The Obama Administration has finally started to do something relatively serious about the housing crisis by using the tool of executive authority it has over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Unfortunately, the plan seems to depend heavily on enriching large corporate middlemen. The Wall Street Journal explains:
One proposal would sell packages of hundreds or thousands of foreclosed properties in bulk to investors that agree to rent them out. That approach is preferred by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is taking back properties as defaults mount on loans backed by the FHA.
Another approach would let investors enter joint ventures with Fannie or Freddie to invest in a pool of converted rental homes. A national property-management business would handle day-to-day landlord responsibilities.
While I share Kevin Drum’s skepticism, if done right it will provide some help. It doesn’t make sense to have a company that manages only one or two rental homes, so there is a logic to giving a company a bulk discount if they purchase 50 homes and legally commit to keeping the properties from becoming blighted.
Empty homes are a serious problem for neighborhoods. They can increase crime, cut surrounding home values, and reduce local government revenue. If this bulk sale to managements companies was simply one small part of the Obama Administration’s effort trying-everything-possible to fix this serious problem, I might accept that a few companies getting a sweet deal from the federal government is a price worth paying to get this pressing problem fixed quickly.
What is really upsetting though, is that this isn’t part of a big plan to try everything. There are more effective ways to manage this housing problem, ones that the Administration could do right now, ones that don’t require giving big corporations handouts or special discounts. As Dean Baker suggested, the government could just allow people whose mortgages are held by the government and are in default to rent their homes at market value. It would be quicker to implement and would likely affect far more homes, instead the administration is solely focused on this big corporation solution.
It is infuriating that the Administration’s entire big new plan to deal with the housing crisis revolves around using private corporate middlemen to indirectly addresses the issue. It’s this insistence by the White House on using unnecessary corporate middlemen to solve any social problem that is one of the things that makes the Affordable Care Act so distasteful.
Unlike the ACA though, you can’t argue that legislative realities forced Obama to go this weird privatization route instead of using a more direct government program. It seem using corporate middle men to address problems is actually how Obama thinks our government should operate.



30 Comments








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Jon:
It’s right out of the DLC/Turd Way playbook.
Lets see, after reanimating the vampire squid with our money – moral hazard, they don’t re-regulate them and we could go boom all over again, maybe even any time now.
They save the stock market and GDP is up, but the real economy is still shrinking with growing unemployment, causing more and more housing repossessions and defaults.
The Obama administration creates a bait and switch HAMP program that further exacerbates under water homeowners, but hey- according to Tim Geithner, it’s helping the banks shore up their books.
The houses are offloaded or written off to Fanny and Freddy for 95% of full mark to fantasy price, and now, the banks will get another handout to buy up the houses and rent them out.
And not a single banker is in jail, and investigations aren’t on the calendar unless for control fraud.
What a way to do privatization of the whole damned country to the FIRE sector. Rezko Nationwide!
We have a criminogenic system.
That’s what we need! A new Government sponsored slumlord, unaccountable to anyone.
Anyone got an extimate on how long until you have to own land in order to vote? (tin foil hat coming off)
Obama needs to achieve his one term presidency.
Another sterling diary Mr. Walker . . . lemme just go off the farm here a tad.
Well, ok, a fantasy and I know, I am the FIRST one to call out fantasy’s.
But, just to Say it:
We could help the masses (we the people homeowners and wanna be buyers) if the useless Trip A derivatives were all marked to market n let the suckers of Wall Street/Bank Ave lose their shit n shirts.
Course, we still need about 30 million jobs at livable wages . .
But I’m in pony with horn on head land with my thots.
Mark that worthless shit to market, and let’s get ON with our lives.
Hayall, wouldn’t that alone cut our deficit in half or more?
*G*
/s
Heh heh heh . . . Turd Way . . . I’m sure I’ve seen it elsewhere, but YOUR use of it got to me . .
Nice!
*G*
Who we see as unnecessary corporate middlemen, Obama sees as new corporate donors to his 2012 presidential campaign.
Hang ‘em all n let dawg sort it out? (John Wayne voice)
Dang! We AGREE!
*G*
money, money money. The three most important things in politics
Already has.
He will be told by DIM party to step down, only we won’t hear about it.
Say, oh, March or April of ’12.
N they will run HRC, n GOP will run Jeb n Jeb wins . . . .
HRC or JEB or anyone, with a Super Congress?
I don’t buy the present FDL/Proggy Blogosphere themes of deadlock . . . not one whit.
Badshit’s a comin . . . n it ain’t Eli . . . ;-)
“could just allow people whose mortgages are held by the government and are in default to rent their homes at market value.”
Two problems
1. You are going to need an entire new department to manage this program, which means more government spending and another bureaucracy that cares nothing about doing anything on a cost-effective basis.
2. Many, if not a majority, of these homes are in bad shape due to deferred maintenance as the defaulters decided to no longer keep up these homes. Who is going to pay to bring these homes back into livable condition?
What happens when, not if but when, legal disputes arise between the new “owners” of these properties and the “former” owners who have been unlawfully foreclosed upon?
It is rent-seeking. Long live the rentier class while the peasants die for the rentiers’ sins.
This is just Clinto all over again. It’s time to get over the reality that the national Democrats are just the corporate plutocrat party with a donkey as opposed to elephant emblem. There isn’t much that can be done either other than forcing low turnout in their general elections for years and years. Haven’t we learned yet that change from within doesn’t work etc.
Its a fucking kleptocracy, quit feigning shock and quit pretending it’s legitimate.
Every federal program is now designed to create yet another reliable coterie of fat cat campaign donors. Why would this one be different?
Heaven forbid any simple policy be tried. All those months Baucus worked to complicate health care; Social Security – it’s as if no one ever mentioned raising the cap on FICA income; now, oh, heavens, let the homeowner rent his home and stay put? Much, much too simple.
Let’s let the banks who couldn’t handle the thousands of mortgages, even the time-tested necessity of physically transferring the docs, try to manage thousands of actual physical rental homes occupied by actual human beings.
Yes, that should work out well. Fifty houses, workable. Fifty thousand? Not so much. But, let’s all guess which way they’ll choose?
I never understood the way the TARP bailout was done. If the banks were collapsing because of mortgages that were going into default at the bottom of the system, why did we put the money into the top of the system, leaving the “securitized” packages of mortgages still worthless, and the people losing their homes?
Would it not have made more sense for the government to buy the mortgages and then re-negotiate a loan with the home owner who would then pay the government back on reasonable terms. Then the mortgages would be good again, and the securitized packages would be good again and the banks would be good again. And the people could have stayed in their houses.
All fixed, except that the money would have been paid to whoever owned the mortgage instead of the big banks on top of the system.
All fixed, that is, unless it was a fraud to start with and nobody really knows who owns the mortgage anymore.
It’s very simple. We just can’t have efficient and cost-effective solutions for anything because that would be socialism. In America, we prefer market-based solutions, which is a codeword for having corporate middlemen who do nothing except divert funds into their own pockets.
Hmm, lotta first timers in this thread . . .
Welcome . . . ;-)
Power? Power? Power?
Oh, same thang . . . . ;-)
Trickle down economics
Didn’t we just have a fight about student loans not needing the third party, (the banks), when they were just there to make money?
Let’s have a little shared sacrifice. The banks accept market rates, the homeowners agree to yearly or multi-year contracts, and the properties and neighborhoods remain viable.
Excellent points. During 08, 09, and 2010 I helped a friend clean up foreclosed properties for a real estate company in the Los Angeles area. Quite a few people felt they got suckered in their mortgages and showed it by trashing their former homes before leaving. The worst were the ones that had equity and got conned into home improvement refinancing with the pitch that the property could “only go up.” They got their homes fixed up just the way they wanted and then were ordered out.
The hangin?
lol
Another day, another sellout by Zero.
“It seems using corporate middle men to address problems is actually how Obama thinks our government should operate.”
Yep, another corporatist solution, just like handing the program for underwater homeowners over to the banking thieves, who finished screwing those families and put them on the street – all at more government expense. Maher said it best: Too bad a Democratic president keeps employing Republican policies. But that’s what elite, ideological corporatists do.
There’s a general, bi-partisan view that the middle class has been having it too damn good. On the housing front, uppity homeowners need to be replaced by cowed renters. (Not that renting isn’t a great idea for a lot of people at least during some period of their lives. But owning has been the rule for the middle class for a couple of generations.)
So why not arrange for a corporate middle man to profit from the transition of the foreclosed upon former owners, to renting?