I saw this interesting thread at a facebook group

I thought this set of conversation was interesting and thought I'd share it here...

I'm neutral on this subject below... However, I'd like to learn what others think about it.

---------

Fardeen wrote on December 31, 2008 at 10:55am
We have too many houses in the market... The buyers aren't able to afford staying in them... The credits aren't able to afford keeping hold of them... The government thinks paying the creditors solve the problem.

I think they are wrong. I put the stars their so please use your imagination to salt and pepper however you like it.

Why not import immigrants who can buy the excess houses full price? It achieves multiple goals, 1) expands tax payer base in terms of income tax and property tax, 2) gets rid of the excess houses (if those houses become government property then the government won't pay itself the tax... go figure)...

I realize there may be ethics issue... A country should not have to sell it self to acquire citizens... They should be from within. I would like to open this to debate on the ethics of such initiative.
Reply to Your Post
Delete Post

Post #2
1 reply
Mohammad Virk (Toronto, ON) replied to your poston December 31, 2008 at 11:33am
What a stupid idea.
Reply to Mohammad
Report

Post #3
2 replies
Chim Ahuruonye (Atlanta, GA) wroteon December 31, 2008 at 11:35am
if the immigrants wanted to live in the U.S. and had the means to, they would most likely already be here
Reply to Chim
Report

Post #4
1 reply
Fardeen replied to Mohammad's poston December 31, 2008 at 11:43am
please analyze and describe portions of the idea that you consider so...
Reply to Your Post
Delete Post

Post #5
Mohammad Virk (Toronto, ON) replied to your poston December 31, 2008 at 11:59am
Because immigrants are icky...

lol, but in all seriousness, what Chim said. Immigrants who have the money to come here and buy expensive houses would have done it a long time ago if they wanted to. The people with money who wanted to come to the West would get in easy...

There just aren't enough rich immigrants who want to come here for it to work.
Reply to Mohammad
Report

Post #6
Wei Hussein Qiu (Singapore) wroteon December 31, 2008 at 12:19pm
<< There just aren't enough rich immigrants who want to come here for it to work. >>

or there ain't enough tolerance to attract them. seriously to many rich people in the world can't speak english or don't feel like speaking them 24/7, do you want to attract that kind of crowd by establish international school and stuff and malls that doesn't use english? I can see a specialized city for that kind of crowd like dubai, but across US suburb where these houses are already build and all over the place, I don't think so.
Reply to Wei
Report

Post #7
Fardeen wroteon December 31, 2008 at 1:51pm
So the obstacles to this idea are:
1. Not enough people rich enough buy house in U.S.... BTW, foreigners are allowed to purchase home here.
2. American cities are not specialized enough like Dubai... which i beg to differ... As there are many multi-cultural facilities and accommodations available in the U.S.

is that correct?
Reply to Your Post
Delete Post

Post #8
1 reply
Wei Hussein Qiu (Singapore) wroteon December 31, 2008 at 2:42pm
<< which i beg to differ... As there are many multi-cultural facilities and accommodations available in the U.S. >>

yes, but existing houses not as competitive, the problem is existing housing is all over the country, and you can't offer it like a "package" with future development and expansion. if you plan it to be international from the get-go, then you are not only able to offer services available today, but also sell the vision of more services tomorrow since it is understood there will be such a demand as in attract such people...

US is a fine place to live, but I would be selective in where I want to stay in the US, I probably wouldn't buy a suburb home, maybe I will pick places like hawaii if you get what I mean...

I like your out of the box thinking but it is more likely to sell the idea by islamic financing than attracting home buyers I think. which is something I explore on a few other group since the collapse of the bubble last year. it won't fix the problem, but it can cut loses...

i recommend more people explore islamic banking even if they don't use it just to see a different way of doing business.
Reply to Wei
Report

Post #9
1 reply
Fardeen wrote on December 31, 2008 at 4:43pm
Re: "existing houses not as competitive"
- It seems to insinuate that all of the excess houses are old homes and in disrepair. With all due respect to you, I will dispute this. The excess house came about because many builders built new homes to match past demands. Any new construction homes are well designed and competitive.

Re: "islamic banking even ..."
- As a muslim, I explored islamic banking in US. Unfortunately, it's not as cost-effective or lucrative option. The problem with islamic banking from personal experience is that you have to pay a lump sum upfront. The difference between this and interest based option is that for the interest you get to pay it over many years. Where the Islamic bankers would determine how much they need to make up front. I haven't kept up to date with Islamic banking. Do you have any new information on whether they changed this option?
Reply to Your Post
Delete Post

Post #10
1 reply
Samuel Champagne replied to Wei's poston December 31, 2008 at 5:07pm
''establish international school and stuff and malls that doesn't use english? I can see a specialized city for that kind of crowd like dubai''

There is not enough of these people who can be attracted yet, so if they can't get short term results i guess they can't afford to put scarce ressource and brain for that.

But your idea is interesting, it feel like creating cities who are independant inside US.

Different currencies? tax rate? regulators?

Islamic banking could prove very usefull, so i agree.
Reply to Samuel
Report

Post #11
1 reply
Michael Derrick (Marquette) wroteon December 31, 2008 at 5:08pm
lol it would be worth it to see lou dobb's head explode
Reply to Michael
Report

Post #12
Fardeen replied to Michael's poston December 31, 2008 at 9:11pm
some day he'll invite me to his show and ostracize...

i could imagine him telling me... "Young man get your head examined! "


Reply to Your Post
Delete Post

Post #13
1 reply
Jamie McPherson (University of Bristol) replied to Chim's poston December 31, 2008 at 9:14pm
"if the immigrants wanted to live in the U.S. and had the means to, they would most likely already be here"
er, not exactly
http://www.reason.com/images/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg
Reply to Jamie
Report

Post #14
Justin Seabe replied to Jamie's poston December 31, 2008 at 9:15pm
I've always loved that picture.
Reply to Justin
Report

Post #15
1 reply
Will Kassis (Widener) wroteon December 31, 2008 at 9:17pm
Seriously, how many immigrants could afford homes in the United States, and how many of those homes aren't rundown and unlivable?
Reply to Will
Report

Post #16
Fardeen replied to Samuel's poston December 31, 2008 at 9:23pm
There is a reason our country is called a melting pot...

Re: "it feel like creating cities who are independant inside US."
- To some extent the british has done this(NYC or LA could be an example). The british trains their relevant officials across all levels to handle diverse community related issues. I doubt their resources exceeds the ones we have. I am not suggesting any different currency or tax rate...

---- as far as Islamic banking is concerned... I'm waiting to learn about Wei's experience.

Wei please educate us.
Reply to Your Post
Delete Post

Post #17
2 replies
Fardeen replied to Will's poston December 31, 2008 at 9:31pm
we're trying to sell them home... making it livable is their problem...
Reply to Your Post
Delete Post

Post #18
Will Kassis (Widener) replied to your poston December 31, 2008 at 9:32pm
Illegal
Reply to Will
Report

Post #19
1 reply
Fardeen replied to Will's poston December 31, 2008 at 9:32pm
Sorry I did not understand that... are you raising that out of ethics concern? Please elaborate more and help me understand what you meant.
Reply to Your Post
Delete Post

Post #20
1 reply
Wei Hussein Qiu (Singapore) replied to your poston December 31, 2008 at 9:33pm
<< Any new construction homes are well designed and competitive. >>

of course imo, the problem is the existing home and not new ones, so the goal should be fixing the "troubled asset".



<< The problem with islamic banking from personal experience is that you have to pay a lump sum upfront. >>

correct, the idea is to get buyers from other countries to buy these houses and sell them back to american via instalment without interest charge, instead they markup the housing price directly for the profit. it means for every house running under this system, the money actually exist and is paid fully and owned by someone, removing some of the liability in the banking system.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<< But your idea is interesting, it feel like creating cities who are independant inside US. >>

no, i don't believe in such option, i was pointing to the unlikeliness of US suddenly attracting large numbers of people in to fill the big gap in demand. I do not promote this concept even if it is interesting, because it doesn't solve the issue in question here.
Reply to Wei
Report

Post #21
1 reply
Will Kassis (Widener) replied to your poston December 31, 2008 at 9:35pm
Well yes, if I'm correct (I might not be) isn't there a standard that the building has to meet before it can be sold to a tenant?

I guess it depends on if you're just selling houses or apartments and such...
Reply to Will
Report

Post #22
Fardeen replied to Will's poston December 31, 2008 at 9:38pm
Those are the jobs for realtors... A realtor represents the buyer's interest and they would take care of such things in a clause similar to inspection addendum... For example, a buyer's agent would require that the seller agree to a contingency on inspection addendum... this will take care of the habitability related concerns.
Reply to Your Post
Delete Post

Post #23
1 reply
Angela Christine Fraser (Bristol) wroteon December 31, 2008 at 9:38pm
There's a thing that they've been doing with empty commercial property over here

the idea is to a) make sure the property is not empty for security reasons and b) reduce homelessness

basically a semi-homeless (e.g someone who's in bed and breakfast accommodation or sheltered housing) person moves in to the property and pays a modest rent which they can afford.

In return they maintain the property and prevent it being burglarized at night (e.g lead being nicked off the roof of a warehouse)

It's a win win situation although they only do it for individuals not families cus sometimes they got to tell people to vacate at short notice.
Reply to Angela
Report

Post #24
Fardeen replied to Angela's poston December 31, 2008 at 9:41pm
thank you angela for bringing forth this... it serves as a case study for others
Reply to Your Post
Delete Post

Post #25
1 reply
Earle Wilson (Morehouse) replied to your poston December 31, 2008 at 9:47pm
Not a very good solution. Excessive homes are hardly the problem. The solution failed to address the more important issues like"

-how we would take care of the Americans who have lost their homes and are haunted by bad credit that would impede them from getting a new home.

-the corruption and blindness in the housing market that led to the mortgage crisis.

-the credit crisis that's preventing many qualified home buyers from getting the loans they need to get a new house.
Reply to Earle
Report

Post #26
Earle Wilson (Morehouse) replied to Chim's poston December 31, 2008 at 10:01pm
I guess you are not really acquainted with the US immigration process. lol
Reply to Earle
Report

Post #27
1 reply
Fardeen replied to Earle's poston December 31, 2008 at 10:14pm
Hi Earle,

Thanks for bringing up the other important issues related to the housing market. I opened this thread only to address the excess problem... Forgive me for not including other important issues that you point out.


Re: "how we would take care of the Americans who have lost their homes and are haunted by bad credit that would impede them from getting a new home."
- I strongly feel that we should permit them to stay on the defaulted property until the economy is out of this storm. We should still make them pay certain amount of money they can afford to pay for mortgage... make the payment system a little more flexible... the current finance industry payment practice outright too rigid in my opinion... before this crisis happened, the finance industry experts would not buzz a bit if a home owner was facing financial hardship... Also, I'd look for some presidential pardon for struggling homeowners that allow them to pay as much as they can in this economy period... After the economy corrects itself, then the homeowner will be transitioned into paying normal mortgage rate. In my humble opinion, It's better to have some struggling home owner paying $500-1000 dollar less in monthly mortgage than getting no money or revenue from them. Don't you think this would help uplift some folks who are struggling?

Re: "the corruption and blindness in the housing market that led to the mortgage crisis."
- I read about cases where fraudulent information was used to buy properties and other shady schemes. Frankly, the only option for this kind of offense is having the government bring criminal action against the perpetrators. Today, corruption is exposed in the housing market... Next year, we'll find corruption in other de-regulated industries... who knows? I have no good solution for things that are criminal in nature. Criminal action will happen in across all industries. There is no 100% way to prevent it, but, have better checks on it. However, I feel having additional training on ethics and update existing practices make sure there is better accountability would help.

Re: "the credit crisis that's preventing many qualified home buyers from getting the loans they need to get a new house."
- I am guessing you're referring to some sort of credit freeze. Is that right? I have seen qualified buyers getting loans for the properties they want to buy... However, if they are not getting the loan, maybe, the industry itself is preventing them to become the next home owner victim. That's my opinion.

Thank you Earle for the constructive criticism. I look forward to having more dialogue.

Reply to Your Post
Delete Post

Post #28
Fardeen wrote23 hours ago
btw, happy new years to you all who participated!!!
Reply to Your Post
Delete Post

Post #29
1 reply
Earle Wilson (Morehouse) replied to your post23 hours ago
You may very well be the most courteous individual on Facebook. lol.

All good points but I don't think economy will simply correct itself as you mentioned. The housing and credit crisis are at the root of the economic crash. The economy won't go anywhere until these crises get somewhat resolved.

Fardeen replied to Earle's post23 hours ago
Thank you and you are very kind yourself.

The way I see things is that when you are at highest peak and can't climb up further then you're going to fall...

When it comes to the fall... there has to be a bottom point... I do not believe in any sink hole... Once we get to the bottom... we have one place to go which is climb up... Then the cycle repeats for the next generation... I'm sure they'll have similar debates like us...
Reply to Your Post
Delete Post

Post #34
1 reply
Will Kassis (Widener) replied to Joe's post23 hours ago
Your typing skills are pretty decent for being drunk and all...
Reply to Will
Report

Post #35
Will Kassis (Widener) wrote23 hours ago
Ok, too much politeness here...I'm going to bed.

Happy new year once again compadres...
Reply to Will
Report

Post #36
Joe Lombardi (Minneapolis / St. Paul, MN) replied to Will's post23 hours ago
Well, I'm concentearint pretty hard.
Reply to Joe
Report

Post #37
1 reply
Samuel Champagne replied to Wei's post10 hours ago
wall street journal told in an editorial that it would be more economical to throw down the houses instead of trying to sell them when there is no buyer and probably would not be soon enough.
Reply to Samuel
Report

Post #38
1 reply
Fardeen replied to Samuel's post8 hours ago
i heard from a friend who is in the financial industry... it's a lot more preferable to burn down the problem assets... which i thought was too drastic of a measure... at the same time, he suggested this idea i proposed in this thread... my idea builds on what he proposed... i thought i'd share this piece before taking too much credit.
Reply to Your Post
Delete Post

Post #39
Samuel Champagne replied to your post3 hours ago
burning them would be excessive because these are ressources..at least find a way to recycle them so you don't waste them.

I mean break them in pieces and relocate people in public housing near public transit, land cost are down..its the right time to relocate them and create vitality.

Though densification could also mean tougher envirronment during times where corruption and illegal activities grows exponentially because security and investigation are cut like everything else.

You need to give citizens instrument so they can protect their own neighborhood, but first you need to make sure once you move them..you move them in a way not to cut them from their community.
Reply to Samuel
Report

Post #40
Fardeen wrote3 hours ago
the bureaucrat who gets in charge of moving people will have a nightmare ... some issues i could see ... a) relocating people in suburbs? what do we do if they don't have good public transportation nearby? what about people who are living in new towns? or in some remote areas?