EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Could the Right to Rent Stop the Foreclosure Hurricane?
When the foreclosure hurricane first hit, subprime borrowers absorbed the brunt of it. Homeowners who had been fooled with teaser rates suddenly faced balloon payments they couldn't afford. Others couldn't refinance because of prepayment penalties they hadn't been aware of. And some people had made bad decisions and were now paying for it with their homes.
(Photo: CC License/dougww/flickr) The crisis has now morphed-it's hitting everyone with an equal-opportunity kind of vengeance-the prime, subprime, underwater and unemployed. And that makes passing the Right to Rent Act introduced by Democratic Representatives Raúl Grijalva and Marcy Kaptur, and cosponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers among others, all the more critical. It would give homeowners who would otherwise by kicked out of their homes the right to rent for five years.
From the outset of this crisis, little relief has been in sight for foreclosure victims. In contrast, the big banks were on the receiving end of a $700 billion bailout and have been given the right to decide which homeowners sink or swim ever since.
Early on, community activists and too few elected officials argued that the bailout funds should be contingent on banks' participation in mortgage modifications programs, among other remedies, to help regular folks. After all, there was ample evidence that banks had steered borrowers who should have qualified for prime loans into exotic subprime products with higher yields-that the big banks had indeed engaged in a kind of reverse redlining.
In fact, back in January, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan testified to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission about rate sheets that revealed Wall Street had paid mortgage brokers and loan officers more for risky mortgages-with low teaser rates, pre-payment penalties, low- or no documentation of borrower income-because those loans charged higher interest rates. Wall Street wasn't the victim of bad underwriting as it claimed, it had incentivized it.
Nevertheless, opponents to forced modifications cried "moral hazard," and-without even a hint of irony-said that bailing out the homeowners would reward them for bad behavior.
We now see where their umbrage has gotten us.
There were 367,056 foreclosure filings this March-a new monthly record. May was also a record-setting month, with 94,000 homeowners losing their homes to foreclosure. In the first three months of the year, the safest borrowers with fixed, prime mortgages accounted for nearly 37 percent of new foreclosures and now represent the fastest growing group facing foreclosure. One in seven homeowners are either in foreclosure or seriously delinquent. The Obama administration may tout jobs numbers as a sign that the Great Recession is behind us, but foreclosure filings tell the story of real pain that hasn't abated.
As homes are vacated or boarded up, the neighbors who are left behind watch their property values plummet. State and local budgets-already decimated-take in even lower revenues, and the result is more cuts in services and more layoffs. More unemployed people means more foreclosures, and the vicious cycle continues.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration's Home Affordable Modification Program has proven anemic. Leaving modifications up to the banks' discretion and dangling "cash incentives" of a couple thousand dollars per modification-nothing more than chump change for these bankers-is like trying to repel a hurricane by whistling into the wind. HAMP was supposed to help 3 to 4 million borrowers by the end of 2012. It has placed just 340,459 homeowners into permanent modifications.
Does anybody have a real emergency plan? Something that will help our communities ride out this storm before they are rendered virtual ghost towns? Or will we keep engaging in the most hazardous moral around-allowing banks to call the shots?
The Right to Rent Act would stop this cycle immediately. The proposal was first suggested by progressive economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and it has been endorsed by experts across the political spectrum.
Here's how the law would work: your family receives a foreclosure notice. You have twet business days to go to court and exercise your right to rent the property for up to five years. The fair market rate is determined by a court-appointed, independent appraiser. To be eligible, the single family property must have been occupied for at least two years, and purchased prior to July 2, 2007, at median price for the local metropolitan area. The bill would sunset after five years.
"This is something Congress could in principle do and immediately help hundreds of thousands-if not millions-of people who are facing foreclosure," said Baker. "And it doesn't cost any public money. This is not taking anything from the Treasury."
If banks don't want to be landlords-and they don't-this law would provide a strong incentive for them to make meaningful modifications to mortgages, including principal reductions, rather than take on a tenant for five years.
"By not allowing banks to simply throw someone out, it makes foreclosure a much less attractive option," said Baker.
A right to rent would also allow families time to search for alternative affordable housing or receive job training to better their situation-difficult to do when facing homelessness. After five years, that family might be in a position to buy back the home and would be an attractive buyer if it had already been making monthly payments. Afforded time, homeowners might also discover that bank error resulted in their being wrongly denied a mortgage modification, and they can obtain legal aid to correct the injustice.
"We have asked time and again for banks to work with the American people to do loan workouts," Kaptur told The Nation. "The outcry from the American people has largely been ignored by banks and mortgage security holders. With nearly 6 million people delinquent on their mortgages and at risk for foreclosure, we can no longer afford for banks to continue turning their backs on the American people."
Instead of foreclosures increasing blight, crime and homelessness, neighborhoods would keep people in their homes who care about them and their communities. Instead of decreasing property values and tax revenues, and consequent layoffs and cuts in services, communities would be far more stable and better able to contribute to the economic recovery. And Baker points out declining property values-especially in bubble markets-mean that people are sometimes paying twice as much on their mortgage payment as they would pay to rent the same home.
"Passing this bill will help neighborhoods avoid the spiral of decay, crime and lower property values that often follows mass vacancies without creating any new bureaucracy or transferring a dime of taxpayer money to homeowners or banks," said Grijalva.
The downside is that homeowners still lose their homes when the banks foreclose. But it would be an invaluable tool available to many people who will otherwise be out on the streets, and it doesn't preclude continuing to fight for mandatory modifications, or other reforms like a new Home Owners' Loan Corporation.
A right to rent sure beats listening to Obama administration officials continuing to promise to punish banks that aren't modifying mortgages and somehow never getting around to doing it. And it definitely beats continuing to watch our nation bleed generations of wealth, entire communities and human capital.
"Let's just be really clear on this," said Baker. "If Congress and the Fed did not step in-Citigroup is out of business today. Goldman Sachs is out of business today Morgan Stanley is out of business today. The banks got helped out. Now we're going to help people on the other side."
Kaptur agreed. "Banks were saved by the very same families they placed in this dire predicament," she said. "It is high time for them to return the favor and save American families from homelessness."
Now would be a good time to ask your representative to cosponsor this legislation. Also, ask the Financial Services Committee-which has jurisdiction over the bill-for a hearing on it. Finally, urge your senator to sponsor companion legislation.
It's time to allow people to fight back against the banks with a right to rent.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

22 Comments so far
Show AllWhat is this "right to rent" crap?
Housing is a human right and the "right to rent" for some pre-determined number of years only means you have the right to hang on and keep paying in blood and toil to the grand barons of Big Business.
"Right" to be an indentured servant to the overlords? What kind of a "right" is that?
What we need is for people to wake up and recognize they have the right to shut the government down, no make that an obligation, until it serves them.
What a comfort to know that this liberal piece of crap bill isn't taking anything from the Treasury.
Quit begging for crumbs folks.
It is crap.
"Right to rent fair market rent" based on a home that has been maintained and improved at the home"OWNER's" expense!
More serfdom we don't need. Thanks anyways, Lords.
Don't agree. In the end, the bank and the lender signed a contract. A contract is a promise. You can't ignore that fact--society runs by a code that insists contracts be honored. The "right to rent" simply recognizes cold, hard reality--the homeowner does not have enough money to pay the mortgage, the contract must be modified or else the mortgage holder has the right to occupy his home for five years as a renter. Baker's purpose, of course, is not to make banks accept a new role as landlord, but to get them to modify contracts. That seems altogether admirable to me.
Maybe you can throw away social and financial obligations in service to your view that "overlords" deserve nothing, but I can't. There must be a framework of rules that will be followed to the extent possible even during difficult economic times. Baker's proposal accepts this framework while putting pressure on banks to accommodate people in financial trouble.
When the contract was signed, there was "intent" to honor the contract.
When one party undermined that intent, by trashing the economy along with the people's jobs and income, THAT party failed to "honor" the contract.
Good on you that you probably still have a good government job or something, I'm happy for you that you can still pay your bills.
Meanwhile, sucks to your "rules."
the contract was constructed on faulty grounds:
that human affairs exist separately from the affairs of the natural world...
it is clear that our economic constructs, based on the privatization of the land, have meant, are actively creating, nothing but global devastation, and are, therefore, not only illogical, but immoral...
it is immoral to force others to work to pay for land...
the right to engage the planet, to sleep and shelter oneself, to travel, graze, drink, breathe, swim...
these are not subservient wishes...these are inherent rights, legitimate demands...
there is no foundation for landowning, nor for turning a living planet into toxic, garbage stew...
the thinking that supports banking and home ownership, or renting, or working, or industry, or shopping, is faulty...fatally so...
You are talking about "law", whereas I am talking about justice.
You are parroting the talking points of Power whereas I support the human rights of every person.
That is why you and I see things so radically different. Our positions are complete opposites. You support the barons of big business and gladly resign people to a live of hell.
Watching you do the work of the house negro is an ugly thing to witness.
I cannot deny many homeowners were misled in signing mortgage contracts by lenders. To me, that means lenders must take a hit as well as borrowers. But you can't just say, "OK, you can't pay the mortgage, but no problem, just give me whatever you can give." If you do that, no one will want to keep money in a bank. They could never get a return on their savings. And that goes for a national or state bank as well as private lenders.
There is a fundamental principle of honesty here, which I regard as sacrosanct--even more important than justice. Honesty--meaning here the keeping promises and following the rules--forms the basis of our society. Don't know what how you would deal with the poor not being to make payments on their mortgages...let them just stay there, squat? Tell me what your solution is.
hey, drosera!
you say:
~ There is a fundamental principle of honesty here, which I regard as sacrosanct--even more important than justice. Honesty--meaning here the keeping promises and following the rules--forms the basis of our society. ~
wow...I think you may have summed up a huge thing here...
I believe it is the conflict between the supposition that the honesty you describe as sacrosanct forms the basis of our society, and the reality that it doesn't, that creates the systemic injustice we witness...
we do not live in an honest society...we are told, or wish, that we do...
we do not live in a non-violent society, either, but are told, or wish, we do...
obviously, those in power neither keep promises nor follow rules, and use deception and violence with abandon...
the problem is, no one is stopping them, as we deprive ourselves, psychologically, of the very solutions we might employ...
if we won't stoop to 'their level', how do we defend ourselves?
regarding squatting...absolutely...void all contracts...
OK, I'll agree that American society is deceitful--corporations regularly lie and deceive to gain more profits. But that doesn't mean it's right or that everyone should behave that way. One of the functions of government should be to monitor, identify, prosecute, and punish corporate misbehavior. We know it doesn't do so because government and business are essentially the same thing both in its personnel and in its aims (to funnel wealth to the Important People). Still, a clear, transparent set of rules must be established--for lending and borrowing especially--to make sure both parties understand the terms. It is like unions and bosses: the need to work out the terms of the contract and then that contract must be scrupulously followed. Dean Baker is not taking property away from banks, but is buying time for them to re-negotiate the mortgages. What is wrong with that?
who has honest claim to title of the living world? who has right to sequester, or destroy, resources all require?
Dubet,
Bravo!
Chelsea :)
drosera, Don't kid yourself, corporations walk away from legal contractual obligations everyday i.e. Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, GM, Chrysler just to name a few.
Isn't that called "bankruptcy"--when corporations are unable to meet obligations? And then a procedure begins that allows them to pay off creditors to the extent they are able or to dissolve the corporation and sell off the assets. That is what Baker is suggesting: bankers and mortgagees must come together to work out a new agreement--and the threat of converting mortgagees into renters is a way of getting the banks to loosen up and rewrite the terms of the loan.
mcoyote,
Well said!
No, if you are going to do right by the people the Government should give to the people the same that they gave to the Banks and Wall St.. First off Congress passes a law unanimously, (Those who vote against it will be dealt with harshly along with their families) to impose at least a 25% tariff on all goods entering the country. This would include so called American companies such as Apple, Ford, GM, Maytag, Boeing, Motorola and NIKE just to name a very few. These tariffs would force these so called American corporations to decide if they wanted to do business in the US or not. If they do, they will return all of their manufacturing and other out sourced jobs to the US if they do not want to be subjected to the tariffs. These companies would also be required to have their world headquarters here in the United States, not the Cayman Islands or the the UAE! The US would then step down from any further participation in the WTO, IMF NAFTA and GATT.
Next, Treasury Secretary Geithner has the treasury print a check for every working family in the US who makes less than $125,000 a year in the amount of say $300,000 to $400,000, yes, this would include the unemployed. The American people would then pay their rents and mortgages, do repairs on their homes, buy automobiles, refrigerators, stoves, washers and dryers, lawn mowers and clothes thus stimulating the economy. This stimulus for the American people is only fair after the last thirty years of corporate welfare the US Government has showered on big business. After which, Secretary Geithner will submit his resignation.
Once this has been accomplished, in the november elections of 2010, the entire House of Representatives along with the current class of Senators will all tender their resignations. The people will elect a whole new membership to the House and the 1/3 of the Senate. The remaing two classes of Senators will tender their resignations during the 2012 and 2014 election cycles. President Obama will step down in the election cycle of 2012. No person who has held federal office will be eligible to run for the House, Senate or the Presidency until 2020.
These moves are only a start to taking back that which is ours. The Government would issue bounties for all of the members of the US Chamber of Commerce and anybody employed by a Think Tank and a certain five members of the US Supreme Court. That will give those teabaggers something to do with their guns for awhile! NOTE: The bounty would only be payable if these people were brought in alive! This is an open suggestion so add on anything that will contribute to the take back of our country!
People who's homes have been foreclosed on should start a foreclosed People's March on Washingtion. The march participants can request that a Right to Rent bill be passed. A million foreclosed on marchers definitely would push elected officials to do more than they are currently doing.
If Banks won't negotiate, walk. A far better solution would be to allow Bankruptcy judges to cram down principle, homeowners then would have the leverage where they don't need to try to deal with their bank.
The bank "is amorally operating according to market
norms and could have acted to protect itself by following prudent
underwriting practices. The current housing bust should be viewed
for what it is: a market failure and a failure to regulate – not a
moral failure on the part of American homeowners. " - Brent T White
So where are all the evicted people living?
Check out the old Michigan train station just off of Michigan Ave. and Vernor Highway in Detroit. If not there then there are alot of empty buildings in downtown Detroit that are probably not that empty!
I currently came over this video about foreclosure and its a great interview.
http://www.livestream.com/freespeechtv/video?clipId=flv_1f0d0019-e84b-44bd-bdec-cac802dcb9e8
YES, I agree- scrap this wimpy "right to rent" idea!
Instead, how about a "right to housing"?
That way EVERYBODY would have a roof over their heads.
It's high time our nation got serious, REALLY serious, about ending homelessness.
It should be more of a scandal than it is.
Maybe we are- all of us- weary of the struggle. There are so many huge problems that need our attention.
But, letting people have rental housing for a few years will not stop the crisis, only delay it for a few people.
Penelope,
Well said--RIGHT TO HOUSING INDEED!
The Nation is mostly an apologist rag for the Democratic Party.
Chelsea