abandoned dreams by julie dant

by Bill Fletcher, Jr.,

It is one thing to notice that a house under construction has been abandoned by the contractor who was to be building it.  That happened in my neighborhood (and actually many other neighborhoods) more than a year ago, making it very clear that something was going wrong in the economy.  It is another thing to notice that a house has been abandoned by the people who were living there.

My wife and I were on our morning walk the other week.  I suddenly did a double take after noticing that a house that usually had several cars sitting in front of it looked, somehow, different.  I stopped and took a closer look.  Not only were the cars gone but so were the people.

How do you know when a house has been abandoned?  How do you know that it was just not sold…suddenly?  Perhaps it is that the blinds are not completely closed.  Perhaps it is that you can see that things were not pulled together, as if the residents exited quickly.  Perhaps it is that the sense of love that people often bring to their homes is absent.  I am not sure, but it was obvious that the house had been abandoned.

This was not the first house in my area to be abandoned.  Several years ago before the collapse of the housing bubble a family living directly behind my house suddenly vacated their home.  I found out some of the details a few months later when a realtor was selling the house.  The family had simply moved out, stopped making payments, and for all intents and purposes, disappeared.  Since that time houses in my neighborhood have gone on the market, sitting there with their “For Sale” signs for months before being sold, if they were sold at all.

But then there is this abandoned house on the nearby block.

We do not know much about the family that lived there.  The woman of the house was a nurse, we know that.  There were several people living there.  We are not sure where they were from, perhaps African immigrants, we could not tell.  They were not particularly friendly, keeping to themselves, barely acknowledging us when we would walk by.

Now they are gone, and their disappearance is a reminder that there is no area in this country that is immune from the blight of home foreclosures.  Why individual families have lost their homes depends on particular circumstances.  Why millions of people have lost their homes has to do with the schemes conducted by banks and lending institutions to force misleading loans on families that wanted to be part of the “American Dream.”  In a country that does such a pitiful job at economic education, few everyday people really “got” that the housing bubble could not last and that accepting a variable rate mortgage (regardless of what it was called) was a terrible deal, one that ran contrary to the actual interests of workers in a capitalist system.

Nevertheless, millions were sold a bill of goods, along with their variable rate mortgages, whether subprime or prime.  Money that financial institutions could not figure out what to do with was lent out in curious ways to people who simply wanted a piece of the rock.  Most of these individuals and families are hardworking people who had and have every intention of paying their loans back.  But the reality of an economic environment in which the declining living standard for the average working person caught up with them, almost like a plague out of a science fiction novel, became overwhelming.

So, the house in my neighborhood is abandoned.  The family is gone.  Have they joined the ranks of the increasing numbers of homeless families or did they find a place somewhere to live?  I will probably never know the answer.  What I do know is that unless something is done and the lending institutions are compelled to renegotiate loans and provide relief for working people who simply seek a place to live, the house in my neighborhood will not be the last to be abandoned.

BlackCommentator.com Executive Editor, Bill Fletcher, Jr., is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum and co-author of, Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path toward Social Justice  (University of California Press), which examines the crisis of organized labor in the USA. Click here to contact Mr. Fletcher.

Fuente: Black Commentator
Study Follows the Money on Cram-Down Vote

by Matt Renner
June 10, 2009

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana). Baucus was one of 12 Democrats to vote against cram-down provisions. (Photo: AP)

A new analysis from a government watchdog group shows senators who killed off a consumer-friendly change in law aimed at addressing the foreclosure crisis received more money in campaign contributions from the industries their vote aided.

Senators who voted against the consumer-friendly amendment received $3.98 million from the financial industry during the 2008 election cycle, while proponents of the bill received $2.65 million.

The amendment in question would have allowed bankruptcy judges to adjust or “cram down” the amount of money borrowers owed their lenders on their primary home in order to avoid foreclosure.
Banking and finance special interests fought hard against the provision, arguing that the ability to adjust these mortgages would make mortgage lending much more risky and expensive, increasing the difficulty of getting a loan in the first place, and increasing the cost to borrowers.
Consumer advocate groups who have long favored this reform pointed out that this type of mortgage adjustment is already available for vacation homes, yachts and almost every other type of loan.
Legislation allowing judges to adjust first mortgages would have saved up to 1.7 million homes from foreclosure, according to the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), a nonprofit consumer-protection organization. An estimate by CRL predicts an astounding 2.9 million foreclosure starts in 2009, and an estimated 9 million foreclosures by 2012. Foreclosures breed more foreclosures by decreasing the property values of entire neighborhoods. The total devaluation caused by this foreclosure spiral could total $1.9 trillion, according to the CRL projections.
An analysis by the citizen advocacy group Common Cause shows that the Republican and Democratic senators who voted against the amendment had received more money in campaign contributions from the banking industry than those who voted in favor of the amendment.
“Until we change the way we pay for Congressional campaigns, average homeowners will be helpless when up against the power of the banking industry and its millions of dollars spent on campaign contributions and lobbying,” said Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause.
The amendment was opposed by every Republican in the Senate except for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) who did not vote. According to the Common Cause analysis, these members received an average of $77,150 from mortgage bankers and brokers, commercial banks, and finance and credit companies during the 2008 election cycle.
But these 39 Republicans needed Democratic help to kill the bill. And they got it.
The 12 Democratic senators who crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans were Max Baucus (Montana), Michael Bennet (Colorado), Robert Byrd (West Virginia), Thomas Carper (Delaware), Byron Dorgan (North Dakota), Tim Johnson (South Dakota), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania) and Jon Tester (Montana).
These Democrats received more money from the financial industry than their Republican counterparts did, averaging $81,256 during the 2008 election cycle.
Democrats who voted in favor of the amendment received an average of $58,894 in the same time period.
These averages leave out some notable figures who received large contributions.
An opponent of the amendment, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana), received $207,430 in 2008 from these financial industry sources. As the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus remains a key player in legislation targeted at the financial industry. As chairman, he holds sway over the consideration of bills aimed at reregulating the financial sector in the wake of the financial collapse. Senator Baucus has come under fire from progressive forces for his recent attempts to prevent consideration of a public health care plan.
The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd (D- Connecticut), topped the list, raking in $912,744. Senator Dodd defied the trend and voted for the provision despite the cash coming his way. Dodd faces a tough 2010 reelection fight in part because of his perceived ties with the financial industry.
Senate leadership received handsome gifts, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) receiving $208,650 and $343,700 respectively. Reid voted in favor of the amendment, while McConnell voted against it.
Many of the Democrats who sided with the financial industry in the “cram-down” vote were instrumental in blocking a proposed 15 percent cap on interest rates that credit card companies can charge. Senators Baucus, Byrd, Carper, Johnson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Specter and Tester joined with Senators Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Evan Bayh (D- Indiana), Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), Kay Hagan (D-North Carolina), Ted Kaufman (D-Delaware), Patty Murray (D-Washington), Bill Nelson (D-Florida), Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas), Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire), Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) and Mark Warner (D-Virginia), in opposition to the anti-usury bill sponsored by Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Many of these Democrats are members of the self-proclaimed moderate caucus in the Senate.
The sponsor of the “cram-down” amendment, Sen. Dick Durbin (D- Illinois), had harsh words for his colleagues after the defeat.
“And the banks – hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created – are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place,” Durbin said.
Durbin received $175,050 in the 2008 election cycle from the financial industry.

Matt Renner is an editor and Washington reporter for Truthout. He can be reached at Matt@truthout.org.
Fuente: t r u t h o u t

on the streets of providence

por eric french monge
23 de marzo 2009

John (?)

Morton street, providence. the man in front of us lets us in as two little dogs bark in the background. there was some vomit on the floor near the entrance. one of his dogs is probably sick. he loves his dogs too much, as if they were more human than most people he has met. looks like he has seen a lot. he tells me he has a heart condition. his son commited suicide last year. it has not been easy. there is some sadness in face, but mostly resignation.

he and his wife live off of disabilities and pensions checks.
john has been foreclosed before, used to live two blocks away in the same street. and he is facing foreclosure once more, and the landlord didn’t tell him. though he was not surprised. it has happened before. the place is not well kept. it is run down and falling apart. it smells like cigars, from when he used to smoke. it is not the best place, but there is no other place.
he seems glad that someone has stopped by to say hello even if it was to tell him that he might lose his home. but it might be because he sees that people are willing to stand up for him. he is glad that someone stopped by not just for bad news, but for good ones. he still can count on people to have some humanity.

maria perez
never met her. dominican? probably. first thing i heard about her is that she died. she was going to be part of the organizing group to let tenants who face foreclosure know about their rights so they could build a network of people that the banks cannot bully around. to build power in numbers, since the number of foreclosed people is so high.
everyone talked about maria’s energy. her passion. she wanted people to come together for a common purpose, whatever their purpose would be. anyone who heard her was convinced: “she’s right, we have to do something.”
maria went for a medical checkup the week before she was going to start her new job. she hadn’t gone for years because she had no health insurance. and if you don’t feel bad, why go to the doctor? so she felt bad, and she went to the doctor. there they told her she had cancer, and it was terminal. she died two days later.

jose y maria gonzalez
jose cannot walk long distances. he made us come up because he couldn’t come down. someone called maria at that moment, but she couldn’t understand a word. she passed the phone to translate. it was the ginecologist office, and she needed to go make an appointment for her regular checkup.
jose and maria, like jesus’ puerto rican parents.
they didn’t know that their house faced foreclosure. but then again, they had never met the owner of the house. they met his assistant. the assistant collected rent for many houses in the block said to belong to the same owner. but no one had ever met the owner. just his assistant. they decided it could be some type of fraud, and they were still paying even though they faced the risk of eviction. but they were going to stop paying and talk to their guatemalan neighbor downstairs to do the same, though their neighbor couldn’t speak spanish. nor english. she was indigenous from guatemala. she came to suffer from one nation to the next. yet she still has neighbors in her same conditions.

6,000 tenants evicted in R.I. in ’08

Jose Gonzalez, speaking at Tuesday’s news conference, says he, his wife and their young child are about to be evicted for the second time since last year. (The Providence Journal / Frieda Squires)

By Paul Davis
June 10, 2009

PROVIDENCE — Jose Gonzalez sleeps on a mattress in his living room under a faded picture of Jesus.

Last year, a bank foreclosed on his landlord’s Providence apartment building. This year, the out-of-work landscaper, his wife, and the couple’s 9-year-old daughter moved into a second-floor apartment at 77 Waldo St., near a scrap metal yard and a sidewalk with broken glass.

He now faces a second eviction, because his new landlord defaulted on a loan.

“I am 53 and I cannot walk so much” because of a bad heart, Gonzalez said at a news conference held by advocates behind the Waldo Street apartment building Tuesday.

Gonzalez, who pays $500 a month in rent, said he was offered $1,000 to move. He declined it. “Where will we live? In a trailer or under a bridge? I cannot live like that.”

He’s not alone.

Last year, banks and other lenders displaced nearly 6,000 Rhode Islanders through 2,338 court-recorded evictions. All were tied to foreclosures.

Rhode Island Legal Services released the figures in a 30-page report, “Moving Out Rhode Island — An Analysis of 2008 Foreclosure Related Evictions.”

Although the numbers are high, they don’t tell the full story. That’s because the report tracks only District Court evictions. Some actions never involve the courts.

“The foreclosure crisis is out of control,” said Jared Rhodes, director of the West Elmwood Housing Development Corporation. “Families are losing homes. Children are being taken out of schools.”

The eviction numbers also raise questions about whether lenders are following federal fair housing laws, said Steve Fischbach, a lawyer and author of the report.

About half of all foreclosure-related evictions involved properties in areas where the minority population was greater than 50 percent, he said. Latino households accounted for 31 percent of all households evicted by lenders.

“That’s a huge number,” said Fischbach. “This crisis disproportionately affects people of color,” he said, adding that if the practice violates housing laws “it should be stopped.”

Deutsche Bank filed the most evictions –– 460, or 20 percent. Deutsche was followed by U.S. Bank, with 382 evictions, and Wells Fargo Bank, with 262 evictions.

Two lenders, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, no longer evict tenants caught up in foreclosures, Fischbach said. Other lenders should follow suit, he said.

Cranston tenant Ayda Rivera blamed the banks for the problem.

Under the Clinton administration “the dream of every Hispanic was to own a house, and the banks began lending money,” said Rivera, a member of the RI Bank Tenants & Homeowners Association.

But then banks became reckless. They made $200,000 home loans to families making $200 a week, she said. “The banks played with the dream every family has.”

Tenants in the urban areas have been hardest hit.

Nearly half of last year’s evictions in the state occurred in Providence. Another third occurred in just five cities: Central Falls, Cranston, Pawtucket, Warwick and Woonsocket.

Tenant Ben Kaplan called for stronger laws to protect tenants. His girlfriend, Kim Nusco, moved in with him after she lost an apartment through foreclosure. Then, last Thanksgiving, Kaplan was told he had to move out of his Richter Street apartment a few days after Christmas.

“I had lived in this apartment for five years, paid my rent on time … kept it clean always and even did my own repairs,” said Kaplan.

“None of this mattered to U.S. Bank and its lawyers,” he said. “To them we were just an obstacle to business.”

Tenants received some help in May, when Congress passed a law that protects tenants whose landlords fall into foreclosure. Under the law, tenants can remain in their foreclosed rentals through the end of their leases. Renters without leases can stay 90 days before they must move.

But even with the new law, an eviction notice is still an order to move, said Tiffinay Emery, a lawyer with Rhode Island Legal Services. “While the federal law is helpful, it’s still not enough.”

New figures aren’t encouraging.

According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the rate of mortgage foreclosures in Rhode Island rose slightly in the first quarter of 2009, to 3.83 percent.

Rhode Island Legal Services, which provides free eviction advice, sees as many as 15 tenants a week, Emery said.

“When I see all these numbers I see a financial cancer,” Rep. Joseph Almeida, D-Providence, said at Tuesday’s conference. “It’s killing our neighborhoods.”Forced to Move

Evictions in 2008: 2,338

Providence evictions: 1,166

Displaced tenants: 5,887

Source: Rhode Island Legal Services

Fuente: The Providence Journal

Even renters who are paid up are getting kicked out

Ayda Rivera (right) was almost evicted, even though she has paid her rent on time. (Melanie Stetson Freeman/The Christian Science Monitor)

Some 40 percent of foreclosure-related evictions involve renters. Congress and 13 states weigh giving them greater protection.

By Bridget Huber
March 24, 2009

Providence, R.I.

Judith Watler is a landlord’s dream. She’s lived in Mattapan, a blue-collar Boston neighborhood, her entire life. She’s worked for the same healthcare company for 20 years. Her family rented their last apartment for 15 years until May, when they moved into a duplex blocks from the church where the Watlers married and their children were baptized.

But last fall, Mrs. Watler’s landlord defaulted on his mortgage and Deutsche Bank foreclosed on the building. Now, the bank wants her family out.

Nationwide, as many as 40 percent of families facing foreclosure-related evictions are renters, and stories like Watler’s are drawing fresh attention. Congress and 13 states are considering laws to protect responsible renters and prevent communities from the blight of abandoned buildings that are stripped even of their copper fittings by scavengers, driving down property values.

Earlier this month, Rep. Keith Ellison (D) of Minnesota introduced new legislation that would give tenants who rent on a month-to-month basis 90 days notice after a foreclosure before they have to leave their homes.

Likewise, Rhode Island and Nevada are considering laws that would give tenants more notice when their buildings enter foreclosure. Massachusetts and Connecticut are considering going further with so-called “just cause” eviction laws that allow tenants in good standing to stay in their foreclosed rental homes until they are sold at auction.

The problem is particularly acute in the Northeast, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. By their estimates more than 50 percent of foreclosure-related evictions in some Northeastern cities involve renters.

‘No copper left’

The result is most apparent in neighborhoods like Mattapan. Drug users now hang out in vacant buildings, and crime is rising. Watler says she worries when her kids walk even the short distance to the bus stop. “The longer these houses are empty, the more trouble it’s going to create,” she says.

The scene is similar in the west end of Providence, R.I. The streets of the predominantly minority neighborhood are studded with deserted and derelict buildings. Many have been on the market for more than a year. Some are intact, but most have broken windows and yards full of garbage and debris. One has a message written on its boarded-over door for would-be scavengers: “no copper left.”

A few blocks away at La Execelencia restaurant, employee Gracia Bello says business is way down. “It used to be full. Now there’s nobody,” she says, standing over a hot line of Dominican stews. On good days, the restaurant did about $700 a day in business, now it’s down to $150 a day, she adds.

Mabel Cabrera is one of the renters who might be forced to leave town. She’s facing eviction for the second time in two years – both times because banks foreclosed on her landlords. For several months after the first eviction, she and her three daughters shared a single rented room. Now in a larger apartment, that building has also entered foreclosure.

In mid-January, lawyers from HSBC Bank notified Ms. Cabrera that she had had 11 days to vacate the apartment.

As is often the case in such situations, the bank offered her “cash for keys”: $600 for leaving the apartment. But that won’t cover her moving costs, let alone the first month’s rent and security deposit for a new apartment, Cabrera says. In Providence, a typical two-bedroom apartment can cost $1,000 a month.

With the rest of her family in the Dominican Republic and her work hours at a cleaning company recently cut, Cabrera says she and her family will move to a homeless shelter if she is evicted.

To fight her eviction, Cabrera is working with the Rhode Island Bank Tenant Association and has written a letter to lawyers from HSBC Bank stating that she wants to remain in the apartment and pay rent. But the bank has not changed its policy, and Cabrera says a constable could come at any time and put her family’s belongings on the curb.

As her 13-year-old daughter does her homework at a desk surrounded by boxes and bags of the family’s possessions, Cabrera says, “The kids don’t understand. It’s so difficult to say to them, ‘We don’t have a house, but we have each other.’ ”

For her part, renter Watler does not understand the banks’ stance. “It just doesn’t make sense to me,” she says. “Why would [lenders] want these houses to just be abandoned?”

The answer is that evicting tenants is banks’ “default option,” says Alan Mallach of the Brookings Institution. But he, too, questions the wisdom of such a policy: “Not only in the sense that it’s bad for the community and the tenants. But it’s not in the lender’s best interest.”

How to stop the spiral

In New Haven, Conn., property values have declined by 50 to 90 percent in the neighborhoods hardest hit by foreclosure, says Amy Marx, a staff attorney with New Haven Legal Assistance, which works with many tenants of bank-owned buildings. She suggests that the best way to stop the downward spiral of property values is to let renters stay in their homes.

But lenders see vacating the buildings as a necessary step in getting the properties fixed up and resold, says Rick Simon, a spokesman for Bank of America. “We believe it’s better for the community to have the property prepared for resale as soon as possible,” he says. “It’s generally more effective to market a property that is vacant than one occupied by a tenant.”

Bank of America typically gives renters $2,000 in its cash-for-keys offers and gives them 60 days to vacate the premises before starting eviction proceedings, says Mr. Simon. He says the time frame gives tenants enough time to make new housing arrangements but also respects lenders’ desire to get the property on the market as soon as possible.

But these rules have drawn criticism from a number of community groups in Boston, including City Life/Vida Urbana. The group wants Bank of America to follow in the footsteps of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which in recent months announced new policies that let tenants stay in their homes until the dwellings are sold at foreclosure.

Since the policies apply only to tenants of buildings owned by the two banks, their impact will be limited, but some housing advocates hope the policies will be a model for other lenders.

“Fannie and Freddie have shown us that it can be done,” says Ms. Marx. Her organization has asked eight of the nation’s largest mortgage lenders to enact similar policies. Their response, says Marx, has been consistent: The banks say they aren’t responsible for setting eviction policy; that responsibility lies with the mortgage-servicers who act on behalf of the investors who have bought the loans from the bank. “We view it as the bank’s responsibility to oversee the situation, and to be engaging in discussions with tenants and their legal advocates,” Marx says.

Seeking compromise

But there are signs of change. Community groups like City Life are raising awareness among renters. Weekly meetings of its bank tenants association draw more than 60 renters and former homeowners living in properties that are now bank-owned. Many of them meet with volunteer lawyers afterward.

City Life also canvasses neighborhoods to inform renters whose buildings have entered foreclosure. When negotiations with banks stall, the group stages eviction blockades, physically blocking constables from entering homes. Other bank tenants associations, modeled after City Life’s group, have recently formed in other Massachusetts cities and Rhode Island.

With more homes entering foreclosure as unemployment rises, the time for action is now, says Brenda Clement, executive director of the Housing Action Coalition of Rhode Island. Though most banks haven’t changed policies and legislative battles are ongoing, tenants are learning their rights and banks are showing more willingness to negotiate, she says.

“Last year, they wouldn’t even talk to me, but their whole world has changed so dramatically,” she adds. “Now, there’s a lot more willingness, at least to discuss, though we haven’t gotten a final resolution.”

Ayda Rivera of Providence is hopeful. Freddie Mac recently foreclosed on the single-family house she rents. But she and her lawyers are negotiating with the company to try to work out a rent-to-own arrangement. Renters in her community are “afraid, nervous, and panicking,” but she says there must be a solution.

“There are so many in this situation,” she says. “The government can’t just let all of us get thrown in the street.”

Fuente: The Christian Science Monitor