ReallyFuckedHomeowner.com

Dear Invisible Renters,

The New York Times today published an editorial in which it supports a law winding its way though congress to force banks to cram-down (AKA reduce) the principle balances on home mortgages and we must stop it.  This is ridiculous for many reasons stated in a letter below you can send to key departments and people at the Times.  Addresses and a draft letter are below:

• Vikas Bajaj (vikas@nytimes.com) – Covers housing and financial markets
• Joe Nocera (jnocera@nytimes.com) – Business columnist who gets it
• editorial@nytimes.com
• executive-editor@nytimes.com
• letters@nytimes.com
• managing-editor@nytimes.com
• news-tips@nytimes.com
• oped@nytimes.com
• rhfrank@nytimes.com
• washington@nytimes.com
• You can also email key people in the Obama administration so they can veto.
  • Timothy Geithner (timothy.geithner@do.treas.gov)
  • Dr. Lawrence Summers  
    • Email his assistant Bryan Jung (bryan_jung@who.eop.gov)
    • Direct phone #:      202-456-1337     

Dear New York Times,

Why are you making homes less affordable to 68% of your New York readers and neighbors, who are renters, by encouraging the cram-downs of mortgage principle?  This is bad for everyone in the long run:

• For Renters this will hold housing at unrealistic and high levels longer making it impossible for us to become responsible homeowners if we so choose (feel free to continue renting anyway its a valid lifestyle choice no matter what society says)
• For the New York Times - 68% of your New York City readership are renters and this action is an attack on the majority of your readers.
• For the Economy  by keeping people in homes they can’t afford we’ll only prolong the agony as we have a continuous stream of higher than normal foreclosures over years as opposed to in one big (and yes painful) lump.  By getting it over quickly you will see buyers come back into the market because they know we’ve reached the real (not a weak unsustainable subsidized) bottom AND homes will be much more affordable.

Here are some other things you need to know:

• Housing prices will continue to fall at least another 10-15 points (ask any economist).  So what does that mean if a house is reset to a lower level only to find its not the LOWEST level.  Will there be another cram down?  Won’t those people only default later (after having received the first, now unsuccessful cram-down) for the same reasons you are stating now?
• Housing prices will get another kick in the pants in two years when interest rates have to start going up again (to combat inflation from all this money being printed and flushed down the economy) so this will only get worse and require more cram-downs. Remember people tell you to buy when interest rates are low so the flip side is…

Why trash contract law in this country to delay the inevitable. 

Thank you for listening

This entry was posted on March 6, 2009 at 7:50 am and is filed under Stories with tags bryan jung, bubble, case-shiller, cram-down, debt, equity, equity loan, foreclosure, foreclosures, homeowner, housing bailout, housing bubble, lawrence summers, mortgage, mortgage income tax deduction, mortgages, new york city, new york times, refinance, refinancing, renter, renters, renting, timothy geithner, vikas bajaj. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.