"Housing plan leaves out those in the most battered housing markets"

[Bluebear]

Why?

=====

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration's housing plan is intended to help 9 million struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure, but it leaves out tens of thousands of borrowers in the most battered housing markets who won't qualify because their homes have lost too much value.

The program detailed Wednesday offers refinanced mortgages or modified loans with lower monthly payments. Yet its refinancing plan is limited to borrowers who owe up to 5 percent more than their home's current value. Loan modifications, supported by $75 billion in federal funding, are unlikely for severely "underwater" borrowers.

In the California cities of Stockton, Modesto and Merced, more than one out of every 10 homeowners with a mortgage won't qualify for any help because they owe more than 50 percent more than their house's current value, according to data from real-estate Web site Zillow.com.

The plan doesn't help homeowners in states "that are at the epicenter of the housing debacle," said Greg McBride, a senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com.

The ineligible households are concentrated in California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona, but can also be found in struggling cities such as Detroit and Grand Rapids, Mich. Even houses in the outlying suburbs of the nation's capital, where the economy is relatively healthy, have dropped substantially in value.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090304/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_housing

[midnight]

1. Oops. Now why would we exclude homeowners from

a bailout who find that their property value have declined. Why?

[Bluebear]

2. Yet they keep bailing out corporations whose stock prices are at 50 year lows.

Why?

[David__77]

3. These markets must price correct.

They're way overpriced right now. Any plan must not inhibit this correction. I favor orderly bankruptcy proceedings when appropriate.

[Bluebear]

4. Moderate Democrats stopped the provision to let a bankruptcy judge adjust mortgages.

Why?

[Bozita]

5. Is Zillow.com a reputable source for data?

[LeftyMom]

10. No, their values are frequently WAY off.

I just checked my Dad's house. They have it listed as being worth $159K, the house next door as being $164K, and the one next to that $248K. These are three largely identical tract homes on the same street on virtually identical lots. The latter two have pools, which would explain the $5K difference between Dad's house and his neighbor's but not the $85K jump from one neighbor to the next.

And all three are overvalued, based on comparable houses in the neighborhood right now. There's a five bedroom around the corner for $160K, and a larger 3 br for $130K on the neighboring street, and god only knows how cheap the foreclosures are.

[penguin7]

6. Obviously those that rent should pay taxes to make certain

that nobody loses in their decision to buy a house.

Renters don't vote anyway so to hell with them.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Yes they should.

Just like I should pay taxes for education even though I don't have any kids.

David

[penguin7]

11. What the hell are you talking about?

Renters should pay taxes and the money should go to homeowners for the common good? This is the same screwed up logic that wealthy people use to take government handouts. Trickle down economics in a new dress.

WTF? What about the common good of the people that rent? What the hell do they get?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. You don't think there is a common good to turning the economy around, really?

That's what our representatives in congress are for, to decide when tax payers money needs to be used for the public good. An improved economy would be for the common good of people who rent.

David

[penguin7]

13. Pouring money that can better be used for health care

unemployment benefits, education, mass transit or high speed rail and giving this money to wannabe homeowners so renters are now forced to pay more to buy a house or forced to pay more rent.

Do I oppose this so called benefit to our economy?

Hell yes!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. Guess you have some decisions to make before the next election.

[leftstreet]

7. So this only benefits people in areas where real estate hasn't declined

Well, uh...

er, I'm confused.

[marybourg]

8. The Arizona Republic doesn't agree:

Obama housing plan should help thousands in Arizona


85 commentsby J. Craig Anderson, Russ Wiles and Glen Creno - Mar. 4, 2009 02:25 PM
The Arizona Republic

Making Home Affordable, the Obama administration's $75 billion plan to help reduce foreclosures, should help thousands of overextended Arizona homeowners reduce their monthly mortgage payments. But it isn't likely to bring their principal loan balances closer to current home prices.

Treasury Department officials on Wednesday released details of the program, which will bring consistency and standardization to the loan-modification process, along with a variety of new financial incentives for lenders and borrowers to participate.

Making Home Affordable combines lender incentives and borrower assistance with the goal of helping up to 9 million distressed homeowners . . .

read entire story:
http://www.azcentral.com/realestate/articles/2009/03/04/20090304biz-mortgage0304-ON.html