Home > Gwinnett > Rick Badie / My Opinion > Archives > 2009 > February > 13 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USForeclosures end up loss for many, a gain for others
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Sheena and Otis Wallace looked at five houses a day for two consecutive weeks.
But it really didn’t take Sheena that long to find the one she wanted to call home. Early in the search, she grew attached to a four-bedroom, two-story abode in Dacula. It had a formal living room, dining room and family room, but the wedding coordinator was sold on one particular feature.
“What got me was the sun room,” she said. “My heart stayed with this one.”
And if all goes well, the Wallaces may close on their new home soon. The couple took advantage of the county’s ever-growing inventory of reduced foreclosures. According to Foreclosurefreesearch.com, a Web site that keeps track of such real estate, nearly 2,000 distressed properties were on the market in Gwinnett County this week.
Bargains abound. Practically every town and every corner of the county has foreclosures held by banks as well as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. Norcross Realtor Clyde Rivers drives a PT Cruiser with a wrap-around banner: “HUD homes — $100 down payment,” it states. He’s a certified HUD specialist — “been doing it more than 20 years,” he told me, mentioning the catchy name of his business Web site, hudking.com.
Naturally, Rivers doesn’t expect people to buy homes like they gobbled them up during the heydays of lax lending and overbuilding. He knows, too, that people, generally, are reluctant to purchase a big-ticket item such as a house or car these days. Experts say that’s the very thing that needs to happen.
The fear of losing a job runs deep. So does the pessimism, mistrust and uncertainty. All cripple recovery.
But even in this climate, there’s a sector of the employment world (nurses, for example) whose jobs remain stable. They could capitalize on low home prices, record-low interest rates and special buyer programs such as HUD’s $100 down program. It allows borrowers with good credit (580 or higher) to buy a dwelling with $100 down. HUD will also pay a much as 3 percent of the sale price to offset closing costs.
“HUD knows their properties are being sold as is, and some — not all — need work,” Rivers told me. “To offset that, [the agency] lowered the down payment, which leaves the buyer able to do a few things once they get in. This information needs to get to the right folks to let them know about the program. A certain number would buy a home if they could get into it with a small down payment.”
Like the Wallaces, who are clients of Rivers. For them, the hardest part about buying a HUD home was choosing the right property. Sheena works from home. Otis, her husband, is a civilian contractor working in Iraq with a cleaning company. When he came home for the holidays, the couple spent most days house hunting.
“We went out every day,” she said. “But my heart stayed with the [house in Dacula] that we had seen the very first week. My heart stayed with that one. I hate to gain from someone else’s loss, but it’s buyer’s market.”
On Tuesday, the Wallaces are scheduled to close on their new home.
Permalink | Comments (31) | Post your comment | Categories: Rick Badie
Comments
By Michael H. Smith
February 13, 2009 9:02 PM | Link to this
Foreclosures end up loss for too many, a regrettable gain for others.
I like that title better, Mr. Badie.
By LT5000
February 13, 2009 9:52 PM | Link to this
Blubbering Badie has a genius for stating the obvious.
Yawn.
Maybe he could write something salient one of these days.
Like how the AJC is tanking and will undoubtedly be dead within a few years.
Or how Obama’s Presidency is tanking alreay with multiple tax cheats forced to withdraw their nomination and his plan to overtake the census to influence redistricting.
But those are jobs for a real journalist, not Badie.
LT5000
By BW
February 14, 2009 10:03 AM | Link to this
I purchased a HUD home back in 93’, the last Bush recession, quite a deal. All it needed was a good scrubbing, rugs, kitchen, baths and fresh paint from one end to the other.
The bad part was the gardens, trees and lawns were neglected for a year. Being from the city I never was introduced to poision ivy or poision oak, well we quickly became good friends, now I know better.
After the 93’ recession it still took President William Jefferson Clinton two or three years to really get the economy moving again and that was a mild recession. Now with this Bush without any regulation of his buddies on Wall St. or the Bankers were allowed to scam “The People”, leading to the massive number of forclosures Sadly I think it will take more than a few years to pull us out of the mess he left.
By What're you an idiot
February 14, 2009 10:31 AM | Link to this
LT
do you just copy and paste your old blog posts? You haven’t had an original thought in years.
By Chris Broe
February 14, 2009 10:34 AM | Link to this
Why is it that babies come in packs of eight when there’s only womb for one or two buns-in-the-oven? I always end up throwing away two or three perfectly good babies! I waste a lot of bath water that way too, and that’s such a shame during this drought…….
By reader
February 14, 2009 10:53 AM | Link to this
$100 down? How is that better than zero down? Is HUD requiring cash reserves after closing? When things get tough, and one has no investment in a home, that person is far more likely to walk away from the obligation than one who has put his/her own money into a home. Too many people lack integrity these days. Foreclosures affect everyone. I fail to see the silver lining…those who have paid their mortgages have seen their property values fall, thus their equity has decreased. Lower sales prices = lower market values for other homes in the area…not a good thing. If purchasers are getting a bargain price, they should have enough money for a decent downpayment, at the very least.
By Chris Broe
February 14, 2009 2:42 PM | Link to this
I can tell you thought this foreclosure epidemic through very thoroughly, reader. You express yourself well, and your passion has moved me closer to the conservative platform concerning personal responsibility. Great post.
By LT5000
February 14, 2009 7:43 PM | Link to this
Brucie proves what a dumbass he is. Clinton was president in 1993, during Brucie’s so called Bush recession.
However, the AJC is in a Depression due to it’s moronic writers, who truly haven’t had an orignal, or factually accurate, thought in years.
LT5000
By BW
February 14, 2009 9:55 PM | Link to this
President William Jefferson Clinton inherited, just like Obama has, the bush recessions. Just like w inherited a surplus from President William Jefferson Clinton. Everything doesn’t stop on Jan. 20th, as much as you would like to believe it bud.
By LT5000
February 15, 2009 1:01 AM | Link to this
Brucie,
If working the stalls on your knees at Inserection doesn’t work out, you can always write fiction.
It took a Republican congress elected in 1994 to bring America out of the Clinton recession and give the nation a surplus. They even had to stop Hillary’s plan for Universal Healthcare.
Then Billy Clinton was too preoccupied with Monica Lewinsky to care about Bin Laden. Which served up the the September 11th attacks. Bill Clinton, a real American hero.
Just like the Democratic congress elected in 2006 gave us our current recession. Spurred on by Bawney Franks boytoy over at Fannie May.
When the Republicans tried to have oversight over Fannie and Freddy. Bawney Frank was out there holding it back.
Of course Brucie will never tell anybody this. He has an autographed poster of Barney Frank over his bed and he is a permenant fixture in his Spank Bank.
The facts. Brought to you by LT5000.
By BW
February 15, 2009 1:17 AM | Link to this
Well w has been looking for bin laden longer and killing more with two wars going leaving President Obama with a depleted military.
A congress is worthless unless The Man who resides at the White House signs the bill.
Monica, gee ask Newt who sat in judgement of President William Jefferson Clinton, how it feels to be nothing but a hypocrite, while having his own Monica?
Lt the rush bud.
By Michael H. Smith
February 15, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this
Naturally, Rivers doesn’t expect people to buy homes like they gobbled them up during the heydays of lax lending and overbuilding.
~ Lax lending or the hay-days of making fraudulent loans and reselling “bad paper” a.k.a. liar loans, bundled-up and sold as investment grade securities?
~ Overbuilding or over-purchasing of more house than the buyers could ever reasonably afford?
Experts say that’s the very thing that needs to happen.
~ So, we all need to buy big ticket items?
~ Exactly who are these Experts?
What needs to happen is a return to “sound fiscal practices” once exercised by home-builders, realtors and those in the lending industry.
Real “earnest money” needs to be put down up front to validate a potential buyer’s worthiness before entering the qualifying process where things like income, employment history and credit records are all examined to determine if the potential buyer can reasonably afford to repay the loan an originator or lending institution is issuing.
The “Experts” had best focus on how to create jobs that will produce qualified home-buyers and car-purchasers.
And these political party hacks can either bring real solutions to the table or they should quietly take seats in the back of the room.
More than enough money has been put forth by the Federal Government to have bought these bad loans producing the foreclosures: Why hasn’t that happened?
Risky loans could have been re-negotiated to where repayments were affordable to prevent further foreclosures: Why then are so many re-negotiated loans returning into default once again?
Tax credits to make home purchases more affordable thereby potentially removing many of these foreclosures from the housing inventory was defeated or taken out of this nightmare of a stimulus bill, recently passed: Why did that happen?
If there is any gain in this fiasco it is a regrettable one from which we all shall end up suffering a loss. Not only us but our future posterity for many generations beyond our grandchildren: Where some may think they are getting a big bargain, when tax burden and inflation becomes real, then they may have occasion to reassess that so-called gain.
Note to the UAW: If you think the American car buyer should pay the healthcare costs of your retired workers until the day they die that no longer are producing cars, then keep on walking away from the table straight to the unemployment line. We the taxpayers owe you nothing, for nothing.
By BW
February 15, 2009 11:56 AM | Link to this
The UAW has taken over the pension program themselves saving the big auto makers billions, a car buyer pays zip, nada, zero to or for retirees, it’s been that way since 2007. Your hatred of unions is now just making you look foolish.
By BW
February 15, 2009 12:10 PM | Link to this
Here MHS this may help you understand, stocks instead of money, you have to be kidding.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/03/uaw-will-renegotiate-termn148149.html
By LT5000
February 15, 2009 12:36 PM | Link to this
Brucie is truly delusional. He actually claims the UAW saved big auto makers billions.
Want to know what caused this current economic crisis?
The changes to the Community Reinvestment Act that was given to us by Jimmuh Carter and updated by Billy Clinton.
The changes made by Clinton were to increase homeownership for the poor. That led to forcing banks to loan money to people who couldn’t pay it back.
Fannie May and Freddie Mac, run by Bawney Franks cornhole buddy and Obama’s economic advisor Franklin Raines, eagerly backed these loans and fudged the numbers. Franklin Raines collected 90 million in bonuses.
And when the Republicans tried to enforce oversight of Fannie and Freddie. The Democrats, with the help of a few RINO’s, blocked them.
Brucie, get off your knees, wipe your chin and hit the libraray. Maybe you can pick up a book about the corrupt mafia controlled unions.
The facts always win.
LT5000
By BW
February 15, 2009 12:49 PM | Link to this
Thanks for admitting that the republicans, who were in power, voted for the bill, you also show that the republicans were not smart enough to correct, what you see as the total downfall of the economy, during the next six years of total control.
btw…how many jobs did Fannie May and Freddie Mac ship overseas or bend over to please China?
By Michael H. Smtih
February 15, 2009 1:01 PM | Link to this
You are kidding yourself BW, you are not fooling me in the least and neither is the UAW.
From Reuters:
UAW negotiators walked away from talks being held near GM’s Detroit headquarters on Friday night because of differences over how to pay the health care costs of retirees, the person familiar with the talks said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN1426146420090215
Keep walking UAW. All the way to the unemployment line.
Now, any reasonable solutions BW or just more of your usual senseless banter?
By Mark
February 15, 2009 1:20 PM | Link to this
lt5000 Can’t you come up with something useful? You seem really infactuated with activities at the local QT. Perhaps you get your sausage from there as well?
By Michael H. Smith
February 15, 2009 1:26 PM | Link to this
Unfortunately the tax credit that would no doubt have brought many potential qualified buyers into the now devastated housing market to at least cut some of the future loss we’ll suffer by removing excess inventory from the housing market went down to defeat. Regrettably the uncompromising majority that expresses such great concerns over our nation’s economic recovery could have done much good by leaving this amendment intact and done better by having included reviving all home mortgage interest deductions for those in the lower income brackets on any home purchase. Thereby making affordable housing to more people a reality.
Fetch a brain Congress!
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/02/13/isakson0213.html
By BW
February 15, 2009 1:37 PM | Link to this
MHS, it’s simple, the UAW and the auto makers came to an agreement in 2007 that the UAW would take over the pension program. Now to set up the Trust Fund the auto makers signed an agreement, their word, their bond, to contribute to the new Trust Fund, this alone saved them billions.
Now the auto makers want to, instead of money, give the UAW worthless stocks which would basically destroy the trust’s. The UAW wanted to take over the pension program because of bad investments by the auto makers.
What you’re saying is that signed contracts and/or agreements are worthless unless they benefit the big guy, if they benefit the small guy screw them and tear rthem up.
Remember it wasn’t the UAW that begged for the bail out it was the big guys, the auto makers. Do you really think that UAW members make more than management or have a better retirement system, the very people that drove the company into the ground?
By Michael H. Smith
February 15, 2009 1:59 PM | Link to this
GM’s deal with the UAW is based on GM’s profitability, my tax money and that of other U.S. Citizens is not part of that deal BW, we didn’t sign that contract and we are not obligated to the UAW. If GM goes belly-up so does the promises GM made to the UAW, including the employees jobs.
So tough nookie, cookie. That’s what you get for putting your hand into the company til to rob profitability once too often!
~ Remember it wasn’t the UAW that begged for the bail out it was the big guys, the auto makers. ~
Say what!
There five people sitting before the congressional committees at the automaker bailout hearings. One of those people was Ron Gettlefinger, the UAW President “begging for taxpayer money”.
Try to remember the facts as they actually occurred, not as you would like for them to have taken place in hopes to save face when confronted with embarrassment that the truth brings.
Got anything to offer other than ”more misspeaking” on behalf of the UAW’s greed?
By BW
February 15, 2009 2:05 PM | Link to this
If I represented the UAW at the table, I would insist, out of all the money they received from the bail out, that they pay up was owed now. Only then could we talk about changing the system, which if fair offers are made on both sides I’m sure they could come to an agreement.
My personal opinion is that the UAW wants it’s fair share of the bail out money before management blows it all on filling up the corporate jet.
By BW
February 15, 2009 2:17 PM | Link to this
GM owes the money, you failed to addressed that?
We what’s this we crap, we own GM now, don’t remember the take over, it was a loan.
“What you’re saying is that signed contracts and/or agreements are worthless unless they benefit the big guy, if they benefit the small guy screw them and tear them up.” I take it you have no answer?
“Do you really think that UAW members make more than management or have a better retirement system, the very people that drove the company into the ground?” Again no answer?
Back Later, try to answer the questions posed. btw…it was not the UAW that begged, the only reason the UAW was there was to show they’ll co-operate.
By Michael H. Smith
February 15, 2009 2:29 PM | Link to this
My personal opinion is the UAW bosses are no better than the corporate CEO’s and the UAW members past and present should get nothing from the taxpayers, other than public assistance commonly available to all U.S. Citizens; and these so-called American automakers that really are multi-national car makers in reality should have been forced into Chapter 11 before the first bailout took place. Most assuredly so when they come back before Congress to present their plans to return these companies to profitability - which they will never do, especially with the union legacy costs attached.
The taxpayers money should be recouped first from this ill-conceived bailout deal and the court can decide the payment line-up thereafter.
That is the only “fair offer” to the taxpayers of this country.
BTW, UAW member: Go ask an illegal alien for your next job, they will probably be working when you are not, thanks to the support given to them from your UAW union bosses and the AFL-CIO.
Oh and they’ll likely have healthcare benefits too. :)
By Michael H. Smith
February 15, 2009 2:44 PM | Link to this
~ Back Later, try to answer the questions posed. btw…it was not the UAW that begged, the only reason the UAW was there was to show they’ll co-operate.
Come back much later when you can tell the truth, I watched the hearings and Ron Gettlefinger (who also flew into town in a big jet) begged like all the automakers. And, what the CEOs did or didn’t do does NOT obligate any taxpayer of this country to the lousy unions making bad demands GM agreed to that played no less role in bankrupting these companies than the other bad decisions these companies made. You cannot pay people for not working and expect to remain in business, even if you are Ford or GM, it really is that simple.
Now the UAW walks away from the table. Let them keep walking if they want to go for broke, then broke is exactly what they should and will be.
By BW
February 15, 2009 8:23 PM | Link to this
So MHS, it’s the American worker whose at fault, not incompetent mangement, only finally admit it was equally shared. It takes TWO to sign a contract, unless you know better.
The UAW should walk away until they get their fair share of the bail out, give the pension fund over to Uncle Sam, as well as GM, let the goverment run the whole thing.
Funny you believe in Free Trade and the destruction of Unions that protect workers rights? In every so called Free Trade agreement this country has entered into we provide for the workers right to organize, plus strict environmental standards. None ever enforced.
Tell me, how many production lines moved to Mexico? Funny free trade but fences up against our nieghbors while we kiss China’s a*.
By BW
February 15, 2009 10:59 PM | Link to this
Isn’t it funny that MHS disappeared when confronted with the truth, has anyone seen him write against management until forced to? It’s the workers fault or the Union we fine ourselves in this position. Not management, not corporate greed, but the American worker, the ones expected to take slave wages keeping the Fat Cats and Wall St. happy.
By Michael H. Smith
February 15, 2009 11:57 PM | Link to this
Excuse you? I’m not the Houdini here.
First of all don’t make statements for me that I never made. I understand illiteracy is very high in New York, in fact among the top five according to the department of education but do take the time to read what I actually post. I’ve already expressed my opposition to bailouts for bankers and Wall Street, among other greedy fat cats many times over and over.
I never have supported this so-called Free Trade of Clinton or of Bush, I’ve been very vocal on that point and consistent in calling for “Fair Trade” policies that as Rep Duncan Hunter calls it mirrors the trading practices of other nations that we trade with and UNLIKE YOU and YOUR UNIONS, I oppose illegal immigration and the abuse of the visa system which is the flip side of the offshore outsourcing American jobs to foreign labor. Even one of your lousy liberal sites that falsely claims the Progressive label that once used by Mr Badie in a blog, the Alter Net, ~ where the news gets all mixed up ~ concurs with my position on this globalization issue, though, they and I completely disagree on amnesty and this crap of creating a pathway to citizenship. However, will chip in to create a one-way express route back to Mexico. Now, try to keep your telltales straight hereafter or I’ll have to change your name to RUG, for misspeaking wall to wall like cheap carpet all over the place.
The UAW is not owed a share of any taxpayer bailouts or loans. I’ll say it again, the taxpayers never signed that 2007 contract with either GM or the UAW on retiree paid healthcare funding. Any bad deals made by GM with the UAW union is just one more bad management decision made on GM’s part and should not receive one red copper of taxpayer funding.
Now that I’ve written our two Senators Chambliss and Isakson including Representative Linder, as if I really needed to, I’d say three votes in Congress will go against these so-called American automakers if the UAW does not concede the legacy costs of retiree paid healthcare plans. More than likely they will vote against anything that comes before them where these so-called American automakers are concerned, because they and the UAW have proven they cannot run profitable companies.
By BW
February 16, 2009 1:07 PM | Link to this
Let me get this straight, only the UAW members should give up their retirements, but no mention of management doing the same?
The UAW, like say the Catolic Churh, supported the bush/mcain/Kennedy Bill, should we close down the churches?
You just have this fixation that unions are evil, maybe you have bounced from so many you never built up any retirement benefits?
Next time you write Linder ask him how his Flat Tax is coming along? Strang all those years when he was second chair on the Banking Committee and the republicans were in control the bill or idea never made it out of committee, thinl anyone would pay attention to the ghost now?
By Michael H. Smith
February 16, 2009 4:30 PM | Link to this
Nah you don’t have it straight. Management has made concessions and management jobs have been cut. Everyone has made concessions and still even if your lousy UAW did actually concede retiree paid healthcare for life like they should, GM will not match Toyota on billable rate labor charges. GM at best will be $62 per hr verses Toyota at $53 per hr. Congress should not grant another bailout loan to these car makers that cannot produce a viable profitable business plan.
GM and the UAW brought financial mayhem on themselves that should get them exactly what a CAPITALIST market gives to such business failures.
As for your Catholic Church, if they violate any laws in their support of illegal aliens the particular church and pastor or priest should be fined or jailed and both the church and its pastor or priest should lose all tax exemptions. Just because you say church that does not mean they are beyond the laws of man so long as they are on this earth. And in this country, which is a nation of laws: Nobody, no church, not even an illegal alien or sitting President is above that law.
Your fixation is that as long as it is a union it is holy; and that is a load of crap. I’ve been able to get more done by going directly to company management than I ever could have accomplished through a damn union. And, your BS line about the union not protecting bad employees is pure horse manure. I’ve personally seen and witnessed a shop steward defend a bum of a guy that even the steward told me he did not want to go to bat for because this guy deserved to get his butt fired and because he was sorry as crap but because he was in the union the steward was forced by duty to the union to defend this jerk, when it would have been better for the company and for the union had this sack of dung been hang out to dry. Your blessed corrupt unions have seen their best days and purpose served many years ago. After the Progressive reforms accomplished the passage of many labor laws during the progressive era of Teddy Roosevelt which eventually made their way onto the books under Wilson, better than half of what was needed by labor from unions at that time was already done. Beyond FDR the unions haven’t done very much that otherwise couldn’t have been done without them. Now they are a worthless piece of costly overhead that is as corrupt as the mafia: Both extort, both collect protection money a.k.a. dues and worst the unions are nothing more than a front for political action committees to get Democrats elected.
They will have to pay attention time afta time (sic) to John Linder’ s vote and that is all that really counts in the House from anyone’s Representative: Including Madam Comrade Pelosi, whose vote Linder usually negates. :)
By BW
February 16, 2009 9:52 PM | Link to this
I’ll try one more time to try to get an answer on this, should management concede their retiree paid healthcare for life? It doesn’t apply to Wall Street or failed bankers, just unions.
Our union never carried anyone, lives were on the line, even at the International level there has never been any form of corruption.
I think I tried but failed to explain how unions work, there are Locals and the National or International. Some locals may be corrupt, like some CEO’s, but it doesn’t make the entire union bad.
You sound like the typical republican scab, you hate the union but will gladly except any benefits the union gets for all.