The number of newly started foreclosure cases on Long Island jumped 54 percent last month from January, although the number of actual lender repossessions of homes continued to fall, according to RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosures.
Long Island had 933 new cases - 607 in Suffolk and 326 in Nassau - compared with 606 in January, the report showed. The rate of new February cases shows Long Island is almost back to where it was a year ago, when lenders opened foreclosure proceedings on 999 homes, according to the data.
In total, Long Island's foreclosure-related filings, from auction notices to repossessions, grew by 26 percent last month from January, the company said. That was more than the nationwide average increase of almost 6 percent, RealtyTrac reported.
But there was one notable vote among New York's representatives. That vote came from Congressman Eric Massa, who was one of 24 Democrats to oppose the legislation.
Massa didn't oppose it because, like most of the other Democrats who opposed it, he was a Blue Dog. Massa opposed it because of the minimal impact it would have on his district.
"I campaigned on a platform of standing as an independent voice and voting in the interests of my constituents, not a political party. Today I did just that because I didn't think the Housing bill delivered a proportionally fair amount of relief to the families of my district," said Congressman Massa moments after the vote. "With this in mind, I could not rationalize further deficit spending in the face of minimal assistance to the working families in our district. While there are a number of things that I did like in this bill, the projections in it demonstrated that it was largely targeted to States like California, Nevada and Florida where the housing crisis has hit the hardest, not Western New York. I support helping families refinance their adjustable rate mortgages to stay in their homes, but compared to many other states, Western New Yorkers would not benefit enough to warrant my vote."
The Olean Times-Herald also discussed Massa's independence on this issue in a piece this morning. As they reported, Massa discussed the housing bill during his weekly press call. During that call, he made it clear that he would oppose the legislation because it did not benefit Western New York and did not go far enough and helping homeowners in his district.
Massa has argued that this vote shows his independence and that, as he said in the Olean Times-Herald piece, he isn't "married to the Democratic leadership." But his vote is much more than that.
I know that many constituents in every congressional district in the country feel that their opinions don't matter. They feel that their representative votes the party line or votes in their own best interest. In this case, Massa showed that his district is in his mind every time he votes. That means something.
Prior to being elected to Congress, we knew Massa was special. We knew that he was outspoken and that he wasn't afraid to stand up for what he believes in. That is what made him an appealing and excellent candidate. And that is what makes him an excellent congressman.
While there are things to like about the housing bill, if it's not going to do anything for your district, why vote for it? That question is one that every representative should ask themselves when they vote on important bills. Congressman Massa asked himself that question when the housing bill came across his desk and he didn't see the bill helping his district. So he voted against it.
This won't be the last time Massa does this. I have a feeling you will see plenty of this over the next 21 months and beyond.
In a letter to President-elect Barack Obama, Senate Democratic Leader Malcolm A. Smith urged President-elect Obama to include greater federal protection for homeowners to stem the tide of the subprime mortgage crisis.
In part, Smith stated, "it is outrageous for banks to be given taxpayer money without the precondition of assisting homeowners in foreclosure."
Smith added, "The implementation of the second part of the federal assistance package for financial institutions must be contingent upon the establishment of adequate provisions to protect homeowners". He asked President-elect Obama and the New York Congressional Delegation "not to support any further assistance to our financial institutions unless the following conditions are met: 1) banks and other lenders must be required to use a portion of the funding for a temporary moratorium on foreclosures while borrowers are provided the opportunity to renegotiate the terms of their loans; and 2) banks and other lenders must commit that a substantial percentage of the funds they receive will be used to renegotiate mortgages for those already in foreclosure and to avoid foreclosure for those at risk."
You can read the full letter to President-elect Obama below the fold.
U.S. Rep. John "Randy" Kuhl, R-29, voted against the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 - signed into law Wednesday morning - saying the cost would be too high for taxpayers.
"You have taxpayers subsidizing the risk-takers (mortgage lenders), which I find unacceptable," he said, pointing to a $300 billion Federal Housing Administration fund to renegotiate mortgages and $3.9 billion for municipalities to buy foreclosed homes, along with an undefined amount of funds to back up government-chartered lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
"The more I think back, the more reasons I think of that I oppose this on," Kuhl said. "It actually undoes some of the risk lenders took when they loaned money to these people."
According to Democrat Eric Massa, who's challenging Kuhl for his seat, the law won't cost taxpayers.
"The only way it will cost the taxpayers money will be if the renegotiated mortgages are defaulted on," Massa said.
By renegotiating mortgages with lenders, he added, the bill will help keep down property taxes in communities affected by foreclosures.
"As the homes are foreclosed on, then no one pays property taxes," Massa said. "If you don't do this (bill to keep homes out of foreclosure), the property taxes for everyone else will rise to make up for it (the loss of revenue)."
He added towns in California and Arizona have been facing rising taxes because there are fewer taxpayers, and unless there is relief for those with mortgages, property taxes for 30 million Americans could be affected.
To put this in perspective, even Rep. Tom Reynolds voted for this bill. Rep. Jim Walsh voted for it also. Rep. John McHugh also voted "yea" to this legislation. Rep. Peter King also voted in favor of this measure. So you have the other four New York Republicans voting against it while Fossella and Kuhl decided to play partisan politics. In all, 149 Republicans voted against this legislation.
Rep. Miller, who is a member of the Financial Services Committee, said that it was the subprime mortgage crisis that led him to read blogs. He said there was a "populist rage nobody seemed to understand where it was coming from."
During this crisis, two to three million people have lost their homes. As Hudson reiterated, the people who lost their homes shown by that statistic are just subprime mortgage borrowers.
Hudson also talked about the working environment at these lenders. He discussed how "23 year olds are told to make calls and told to do anything and say anything." One such lender he mentioned was Ameriquest, where such an environment exists and these young people are making lots of money, essentially off this crisis.
But it was DMI's Mark Winston Griffith who put together a terrific presentation on this issue and discussed the myths and realities of the subprime mortgage fiasco. I recorded four video clips of his presentation, the majority of which you can see via these videos. Here is one video, with the other three over the jump.
One of the goals of this panel was to bring a progressive tone to the discussion about this issue. This issue is impacting the working and middle class people of America and it is a very serious problem. I hope, like myself, you can learn more from Griffith's presentation and become invested in changing the tone of the discussion about this issue. This isn't the borrowers' fault. This is about the lenders.
More than two dozen families from across New York State came to the Capitol today to demand that legislators and the Governor come together and hammer out an agreement to pass legislation to address New York's foreclosure crisis before the legislature adjourns in two weeks.
"If Albany sticks to business as usual, I could lose my home. Families facing foreclosure just can't wait any longer," said Migdalia Rodriguez. Ms. Rodriguez fell behind on two adjustable rate loans on her home in Brooklyn after she was injured in a car accident, forcing her to cut back her hours.
On May 7th the New York State Assembly overwhelmingly passed legislation to institute a one year moratorium on home foreclosure (A. 9695B) as well as a separate measure, the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (A-10083A) which would provide temporary financial assistance to homeowners with sub-prime or unconventional mortgages facing foreclosure. The State Senate has taken no action on either piece of legislation.
At the same time the families were calling for action, ACORN Housing released new data underscoring the need for legislation to tackle the mortgage crisis. ACORN Housing is a HUD certified loan counseling agency charged with working with families in crisis to avoid foreclosure. In the past twelve months ACORN Housing has assisted approximately 150 families facing foreclosure. According to a review of open case files in ACORN Housing's loan counseling records:
* Banks have failed to respond to requests for voluntary work-outs on 32 subprime loans handled by ACORN since January;
* For loans that were successfully worked out, the average time between a loan counselor submitting a loan for review by a bank and a work-out was 12 weeks.
* There is no standard methodology banks follow in reviewing applications for loan work-outs from ACORN Housing counselors. Nearly identical proposals receive totally different responses from different banks.
* There is massive variance between lenders in responsiveness to requests for loan work-outs;
* Legal fees and arrears continue to be added to the outstanding loan balance during the time between a work-out proposal is submitted and a bank's response - putting the loan further underwater and making a solution more elusive.
"Every day we help families attempting to refinance unaffordable subprime loans. The facts are clear: banks are not stepping up to the plate. We need this legislation to finally give homeowners with subprime loans real protection," said Ismene Speliotis, Director of ACORN Housing.
This is an issue that was mentioned at today's press conference with Governor David Paterson, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith and Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco. With 11 days left on the legislative calendar, Paterson said the the state "needs legislation" to address the subprime mortgage crisis.
Indeed, we do need this. This is something that former Governor Eliot Spitzer was discussing when he was in power and even proposed legislation to address the crisis. If our legislature accomplishes anything in the last 11 days, they should address this crisis. Many families in New York are impacted by it and it is important to reach a compromise to address this problem.
(This important issue IS NOT just about Brooklyn-- bit chunks of Utica, Endicott, Buffalo, Rochester, Schnectady, Syracuse and other places are also at major risk... - promoted by robinia)
(By my esteemed coworker Ms. Sarah Solon)
This estimate comes from a new report released by Senator Chuck Schumer, and appeared in the Brooklyn Courier-Life yesterday. The entire article is worth a read - showing the scary local consequences of a sub-prime mortgage industry that has trapped too many in impossible-to-pay-off borrowing agreements. Here's an upsetting excerpt:
The next two years could leave thousands of Brooklynites homeless, as the aftermath spawned by a "rogue" industry comes to light, a federal lawmaker recently warned. A rash of foreclosures fueled by subprime mortgages is the cause, according to Senator Charles Schumer.
And for many, the future could be grim.
Schumer's analysis showed that in the next two years, 91,000 families will be at risk of foreclosure because of these lending practices. In the New York Metropolitan area alone, an estimated 53,000 families will see their mortgages reset to onerous rates, he said.
"The bottom line here is that the subprime bust is leading us right into a foreclosure boom, and thousands of Brooklyn residents will be left in the lurch," Schumer said.
DMI Fellow Mark Winston Griffith has written widely about the dangers of a predatory sub-prime mortgage industry. For his analysis of how shady lending practices eventually damage the companies who concoct these loans, check out "Sub-Prime Mortgages Come Home to Roost. "
* * * *
oooh and Alternet just ran Mark's article giving some history and analysis of how lending institutions have tarred entire segments of the population as "credit unworthy" through the mortgage industry's own discriminatory and irresponsible behavior.
But there was one notable vote among New York's representatives. That vote came from 
