change your name?
Just an Observation,
Richmond just arranged a 1 year plan to pay for homelss people.
https://abc7news.com/richmond-mayor-tom-butt-homeless-housing-rent-program/12546771/
“RICHMOND, Calif. (KGO) — The mayor of Richmond is asking for landlords to open their properties to house homeless individuals. He is willing to pay one-year of rent upfront.
For Brianni Peters, there’s only one wish this Christmas – a home.
“This is my home for now. It’s got me through the rough times this year. It isn’t much, but it has been home. It had kept me out of the cold. I paid $300 bucks for it,” said Brianni Peters while she pointed to her RV.
For the first time in her life, Brianni and her 14-year-old daughter became homeless. They’ve lived in an RV for almost a year.”
Looks like a REAL plan, time to give people a chance to get their life on track. Al you people do is criticize them, not give them a chance to become constructive.
Stop changing the subject and give us better choices!!!!
I thought that was him! Do you remember all the BS he would spout about posting under his real name :) Hahahaha!
Just an Observation,
Remember online harassments is also against the law.
Stick to the subject, do you have any better options? Probably not.
Give us a better solution, please?
Just a Real Observation,
.
Back in May 2022 he started doxing his landlord (and inadvertently himself) over a porch railing and not able to (or wanting to) pay his rent.
His doxing and grossly “off-subject”comments were being deleted daily,
finally, it got so bad, his “old persona” was completely wiped from the site by the moderators.
.
Just an Opinion and Observation,
.
It seems that while he has a new online “persona” his narcissistic insecurities remain without regard for his lack of self-awareness.
.
Just an Observation,
Does anyone here want to talk about the homeless problem? Is this place just becoming nothing but a MOB attacking anyone that tries to stay on the subject?
This is simply demonstrating that these people have nothing to offer to discuss. Too bad.
Jafo, In my time over here in The Philippines I’ve noticed the pronounced absence of voices that encourage people to wallow in self pity as compared to in my home in San Jose, even though people here have infinitely more reason to do so. Instead, though incredibly poor, these people thrive and revel in their own resourcefulness and take great joy in life and it’s challenges and they are happy. They choose to be happy. They don’t look to anyone else, including their government for their happiness.
What you fail to consider, Jafo, is that just because you and your fellow ideologues have unanimously chosen “homelessness” as the defining issue of our times and insist that everyone must view the world from your perspective, doesn’t make it so and in fact the whining and discontent expressed by the left has resulted in millions of people being dissatisfied with their lives when they otherwise would have made the choice to be happy.
Thanks a lot. Nice going. Be proud.
Just an Observation,
WOW, now we have a person “encouraging” more homelessness by making is a “honorable” pursuit?
You are singing the tune “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”. But you know that these people are mistreated, and miserable. I know personally because I volunteered to provide services for them for years. San Jose Inside should investigate Sacred Heart services, and interview the homeless that are served there.
This mentality is amazing, instead of trying to improve the problem John unrealistically tries to “normalize” it.
Choose to give responsibility for your life to “society” or take responsibility for your own life.
Seems like you prefer the coward’s way Jafo.
Just an Observation,
John, personal attacks and blanket convictions of others with no evidence is simply not going to work anymore. MAGA idealism is based on not addressing questions, but trying to get people angry and insult anyone that does not agree with you. Result Jan 6.
You are only ranting, you are not having any constructive conversation, by the way you should be reading the other article titled “More Housing, Fewer Prisons: California Outlines Game Plan”
The only real facts are:
Yes it is a creul society, because most safety nets are underfunded by extreme conservatives. Without the funding that was promised by so much so called compassionate conservatives. For example Section 8 housing was promised funding for building affordable homes by the Reagan Admin., but that was cut. Funding for mental health treatment was also cut by the so called compassionate conservatives. They cut funding so that inpatient facilities were closed. Medical research funds are cut, remember AIDS, again by the Reagan Admin. The reality is that BOTH the conservatives and the so called liberals fail to do the job.
Because they both are not going to work together on anything, thus it is a total failure.
You still haven’t provided an actual solution, just bits and pieces regarding the total problem. WHERE IS THE GOOD TOTAL PACKAGE?
Just an Observation,
John, personal attacks and blanket convictions of others with no evidence is simply not going to work anymore. MAGA idealism is based on not addressing questions, but trying to get people angry and insult anyone that does not agree with you. Result Jan 6.
You are only ranting, you are not having any constructive conversation,
Yes it is a creul society, because most safety nets are underfunded by extreme conservatives. Without the funding that was promised by so much so called compassionate conservatives. For example Section 8 housing was promised funding for building affordable homes by the Reagan Admin., but that was cut. Funding for mental health treatment was also cut by the so called compassionate conservatives. They cut funding so that inpatient facilities were closed. Medical research funds are cut, remember AIDS, again by the Reagan Admin. The reality is that BOTH the conservatives and the so called liberals fail to do the job.
You still haven’t provided an actual solution, just bits and pieces regarding the total problem. WHERE IS THE GOOD TOTAL PACKAGE?
Some men you just can’t reach.
Just an Observation,
John, you have nothing to offer, other than insults. Again nothing but a nothing MAGA Burger
But given your name is from an Ayn Rand fictional character, no wonder. The simple facts are compassionate conservatives made false promises.
These are FACTS and not fiction.
Ayn Rand was known to be a compulsive liar, had no ethics at all, and even used sex to manipulate people.
Just an Observation,
Ayn Rand and the Atlas Society advocates this (https://www.atlassociety.org/post/when-lying-is-a-good-thing-you-cant-handle-the-truth) States:
“Generally, honesty is a good thing. Everyone says so, but Objectivists—HAVING A NEW MORAL CODE to explain, defend, and apply—have to come up with convincing new reasons to defend honesty, reasons based on self-interest. The Objectivist position has to cover four different kinds of cases: FRAUD PERPETRATED ON OTHERS FOR GAIN, DISHONESTY TOWARD ONESELF, DISHONESTY TO DEFEAT THE BAD GUYS, AND DISHONESTY TOWARD OTHERS FOR THEIR OWN GOOD.”
So, John, can you defend this? The simple fact is that MANY promises for funding affordable housing was cut and eliminated during the 1980s and90s by the Republican lead or blocked Senates of funds under the filibuster rules. So, you wonder why more affordable housing is not present?
The price of housing is a function of supply and demand. We obsess about the supply side while ignoring the demand side. Failing to enforce immigration laws and actively encouraging illegal immigration has caused our population to balloon and is a primary cause of high housing demand and th consequent high house prices.
Just an observation,
Aren’t you even keeping track regarding housing prices in the area you should read “Housing prices drop across the Bay Area on the KRON website
“SAN JOSE, Calif. (KRON) – Housing prices are on the decline in the Bay Area, but what does that mean as far as buying a home?
According to Zillow, houses sold in San Francisco dropped 35 percent from this time last year. The City of San Jose also saw a drop of 35 percent.”
Zillow is actually a skewed resource because it makes money from real estate, which means they are getting data from PREFERRED resources and NOT A MARKET ANALYSIS.
Sales have dropped more than35% in 2022, DEMAND is crashing because of the loss of 340,000 tech jobs. The higher priced housing IS NOT a target for the scapegoated population you just referenced. And the reality that rents are back to 2016 levels when cumulative inflation up to 2022 is 24% means that the landlords are losing 24% of gross rent.
What we are going to see in 2023 is a FIRE SALE and LIQUIDATION of much of the housing in this area with LARGE LOSSES by the sellers.
There are going to be a lot of properties abandoned, not maintained, and eventually destroyed by the so called PRIVATE HOUSING EXPERTS. Unless the public arranges emanate domain based on the corrected property values, and NOT the manipulated opinions of real estate appraisers that inflate them. The they can be allocated to lower income workers, increasing supply without having to build a single unit.
The original owners are going to lose their shirts, construction and developers are already pulling projects and stopping work to violate the Cartwright Ant-Trust Law of CA by fixing prices, via intentional lack of supply.
Seems like the scenario you predict supports the idea that our frenzy to build build build is misguided. Why should we be building more affordable housing if the housing bubble is about to burst which will naturally create affordable housing? I don’t get your logic.
Just an Observation,
Your logic makes no sense, because you are saying that building ONLY luxury housing makes housing affordable. You are trying to make it so the only gas sold in the state is 93 Octane at 93 Octane priced. When all the cars work fine with 87 or 89 octane gas. That is what developers have done in the state since the 1980s. Which is a violation of the Cartwright Act because it FIXES prices.
Since no one can afford the 93 Octane gas, it goes unsold, and people can’t drive. Which means they can’t hold jobs and spend money on anything else.
But that reality escapes so many developers and real estate investors in CA, and the sugar rush regarding that market model is imploding. The reality is that all gas stations must off 87, 89, and 91 octane on response to DEMAND of the market. Because to do otherwise is a PRICE FIXING scheme.
I*n any event, Your approach to say, don’t build if the current stock will be price cut is the same thing. You are trying to avoid what should have been done since the 1980s and especially after passage of the Costa Hawkins Act. That act was a blatant false promise and initiated the Cartwright Act problem in housing
There was a substantial decline in house prices from 2008 to 2014. Was this decline taken advantage of by the population we’re so obsessed with helping now? No. On the contrary many of them had actually managed to get a loan and get into a house but then defaulted on their mortgage not because they couldn’t make the payments but because they didn’t like the idea of making payments on a loan that was underwater. Many of them could have held on but greed came into play and they walked away. Now here we are, once again wringing our hands wondering what we need to do to help these poor “unfortunates”.
If your predictions about housing prices are correct- and they might well be- then once again an opportunity will be there for many who can not now afford to break into home ownership. But I doubt they’ll take advantage of it. The herd mentality will hold them back and instead it’ll be shrewd investors and speculators who swoop in and get all the fire sale properties.
Just an Observation,
John, you should watch “Inside Job” and “The Big Short”, they both do a great job at pointing out that appraisers were bribed to inflate costs. Investment analysts were PAID to give better ratings than what the real MBS system was. The fact that many “mortgage brokers” steered (conned) people into mortgages they should never were offered because they were DESIGNED to fail. They all did ARM instead of traditional ones because the traditional ones were STABLE and the mortgage underwriters bribed the brokers. This was called “predatory lending”
Finally, the mortgage underwriters had as many as 10 insurance policies on a single mortgage upon default, which meant that they walked away with 10 times the value of the property once it was defaulted and foreclosed. This was a DESIGNED failure. AIG was the majority insurer and they were bailed out.
It was NOT GREED because they all lost huge sums of money as a result. They were FORCED out.
Just like Steve Eisman was warning for years, (Mike Baum in The Big Short), The FRAUD of combining c and d rated mortgages to a minority of AAA rated Mortgages with the rating groups with a conflict of interest FRAUDULENTLY rating them as AAA. This was the ROOT of the 2008 crash. And again it was based on INFLATED appraisal on properties that were NOT WORTH the prices they conned people to buy into.
You should read the book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short, “The Big Short”
We are NOT going to let this happen a second time, NO BAIL OUTS and with the chronic high interest rates unlike 2008, there will be no “investment” opportunities
I have heard Michael Lewis interviewed though I’ve not read The Big Short. I may yet but I doubt I’ll be persuaded. He’s a sharp guy and he rightly condemned the CDC in a subsequent book about Covid. I’m sorry but I just can’t get past this notion of “predatory lending”. The term itself is emblematic of the idea that individuals shouldn’t be held responsible for their own decisions. If you really insist on excusing individuals for their choices and scapegoating an institution instead then don’t stop with the lending industry. Take it one step further and blame the U.S. government for buying mortgages in bulk off the lenders thus enabling even encouraging banks to make bad loans. Our lawmakers- mostly liberal ones- wrote laws designed to get poor people into home ownership but failed to understand that in doing so they were creating an environment in which it made sound business sense for banks to make lots of loans. To anybody.
Just an Observation,
Wait, you cannot get passed the term “predatory lending”? It is a legal term you know and recognized by the following definition:
“The Bottom Line
Predatory lending is any lending practice that imposes unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers, including high-interest rates, high fees, and terms that strip the borrower of equity. Predatory lenders often USE AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS AND DECEPTION TO GET BORROWERS TO TAKE OUT LOANS THEY CAN’T AFFORD. And in many cases, predatory lenders have targeted vulnerable populations.”
It has been illegal ever since Federal laws protect consumers against predatory lenders. Chief among them is the EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT (ECOA). This law makes it illegal for a lender to impose a higher interest rate or higher fees based on a person’s race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status or national origin.
The HOME OWNERSHIP AND EQUITY PROTECTION ACT (HOEPA) protects consumers from excessive fees and interest rates. Loans that are considered “high cost” are subject to additional disclosure requirements and restrictions.
In addition, 25 states have anti-predatory lending laws, and 35 states limit the maximum prepayment penalty that a homeowner is required to pay.
You cannot argue a person can be held responsible if they were a victim of an illegal contract. Simply put a contract that violates any legal standard is unenforceable. That was why as you put it, the first wave of the Real Estate Bubble Version 1 was solved the way it was. But THIS time the Real Estate Bubble version 2, that solution will not be sold. Because the “market” is still too corrupted to stop violating the laws.
It’s funny how our Government stands tall against excessive late payment penalties but try paying your property tax a day late and you’ll REALLY know what usury feels like!
Anyway these fair lending practices laws, while protecting a certain class of people , have also had the effect of shutting others out of home ownership who didn’t technically qualify but had the resourcefulness, integrity, and determination to have made it work. In fact I probably wouldn’t have been able to buy my house had those same laws been in place at that time.
Everyone seems to resent the evil all cash buyers but in reality that’s what these laws have narrowed it down to.
Just an Observation,
John, everyone knows when they must pay their taxes, that has nothing to do with the real estate markets. When one purchases a property they explicitly consent to paying property taxes based on the price of purchase. This attempt to change the subject again.
No laws are not preventing anyone who is “qualified” to have a just loan to purchase. If the history of predatory lending didn’t exist, the laws would not be there. So if you have to argue about anything, the MARKET promoted practices, and the MARKET is responsible for the required legal protections.
You “probably” would not be able to buy is not evidence, it is just your opinion.
You still haven’t explained what justification there was to have mortgage banks and lenders design loan failures to collect the multiple default insurance policies on the same property. You haven’t provided any basis to say it was NOT the cause of the pattern that we are in today again.