Michigan Votes Forum

Discuss issues, ideas and legislation related to the Great Lake State.
Welcome to Michigan Votes Forum Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Latest post 05-09-2008 1:49 PM by Anonymous Citizen. 2 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (3 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 01-01-2001 12:00 AM

    2008 Senate Bill 1307 (Prohibit enforcement of residential tax foreclosures for two years )

    Introduced in the Senate on May 7, 2008

    Click here to view bill details.
  • 05-09-2008 8:36 AM In reply to

    Repeal Law of Unintended Consequences

    I understand that you want to help our fellow citizens who are having problems, but this won't do it. What will this accomplish? Some people may be able to hold on to their houses, and many won't. Banks will take a hit, dropping their income and ability to fund new mortgages. By interferring with private contracts, you will make it less likely that banks will make new loans, and those that are made will now have an interest rate premium attached to it to make up for the losses you legislate. The inability to finance houses will disrupt teh economy, making it harder for people to sell adn move, or to move here & finance a house. By interferring with private contracts, you put a chill on any new business activity in the state. Every new company you want to attract will wonder if they are the next company to have arms-length negociated contracts set aside. The law of unintended consequences strikes again. Just let the market work out these problems. Some people will lose their homes, but that will happen anyway. The only question is now or later.

     

  • 05-09-2008 1:49 PM In reply to

    Big Brother rears its head

    I agree with the previous post, but it is not only interference with bank contracts. there is a ripple effect when you tell private citizens who sold on land contract that they have to allow two years without payments before they can foreclose. For many citizens, this is money they rely on. It is their cash flow. Their retirement income. Although the court can order payment, the truth is the situation wouldn't exist is the purchaser was making payments. This will be costly for land contract holders. They will be paying for legal fees and not receiving any income on the property. This is Big Brother stepping in and voiding private contracts. What a horrible, economically devastating decision. Why would I want to do business in a state that sets a precedent of carte blanche voiding contracts to which the state is not a party? This is an unconstitutional taking of property rights.
Page 1 of 1 (3 items)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems