« | »

Banks Bulldozing, Giving Away Foreclosures

From a somehow encouraged Time Magazine:

Bulldoze: The New Way To Foreclose

Posted by Stephen Gandel Monday, August 1, 2011

Banks have a new remedy to America’s ailing housing market: Bulldozers.

There are nearly 1.7 million homes in the U.S. in some state of foreclosure. Banks already own some of these homes and will soon repossess many more. Many housing economists worry that near constant stream of home sales from banks could keep housing prices down for years to come. But what if some of those homes never hit the market.

Increasingly, it appears banks are turning to demolition teams instead of realtors to rid them of their least valuable repossessed homes. Last month, Bank of American announced plans to demolish 100 foreclosed homes in the Cleveland area. The land is then going to be donated back to the local government authorities.

So instead of ‘shovel ready’ jobs, what Mr. Obama has given us is ‘shovel ready’ houses. Remember, this is the United States of America we are talking about here.

BofA says the recent donations in Cleveland are part of a larger plan to rid itself of its least saleable properties, many of which, according to a company spokesperson, are worth less than $10,000. BofA has already donated 100 homes in Detroit and 150 in Chicago, and may add as many as nine more cities by the end of the year.

And BofA is not alone. A number of banks are ramping up their efforts not just to rid themselves of their unwanted homes, but to fully dispose of them. Fannie Mae has a program to sell houses to local municipalities for around a few hundred dollars. Wells Fargo has donated 800 homes to be demolished since 2009. JPMorgan Chase says it was one of the first banks to begin donating houses it couldn’t sell, or didn’t think were repairable. Since 2008, the JPMorgan has donated or sold at a discount 1,900 houses to city or county officials

How much do you want to bet that many of these houses end up in the hands of the latest incarnation of ACORN? After all, these are the same banks that have enjoyed ‘partnerships’ with ACORN in the past.

Meanwhile, every day hardworking people are committing suicide over losing their homes because of being behind in their mortgage payments after twenty years.

The banks do the deals because once the properties are donated they no longer have to pay taxes or for upkeep. Tax experts say the banks may also be able to get a write off for the donation.

And yet the Obama administration is trying to do away with the mortgage deduction ‘loophole.’

Certainly, the idea that we are at the point where banks would be better off knocking down houses that reselling them shows there is still something very wrong with the housing market. But what is clear is that banks and others are at the point where they are ready to try something new to boost the housing market. And that is a good sign for the future.

Yes, bulldozing houses is a wonderfully "good sign for the future."


This article was posted by Steve on Monday, August 1st, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “Banks Bulldozing, Giving Away Foreclosures”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    This is perhaps the most shameful thing I can think of in my lifetime. The mechanics of all of this can be easily traced back to government manipulation and meddling in the affairs of business. The fact that the criminals responsible for all this are being passively excused and tolerated tells me how broken our system is. How hard I worked to get my first home, and my second some years later. I now rent and due to things beyond my control, I would never qualify for a home loan again. However, watching all this makes me shake my head in utter embarrassment for the people who participated, perpetrated and perpetuated the whole mess. Shameful.

    However, I think the videos of houses being bulldozed needs to be the Republican sight-bite for campaign purposes and needs to be run as often as a Sham-Wow commercial.

    • TerryAnne says:

      Yes…but will showing commericals really have an impact? I can’t see 52% of this country understanding what it means; I mean, they did vote for Zero after all. Most will just see it as, “well, thems houses needed to go! Where’s my McMansion on that spot? I’s entitled to a bigger and better home.”

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Given that the emotional dingbats of the left are so easily manipulated, it would be very easy. You put up videos of Frank, Dodd and the now sober Teddy Kennedy, demanding “homes for the poor” and then show a wrecking ball taking out a house. Then another sound bite of some dip-o-crat with another tagline from their favorite movie “Gives Me My House” and then a bulldozer plowing of a corner of a once nice home.

      Then a clever closing screen. “Sub-prime mortgages….the way of the future….if you vote democrat”. I know, that’s a little too obscure to the average socialist….

      You know, back in the late 90’s when all this was going on, I kept saying to myself, “This is all going to end very badly with SOMEone left holding the bag of bad loans.” I watched as people moved into my neighborhood who had NO business owning a home, let alone being allowed to breathe. When the one across-the-street neighbor abandoned the house, my wife and I walked through it and couldn’t believe the mess, the abject squalor, the destruction they rendered on their own home.

      Fine, level them all. And, just like with all housing projects, secure MORE tax money to rebuild them so you can give them away again…then in ten years, you’ll have to level them all and secure MORE tax money to rebuild new and the cycle goes on and on. Yet, somehow the idiots in government think these people actually vote. If they’re so lazy as to have to be GIVEN a home…what makes them think they’re going to get up off their fat asses and go to the polls?

  2. proreason says:

    Can this technique be applied to Detroit, Cleveland, Newark and Oakland?

  3. tranquil.night says:

    Echoes from the TimeWave:

    “… as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh, get first all the peoples money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever …” – Big Ben Franklin

    (H/t to local talk radio host Mike Slater for the quote)

    • proreason says:


      99% of governements from the inception of government itself have been one form or another of tyranny, and of those, at least 90% have been oppressive, usually extremely oppressive

      This is why I say that giving the Moron credit for being non-violent is silly. He just hasn’t had the opportunity yet…or is to cowardly to try what all dictators yearn to do.

      And it’s also why the Democrats claim to be the party of peace is so ludicrous. They lust for tyranny, therefore they lust to impose it through violence.

    • tranquil.night says:

      It’s about plausible deniability, like the Islamists who employ their elite militias to go rough the protests up and kill a few randoms so as to keep the illusion that the Military and regime are peaceful for the world press.

      Gotta keep our eyes on those malignant SEIU and ACORN worms. Who knows what else, sadly. The initiative is theirs because we’ll never go there. I can only prepare and pray it won’t get that insane.

  4. Papa Louie says:

    I swear I’ll never understand the liberal mind. Judging all Muslims by the actions of some is bad. But judging all Christians by the actions of one is perfectly acceptable. Bulldozing the homes of terrorists is bad. Bulldozing the homes of evicted Americans is “a good sign for the future”. What is logical or consistent about that kind of thinking?

    • Right of the People says:


      Don’t try to understand the liberal mind, if you are a normal, rational being it will drive you to the brink of insanity. Liberals do not think, they feel and that is what drives all of their actions. That and tofu.

    • proreason says:

      That and tofu and the desire to take what the other guy has.

  5. JohnMG says:

    During the great depression, farmers were forced to pour their milk into the roadside ditches, and to slaughter hogs and bury them in trenches, all to keep the market for such items “stable” according to FDR. Is this any different? I think not.

    As for the houses……have you any idea what a $10,000 house must look like? Probably the only thing worth ten grand is the lot upon which the house sits. Go to Detroit if you need some visuals. And then the property goes to the municipality? How much tax revenue will that generate?

    The destruction Obama has done to the country is severe in the mean, but he’s not finished yet. And regrettably, he’ll likely be re-elected to complete the job. The only thing that is shovel-ready is Uncle Sam’s cemetary plot and Obama is busy making the final preparations, now unabated.

    I only hope I’m still around and able to participate in the resistance. He has no idea what he’s f-ing with, because I, and thousands like me, have no intention of exiting quietly. I intend to go out swinging!

  6. Curmudgeon says:

    In my experience, there are two kinds of liberals: The predictable ones who do not think, but feel everything and sometimes outgrow their delusions, and the other kind. The other kind are ruined by pride. They were allowed to start feeling superior in childhood and refused to accept any truth that they did not come up with completely on their own. Any obvious truth is rejected as too common for their special minds to hold, because the need be smarter and more obscure and more right than other people is more important than honesty. This habit becomes so ingrained that before long these spoiled brats cannot see the truth of much of anything anymore. They believe that knowing a lot of useless or untrue “facts” makes them smarter, more educated, and more fully informed than millions upon millions of people who simply have the humility to watch, listen, and learn.

  7. untrainable says:

    There may be a silver lining here. Caterpillar can finally rehire some people so the government doesn’t run out of bulldozers. I guess the stimulus is finally paying off.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »