I have no idea what the California laws are, but since the SCOTUS has ruled that cities may use eminent domain to further the economic development of a city, I really doubt that it violates either federal law or the Constitution (at least as SCOTUS has ruled).
That SCOTUS decision was a travesty. Old Saybrook, Ct. kicked a number of families out of their ancestral waterfront homes because they wanted the tax revenue from a yuppie/fag restaurant/bar district. They kicked out the families, but the homes still sit vacant. What they threaten to do in California is different. It doesn't really matter if it's legal or not...if they do this, no one will ever get a private home loan there ever again...is that progress? Btw, why do you suppose this northern California town has been..."long plagued by poverty and crime" if not for their screwy socialist policies in the first place? (duh)
Simple way to stop it - the state and/or the people can pas a law limiting the use of eminent domain. Many states have done just that.
It's not only legal, but Wall Street made it easy. Mortgages were not only bundled, but sliced, diced, and sold options on to the point of there being no clear ownership resulting in a clouded title. There have been cases where banks have tried to foreclose but couldn't produce a title to prove ownership. Some couldn't even produce a mortgage agreement.
I am not sure 80% of the fair market value of the home would be considered fair, just and reasonable compensation for the targeted mortgages.
I don't think it satisfies all the legal requirements necessary to use Eminent Domain. There are the four basic elements of the law: 1. It must be private property. 2. It must be taken. 3. It must be public use. 4. Just compensation must be given. Typically Eminent Domain is used to acquire private property deemed necessary to acquire in order to provide a public use, such as a highway or other infrastructure like utilities. Using in the way they are appears to fail the requirements under the law. The property doesn't need to be taken, for one, and it's not going to be for the use of the public, for another. Third, is "just compensation". I don't consider an offer of 80% fair-market value to be "just", especially when it's under the threat of seizure. It's a "strong-arm" tactic that, IMO, is not within their right to exercise. I believe they would lose any lawsuit brought against them should they decide to interpret the law in this manner.
I think you need to read up on the SCOTUS ruling, but then facts never seemed to get in your way before.
Rulings change. I mentioned the typical/historical use for a reason: It wasn't politically motivated law, unlike the scrotum's rulings. As for me "never letting facts get in my way": You say you never insult anyone without prior cause. What a liar you are, lol
From my understanding it is not the real estate being threatened with seizure using eminent domain - it is the debt instrument (the mortgage) being threatened. And only underwater mortgages at that. The price being proposed as compensation is 80% of the FMV of the underlying collateral (real estate) pledged against these debt instruments. I just don't think this will go very far. A purchase price based on 80% of the pledged collateral. What is to keep the government entity from expanding the scope to consumer debt which is unsecured with a FMV of the collateral at $0.00 - can they just take it for a purchase price of (80%*$0.00) $0.00? These mortgages have been bundled and tranched and transformed into derivative investments. No one knows who all owns an interest in each individual mortgage. This in itself i suspect will make it very difficult to classify as private property.
There are two kinds of insults. The ones they dole out that seem never to be committed to their long term memory and then there are the insults thrown in their direction which they never seem to forget and have the audacity to whine about every chance they get which is probably why they have no time to remember that they throw out at least as many insults as they receive. Whatever!
Well, what they don't realize is that I'm pretty-much immune to insults. I give myself "booster-shots" from time to time by calling myself "republican".
LOL. Is that why you threatened me with a federal lawsuit when I called you a "parrot"? They just don't come much more stupid than you, parrot. View attachment 1879 Or would you prefer "toothless old garbage man puppet with his hand out"? View attachment 1880
