2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

"Shame on the avg guy for being a victim right? Shame on them because they just HAD to "get in", lol."

I must not have communicated that well.  The "average guy" stopped being the norm is my point.  Enter the late 90s - 2000s, and everyone assumed appreciation was a birth right, especially those that bought near the top. 

There isn't an acquaintance I have that didn't tell me how much they were "making" on their house and that now was a great time to buy.  (I had to find an online blog of people like me to check my sanity)  Very few of them had a strategy that kept them in that house for more than 5 years.  If the average Joe assumed he would make money just by signing a piece of paper, then yes, shame on him.  I couldn't agree more with you on the perp walks for bankers...but just about every loan-owner I know was playing the game too...



posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

"Shame on the avg guy for being a victim right? Shame on them because they just HAD to "get in", lol."

I must not have communicated that well.  The "average guy" stopped being the norm is my point.  Enter the late 90s - 2000s, and everyone assumed appreciation was a birth right, especially those that bought near the top. 

There isn't an acquaintance I have that didn't tell me how much they were "making" on their house and that now was a great time to buy.  (I had to find an online blog of people like me to check my sanity)  Very few of them had a strategy that kept them in that house for more than 5 years.  If the average Joe assumed he would make money just by signing a piece of paper, then yes, shame on him.  I couldn't agree more with you on the perp walks for bankers...but just about every loan-owner I know was playing the game too...

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

"Shame on the avg guy for being a victim right? Shame on them because they just HAD to "get in", lol."

I must not have communicated that well.  The "average guy" thought he was guaranteed appreciation without putting much, if any, skin in the game.  That was the difference.  For decades people bought a house to live in, and it paid off for them, because they paid it off.  Their strategy wasn't (necessarily) to make money off the house.  Enter the late 90s - 2000s, and everyone assumed appreciation was a birth right.  There isn't an acquaintance I have that didn't tell me how much they were "making" on their house. 

I couldn't agree more with you on the perp walks for bankers...but just about every loan-owner I know was playing the game too...

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

"Home ownership was one of the only ways that the middle class could grow their nest egg..."

Yes, that's true.  But the way they did it was to pay it off over 30 years (or trade up along the way), thereby having no housing costs (except for taxes/insurance) in their later years.

The past decade this attitude has been turned around such that people think the act of buying (at any price) alone is enough to make them rich.  All they have to do is wait 2 years then sell.  How many people have you heard in that time who say they were always told that housing is the best investment?  A lot.  Problem is, they never stopped to think just why that...WAS.  All they knew was that they just HAD to "get in."

In reality they were just renting...from the bank.

You also seem to think those 20-30% losses happened in a vacuum.  I don't discount what you say about lenders.  But the only reason prices went as high as they did was precisely BECAUSE of the lenders and their insane lending standards.  The loss of prices isn't a crisis at all.  It's the cure.

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

DFUND,

Regarding your comments about the "community housing act," I suggest you research the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which obliterated the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which had served as effective regulation of the finance industry for 66 years, following the Great Depression.

The "community housing act," or Community Reinvestment Act, occurred in 1977.  While it certainly belongs in the discussion, the 30 year old CRA alone did not cause this.  Poor people weren't the only ones caught up in this.  (I would think that would be obvious by now)  It does make for a good right-wing talking point, however.

Point is, there's plenty of blame to go around.  Note that in both 1999 and in 2008 (TARP), the President and Congress that wrote the bills were of opposite parties.  And neither President vetoed either bill...

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I've come full circle on the strategic default issue.  I am now in the camp that has no problem with someone who wants to default on purpose because of one fact, but with one caveat.  In a "normal" market (like the one before this latest boom that was created by insane lending standards - the caveat), the lender/bank was willing to make the loan and accept the home as collateral for a default (the fact).  So, by all means, there is consideration for breaking the contract.

What I DO have a problem with is people defaulting and then living in the home for free!  Move out!  Fannie/Freddie (me, the taxpayer) has backed that loan, and now you get to live there for FREE??  Meanwhile the Fed keeps interest rates so low that houses haven't depreciated enough to reflect their true value, and keeping me out of the market!

I also find it laughable that people who can afford their mortgage were just fine paying it while it was appreciating in value, but not now.  (those who could never afford it are a different story)

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Personally, I find Portland good for me, my career, and my outside interests.  The bloviating about this town, however, has become completely nauseating.

Wow, we have food, art, and bikes.  Big deal, folks.  Is there a big city in the Midwest, for example, that doesn't?  As a friend said, "it's a good place, but it's not the only place."  The word "narcissism" comes to mind...

As for the marketing of the town, my question remains, why is it so important to market this town to the world and invite MORE people?  What is the end game??

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context