Obama prepares for career as landlord
posted at 1:25 pm on August 11, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
It’s an idea so beautiful in its simplicity and so perfectly targeted to cure one of our biggest national headaches that many readers will be slapping their foreheads in one of those, “I could have had a V-8″ moments. The housing market is still in the tank and the government has been forced to foreclose on countless properties which now sit vacant, generating no tax revenue. The nation’s coffers are running dry and we have to tackle our debt problem. But nobody wants to raise taxes. What to do?
Why, you kill two birds with one stone, of course! We’ll let the government go into the property rental business!
The Obama administration may turn thousands of government-owned foreclosures into rental properties to help boost falling home prices.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency said Wednesday it is seeking input from investors on how to rent homes owned by government-controlled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.
At the end of last month, the government owned roughly 248,000 foreclosed homes, officials said. About 70,000 of those are listed for sale. But officials expect the number of foreclosures to soar in the coming months.
What could possibly go wrong? Over at Pajamas Media, Bryan Preston suspects that even in such an obviously brilliant scheme, there might be a few wrinkles.
[N]ot to put too fine a point on things, renting your home from the government raises all kinds of liberty questions. If they don’t like your politics, can they find a way to evict you? Can they tell you what to do (more than the government already does) in the home you’re renting from Uncle Sam? With a president hitting 51% disapproval, an IRS that’s become notorious for political audits and federal law enforcement agencies known lately more for gunrunning than crime stopping, that’s not an idle question. Would the feds allow renters to own firearms in these government homes? The majority of renters between now and 2012 are likely to be people who don’t like their landlord, but the landlord has, shall we say, serious firepower superiority. There’s a great deal to ponder here.
It’s difficult to imagine what a mess this would wind up being in court, if only on the constitutional authority questions. Preston offers an alternate suggestion of scrapping Fannie and Freddie entirely and spinning off all of those properties at open, public auctions. Granted, that would have a sudden, if short term negative impact on the real estate market, but it could conceivably hasten the process of allowing it to find its natural bottom and begin rebuilding from there in an organic fashion.
But who knows? If we let Washington handle it as proposed, there would probably be all sorts of exemptions and set-asides built into the system and you might wind up renting a mansion for fifty bucks a month. And if the house is built well enough it will provide you with a place to hide when the zombie apocalypse begins.
Cash for Bunkers?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
The problem is you cannot dump all of those houses on the market at once. It might take a few years to sell them. I would support the idea of renting them as long as it isn’t to section 8s so that someone is in them to maintain them but I don’t want to see this thing stretched out for a decade. There are people with capital who will buy those homes if the price is right. I am one of them.
Bill C on August 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM
Actually there is a significant shortage of affordable rental housing in most major cities. Unfortunately, most of the foreclosed homes are in far-off suburbs. It doesn’t do a poor person much good to put them in a nice affordable house out in the boonies if they can’t find a job or get to it from there.
The government won’t sell these houses en masse as it should, simply because the bureaucrats are too afraid somebody might actually make a lot of money buying them cheap and flipping them or charging market rents.
rockmom on August 11, 2011 at 2:27 PM
Yes, it is rhetorical. The guy is a pathalogical liar and a spendaholic. What is that illness that causes people to keep buying stuff for the rush one gets from that?
Anyone know?
dogsoldier on August 11, 2011 at 2:28 PM
Sure you can. There will always be a buyer for a house unless it is in Detroit. This market needs to clear and it needs to clear ASAP. Auction all the houses and raze those that do not sell. Problem solved.
rockmom on August 11, 2011 at 2:28 PM
That is one of the more idiotic ideas the government has come up with.
Since when is the government an efficient steward of anything? It would be like plopping Section 8 housing just any old where!
Better to drop the prices and sell the properties to private parties who are willing to do the hard, often nasty, work of being real landlords.
Dumbasses.
thatdamnredhead on August 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM
On steroids.
Sit tight. Odumbo will come up with more brainless ideas in due time. We have a long way to go before Nov. 12, 2012.
GrannyDee on August 11, 2011 at 2:30 PM
So if Obama is the landlord…who is paying the taxes? Who wants to bet…live in the house so long, pay rent, and it is yours…..
Larr on August 11, 2011 at 2:31 PM
The possibilities for mischief are endless. Here are just a few that come to mind immediately:
- non-legislative forced integration (racial and economic class)
- preferential treatment for “preferred” groups
- forgiveness of rent for doing things “preferred” by the government – just like student loan forgiveness if you take on a job that the government wants you to
- intimidation through the use of rent rates if you show specific unfavored attributes: gun owner, member of certain political parties, etc.
- indirect control on new housing starts by manipulating the price per square foot of housing; inhibit new developments to force high density occupancy as part of the progressive’s view of the future housing nirvana
- expanding the dependent class
- squeezing out real estate entrepreneurs (class warfare)
How “unexpected”.
in_awe on August 11, 2011 at 2:31 PM
They would be better off razing the homes and selling off the building lots to individuals for $1 in a modern day “homestead” scheme. A person could buy only one lot and they would have to build on it within five years and have a code-compliant finished home on it within ten years.
crosspatch on August 11, 2011 at 2:31 PM
Tear them all down. Keeps them from being used as crack house or squatters. Reduces the inventory. Keeps the blight out of marginal neighborhoods.
Then sell the vacant land to speculators for future new construction in blocks of 100 lots.
barnone on August 11, 2011 at 2:35 PM
Or maybe – live in the house…no rent needed…and its yours!
Larr on August 11, 2011 at 2:37 PM
In my best radio announcer voice, “ . . . and if you pay your rent on time for three months we’ll throw in a FEMA trailer for free!” /sarc
Mangy Scot on August 11, 2011 at 2:37 PM
One bourbon…
one scotch…
and one beer, please.
Tim_CA on August 11, 2011 at 2:38 PM
Isn’t this really all about the end game of no private property ownership?
ORconservative on August 11, 2011 at 2:39 PM
I’m more concerned about the IDEA than overt (or even covert) CONTROL over the renters. If they can rent, then they can turn the houses into Section 8 housing, and give them over to people who don’t work. There goes the neighborhood.
Paul-Cincy on August 11, 2011 at 2:42 PM
Nope. The original G.I. town.
Knucklehead on August 11, 2011 at 2:42 PM
Corruption in this program will start long before anyone moves in. The government cannot manage rental housing. What liberal organization exists already that specializes in low-income housing advocacy? ACORN of course, and all the fake-front organizations that replaced them. They will be hired to manage, and they will make out like gangsters because they are gangsters.
What will they do with all those profits? Pour them into little Bammie’s reelection of course. It’s a win-win-win for the progs all around.
We much resist! Resist we much!
slickwillie2001 on August 11, 2011 at 2:43 PM
What does this do to legitimate landlords and the amount they will be able to charge for rent?
This will distort the rental market so much that there will be more “unintended” consequences”, probably leading to even more government ownership of properties.
Good Sweet Louise.
hillbillyjim on August 11, 2011 at 2:43 PM
I’m gonna need one of those quotation marks back.
Thank you.
hillbillyjim on August 11, 2011 at 2:46 PM
Perzakly.
hillbillyjim on August 11, 2011 at 2:51 PM
Are you saying that a progressive’s scheme makes no sense?!
Third generation welfare cyphers are not interested in finding jobs. They’re going to lead the same kind of life they did in the projects, just in your neighborhood.
It’s not fair, you see, that such houses even exist unless illiterate welfare queens can live in them too, with their nine children from seven fathers.
Akzed on August 11, 2011 at 2:54 PM
Something like this?
rogerb on August 11, 2011 at 2:58 PM
Many people already live in a federal rental home. You will know it better by another name: “The Projects”.
I bet Obama cant wait to fill up all those vacan houses with needy section *s. Its the new entitlement your very own government home.
paulsur on August 11, 2011 at 3:01 PM
Section 8 housing vouchers, here we come…to a house near you.
RADIOONE on August 11, 2011 at 3:02 PM
I hope your kidding about the razing. I am for auctioning them but 248k houses is going to take some time.
Bill C on August 11, 2011 at 3:04 PM
Wow, it’s gotten that far. I grew up in Beverly and I have a lot of friends in Tinley and Orland. So far they aren’t complaining about crime. I live in Round Lake and we have one Section 8 house on our block. There used to be a lot more because Fannie owned dozens of homes in our subdivision but they eventually sold them. I bought from them as did most of my neighbors. Of course, a couple of investors bought and they rent. The Sec. 8 house kids cause most of the trouble on the block.
Bill C on August 11, 2011 at 3:10 PM
“Next Friday came and I didn’t have the rent, so Dodd and Frank more taxes they spent”
Hening on August 11, 2011 at 3:11 PM
*Apologies to George Thorogood*!!
It’s “that don’t conCERN me……as long as I get MY rent next Friday!”
Katfish on August 11, 2011 at 3:12 PM
..well, maybe those folks who own Chevy Volts won’t have to go so far to get goods and services.
The War Planner on August 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM
Starting with Camden, NJ
katy the mean old lady on August 11, 2011 at 3:16 PM
In decades past big banks, with large, underwater real estate portfolios, sold them off to vulture funds, which took the risks and with the capitalist profit motives and energy made it work. Those funds still exist. There is no need for the government to do this.
Think of the additional federal employees that would be hired to “manage” this, which “management” probably would be accomplished by hiring incompetent rent seekers.
GaltBlvnAtty on August 11, 2011 at 3:18 PM
Both of you make good points. However, if a house sits unattended for a lengthy period, depending on the location and the surrounding environment, the house may be ready for razing.
It’s a damn shame that we (meaning you-know-who) allowed Fannie and Freddie to distort the market so much that we’re in these straits.
Every (D) will of course say: “Why didn’t you address it when you had both houses and the presidency?”
Well, the answer is that there are too many spineless Republicans, for one thing. Another thing is than the (R)’s never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Bush the Second tried to address the problems with Fannie/Freddie, and was shot down in flames by Congress.
Every attempt to modify the F/F debacle was met with stonewalled resistance from the usual suspects from the Democrat side.
You all know it’s true; otherwise, prove me wrong.
hillbillyjim on August 11, 2011 at 3:19 PM
thanthathillbillyjim on August 11, 2011 at 3:20 PM
So a zombie on welfare rents the house via Section 8 Housing from Slum Lord Obama, but then gets attacked by other zombies from the ‘hood when Barakalypse Now goes into full effect, leaving the government landlord on the hook for repairs or the whole enchilada if the zombies manage to burn it to the ground. Plus the zombies on both sides get to sue the government for injuries incurred, property loss and/or receive medicaid. It’s the perfect socialist full employment, healthcare & housing program. Then they all get together for the Government Cheese cookout after the wilding is done. Ahhhhh, Nirvanna!
JimP on August 11, 2011 at 3:24 PM
Good, but it’s all about the formatting:
Next Friday came
and I didn’t have the rent,
so Dodd and Frank,
more taxes they spent.
Still, good job.
hillbillyjim on August 11, 2011 at 3:25 PM
Ojesus, Frank and Dodd
Sittin’ in a tree
Pointing a weapon
At you and me.
Taking our money
Tryin’ to play God;
We’ve got weapons too,
Ojesus Frank and Dodd.
Remember this
And remember well;
Before you get my property
I’ll see you in hell.
hillbillyjim on August 11, 2011 at 3:31 PM
It’s called: “Teenage Girl“!!!
landlines on August 11, 2011 at 3:31 PM
Brian Preston got it all wrong. This will be the expansion of Section 8 which will cause property values nationwide to plummet.
mizflame98 on August 11, 2011 at 3:33 PM
He will be the Housing Pimp
All this will be is giving free housing to his moochers, while enriching his looters, at taxpayers’ expense.
It is wealth redistribution in full sunshine.
Shun him with all you have and fight him like hell. He is after all you have and stand for. Protect your children from him and his destruction.
Schadenfreude on August 11, 2011 at 3:36 PM
Predictable result of Federal Government as Landlord:
1. Unqualified candidate gains access to a home.
2. Home is stripped of all plumbing, wiring and metal heating parts, which are then sold.
3. To cover the theft, the unusable home is abandoned and burned down, endangering the entire neighborhood..
4. Repeat.
landlines on August 11, 2011 at 3:41 PM
Houses that sit unattended end up with all the wiring and plumbing stripped out and sold for scrap. Fixtures are sold on the Internet or at flea markets. If they have valuable windows such as double-pane energy efficient stuff, those get removed and sold. If it has aluminum siding, that gets stolen and sold, too. Rain gutters, stolen.
Any home that sits unattended for any length of time gets stripped these days.
crosspatch on August 11, 2011 at 3:59 PM
Obama had a partner in Chicago that would commit to be the landlord czar A Tony Rezco They had a great track record of rehabbing properties.
I can see also discounted rents if they donate time to ACORN and register some neighbors. Of course i don’t have the updated name for ACORN.
seven on August 11, 2011 at 4:00 PM
The pathology is more complicated in his case, he’s a shopaholic/spendaholic that uses other people’s money…so, some form of kleptomania is in the mix too :-)…add to that his narcissistic personality disorder, and a certain schizophrenia (his insistence and belief that he can have it both ways), and you have a very complex pathological profile there :-)…all’s needed is a referral …
jimver on August 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM
Whether they call it section 8 housing or unicorn housing – you can get WHO will get the housing (and it sure won’t be middle-class working families). As others have said, THAT will then become another entitlement program. We’ll find illegals, welfare mamas and outright criminals living in $500,000 houses and failing to make ANY rent payments. There goes the neighborhood indeed. Not only will it become a new integration program but it will integrate nice neighborhoods with criminals and deadbeats. Pretty soon, housing will become another entitlement and yes, the housing will be torn up with complaints that they deserve better.
When people purchase properties they carefully checkout neighborhoods, schools, etc. before purchasing. Some even have homeowners associations that have specific rules about renting (how many people can live in the property, how many cars for parking, age requirements, rental applications and credit checks). If the government drops into the rental business, you can bet that neighborhoods will change. I’m not worried about a black family – I’m worried about a family that can’t/won’t keep up their property, runs drugs, has 8 kids running lose and doesn’t have the economic mindset to keep the property up.
katablog.com on August 11, 2011 at 4:16 PM
I want the Rangel 3-fer discount.
unclesmrgol on August 11, 2011 at 4:21 PM
Only raze the ones that draw no bids at auction. There won’t be many, I can guarantee that.
But the most important thing is, get them off the governent’s books and DO NOT WORRY about what happens after they are sold. If a slumlord buys a bunch of them and puts Section 8 tenants in them, tough.
This is exactly what the old Resolution Trust Corp. did with all the properties it took over after the savings and loans failed. It auctioned off everything and then closed. Maybe the only government agency in our lifetimes that opened, finsihed its job, and then closed.
The government has done an absoultely terrible job with the loan modification prgrams it tried to run to hep homeowners keep their homes. It will do an even worse job of trying to be a landflorad to $250,000 families. I shudder to even think of the waste, corruption, delays, and general mismanagement that will inevitably result.
rockmom on August 11, 2011 at 4:22 PM
crosspatch on August 11, 2011 at 3:59 PM
That totally depends on the neighborhood. In our upscale neighborhood there are at least 5 houses that either remain vacant or have short-time renters in-between vacancies – not ONE has been broken into or trashed; at least 2 are bank owned.
But I live in a neighborhood that cares and watches out for the neighborhood. However, if the houses were rented out by the government to those who would not maintain the property – we, the neighbors, couldn’t prevent them from being destroyed on the inside or outside.
katablog.com on August 11, 2011 at 4:23 PM
That is one of the more idiotic ideas the government has come up with.
Since when is the government an efficient steward of
And they’d charge $1.00 a month rent in all probability.
But the banks would love it. The name of the game obviously is to help the wealthy help themselves. I will agree with the Democrats on that point, but the Robin Hood approach would be, as always, a fiasco.
They (banks, corporations) have no intention nor need to expand, hire or increase their spending. They are there to make money-not to insure our employment nor our lifestyles nor our financial security. The real dog-eat-dog side of a free enterprise system degenerated into quasi-monopolies and a Corporatist economic system.
Dr. ZhivBlago on August 11, 2011 at 4:29 PM
Potterville
CynicalOptimist on August 11, 2011 at 4:46 PM
Obamaville
CynicalOptimist on August 11, 2011 at 4:46 PM
Barakville
CynicalOptimist on August 11, 2011 at 4:47 PM
Dorothyville.
(You’re not in Kansas anymore.)
hillbillyjim on August 11, 2011 at 5:07 PM
Change Town
katablog.com on August 11, 2011 at 5:07 PM
Hell yes, let’s get government deeper into our economy, since they’ve done so well so far.
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwdamighty!!!!
hillbillyjim on August 11, 2011 at 5:09 PM
If this program is based on the theory that a Section 8 tenant in a rented house will take better care of it than if it is left vacant, we might as well just bulldoze them.
slickwillie2001 on August 11, 2011 at 5:12 PM
“Well, I’m tired, I been walkin’ all day…”
mojo on August 11, 2011 at 5:37 PM
I would rather see every single solitary foreclosed and abandoned home burned to the ground before I would want The Empty Suit to apply his well-known form of “magic” to the mess!
pilamaye on August 11, 2011 at 5:39 PM
This is no doubt step one of a plan to increase Section 8 Housing allowances by gazillions and ruin what’s left of suburban neighborhoods from sea to shining sea.
Buy Danish on August 11, 2011 at 5:59 PM
I thought they already were with the FEMA trailers in Louisiana.
UnderstandingisPower on August 11, 2011 at 6:10 PM
You forgot number 5.
5. Sue the government for a large sum of cash to replace stuff you never had and a healthy settlement for pain and suffering for losing your home.
Bonus step – get a per diem for hotel expenses whilst you wait for your check from The One.
Jason Coleman on August 11, 2011 at 6:16 PM
That monstrosity shouldn’t even exist in the first place.
No matter…Shemp was downright giddy at the rising Dow Jones today, so if Shemp’s happy, all is good.
Dr. ZhivBlago on August 11, 2011 at 6:27 PM
Ia Obama a hoarder?
Fallon on August 11, 2011 at 7:22 PM
Maybe Shemp found out he’s been assigned to cover Marxist Vineyard for little Bammie’s vacation.
slickwillie2001 on August 11, 2011 at 8:16 PM
They are already using the homes for section 8 housing. On the bright side, this is sure to bring down the inventory of vacant houses, since the neighbors will be burning them down.
DFCtomm on August 11, 2011 at 8:24 PM
Heh, like me some George Thorogood
Liberty or Death on August 11, 2011 at 9:31 PM
This is a disaster for another reason – many of those homes are McMansions that will be needing major fixing inside a decade. I’ve been told this by at least ten different construction workers and real estate agents.
So if the gov’t buys all of them for Sec.8 housing, very quickly down the line it’s gonna need to fund a lot of repair jobs, dealing with fires from poor wiring, and possibly tearing down places all over anyway.
Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 7:37 AM
My suggestion: sell the houses at auction. Yes, the market will dive, hurting existing homeowners. So take the proceeds from the sale, and distribute them to other homeowners in the area to offset their lost equity.
RegularJoe on August 12, 2011 at 10:22 AM
Quite honestly there needs to be a nation-wide campaign to tear down old/derelict buildings. And I say this as a lover of urban exploration, by the way. There are just too many structures being used for illicit purposes.
Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 11:53 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2