Fixing our housing mess
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Denise Oppenhagen
Published: May 31, 2008
I’ve spoken about housing issues before, mostly in reference to how expensive it is to live in this county. I commended Chris Martino on his proposal to use interest income to keep mortgage interest rates low. I was astounded to hear on the news that towns near military bases have hugely high foreclosure rates, with Woodbridge being the second highest. And I am frustrated, as many are, about the lack of action on the government’s part to help us out of the crisis.
On one hand, I think the government should stay out and let the market do its job. It will adjust itself eventually. Some of the problem with the mortgage crisis is that there were lenders who gave mortgages to anyone and tried to get as much money as they could from them. I want to see the borrowers default just so the companies feel the pain of their greedy actions.
On the other hand, I know that it can be hard to negotiate the home sale market. When my family was in the market for a home a long time ago, we had an overzealous agent who tried to push us into a home that we couldn’t afford. We didn’t have enough for the down payment and she offered to lend it to us (which, yes, is against the law). Fortunately, the practicality that my husband possesses did, in this case, serve us well. He insisted on a small house, thinking of worst case scenarios. The market dropped out almost as soon as we settled, but we never had a problem affording our mortgage payment.
The people who own homes at risk for foreclosure are as much at fault in this mess as the lenders. I’ve seen some interviews with families where the people admit they didn’t read the fine print or they didn’t think ahead to the possibility of the interest rate rising. I have a hard time generating a lot of sympathy — think, people; read, people; know what it is you’re committing yourself to. I certainly have no sympathy for investors who were looking to make a quick buck.
So what do I think about the debate in Congress? Well, those who believe that I am hopelessly liberal would be very surprised to learn that I am in partial agreement with President Bush on this matter.
I am opposed to reducing the mortgage principal on these homes. I don’t think it will help anything. Reducing the principal but leaving the interest rate intact only protects the mortgage company. There is nothing to keep another interest rate increase from making the homeowner default again.
What I think would help is reducing the interest rate being paid by homeowners. If it is the increase in the interest rate that makes it difficult to stay in their home, then let the owners pay the original interest rate. In this way, the mortgage company takes the hit and feels the pain of its unwise decisions.
I am wary of the idea being floated that would increase the FHA mortgage loan limit. I took advantage of the FHA loan program and I know it was difficult finding a home that fit into the program. But we did. I think increasing the loan limit would make it easier for people to try to get loans that they can’t afford. While I don’t think the government should be a babysitter, if you want the government to help you buy a house, you let the government set the rules.
Finally, to complete the circle I started at the beginning of this column, I do think we need to make it easier for our military families to stay in their homes. Most of the families stationed at Quantico don’t have a choice but to buy a house, and most of them came to Prince William for the schools. They should not have to lose their homes. Especially now, when the military and their families are making huge sacrifices to protect us.
Denise Oppenhagen is a longtime resident of Prince William County and can be reached at .
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Reader Reactions
Posted by ( urf8 ) on June 10, 2008 at 10:44 am
It is inherently unfair that houses in my neighborhood are being sold for the mid-200,000 (a couple of forclosures went for under 200K), I bought three and a half years ago for over 350K—the value was actually up to over 410K before the housing bubble burst, there is no incentive for me to keep paying my mortgage when I can buy a house similar to mine for less than a third of what I paid. The county is in part at fault for this housing mess (illegal alien crackdown, allowing more new houses to be built—and getting kick-backs, etc…), and should make up the difference I stand to lose when I move next summer.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 05, 2008 at 2:33 pm
No phdee, not everyone tried to get a peice of the action. Many many people just tried to get a place to live.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( phdee ) on June 03, 2008 at 12:51 pm
rnum, I lived in Army barracks when I was in the military. Een had some black, Hispanicx, Jewish, et al friends.—The housing market burst because the banks, Wall Streeters, and our elitists sold the housing market as an investment and cash cow rather than a place to live. Everyone tried to get a piece of the action.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 02, 2008 at 3:25 pm
phdee, tell us about the time you’ve served as an enlisted man and the executive housing you lived in during that time. Enlisted men and women do not make that much money. Housing costs were so high for several yrs, I’m sure many military families did not have a choice to buy an inexpensive home. This stands true for the civilian population as well.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on June 02, 2008 at 2:46 pm
here is where I have issues with some of the proposed gov’t plans. first, I do agree that no one forced anyone to buy a house but I do know that housing had gone so high that most people just couldn’t afford any house without using a bad loan and during that time there was very little to rent. so, my issues are IF the gov’t helps the mortgage companies directly. The banks take a persons house and sell it at a major loss and then the gov’t reimburses the bank for their loss. The banks have their money but mr and mrs smith still lost their house and credit. If the bank is willing to take such a loss, why not take the loss and leave the family in the house ? Drop the interest rate to 0-1% for 3 yrs and then increase 1% per year for the next 3 yrs. This would keep people in their houses and allow the housing market to rebound. it would not only help the families but the over all market as well and much of the US ecomomy is based on the housing market. the housing market has contributed to the fall of the US dollar value. it’s funny that we hand over free money and food stamps to those who do not work but do nothing for those who struggle.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( phdee ) on June 01, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Why this outcry about the military and housing? The military, especially officers, get a tax free housing allowance, plus decent pay (compared to most US workers), and they afford expensive homes. Heck, the housing allowance is greater than my parents received monthly for social security - and they had to pay for everything. Combined with virtually freemmedical care, commissaries, recreation, etc., the military total “benefit package” just isn’t that bad. But then again, no one ever gets enough.
Report Inappropriate Comment