ROW Clearance for FM 2181 widening in Corinth, TX
FM 2181 is being widened from a two-lane road to a six-lane road.
Notice how the back yards of the residences have been cut in half.
I love seeing property being taken from a few individuals for the greater good of the general public.
Much too often the governemnt pussies out and lets selfish individuals stand in the way of the greater good.
What's interesting is that the neighborhood being affected is not very old. Looks like somebody didn't plan ahead.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1209.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc395%2FBrian5561%2F100.jpg&hash=ad757b33bd6c986c32b7bb3c76d586b04b95c9f5)
Quote from: Brian556 on December 29, 2011, 02:23:56 PM
ROW Clearance for FM 2181 widening in Corinth, TX
FM 2181 is being widened from a two-lane road to a six-lane road.
Notice how the back yards of the residences have been cut in half.
I love seeing property being taken from a few individuals for the greater good of the general public.
Much too often the governemnt pussies out and lets selfish individuals stand in the way of the greater good.
What's interesting is that the neighborhood being affected is not very old. Looks like somebody didn't plan ahead.
You love seeing people lose property to the government? That's harsh. Eminent domain is a necessary evil (and NIMBY's piss me off too), but it still really blows for those folks.
I'd rather see proper planning and the ROW set aside well before the development arrives.
^ Ditto. Las Vegas learned this the hard way...
Quote from: Brian556 on December 29, 2011, 02:23:56 PM
I love seeing property being taken from a few individuals for the greater good of the general public.
As a victim of eminent domain, I couldn't agree less. I was in the same situation except they took 20' of my
front yard to add a lane which decimated my property's value (they decided that my two lane street would be a good candidate for a 4 lane through street). For that I got $100. I can't see relishing in someone's financial loss for a road widening; but since you work for TXDOT, you might be biased. I have no problem with eminent domain, but they generally don't seem to want to recompense fairly.
Brendan
Quote from: Brendan on December 30, 2011, 08:47:05 AMAs a victim of eminent domain, I couldn't agree less. I was in the same situation except they took 20' of my front yard to add a lane which decimated my property's value (they decided that my two lane street would be a good candidate for a 4 lane through street). For that I got $100.
Frankly, that sounds far too low. Houses around here tend to be on 75' x 125' lots and to have appraised values around $120,000, which includes site value of about $20,000. Assuming that similar values hold in your area, you should have gotten something like $3,000 for acquisition of a strip comprising almost one-sixth of the site. This does not include compensation for injurious affection (in your case, loss of value in the house owing to lost setback from the street and increased difficulty of access owing to having to maneuver in and out of a four-lane city street), which you are morally entitled to even if the state DOT's ROW agents don't offer it unless threatened with a condemnation lawsuit.
The state claimed that due to some oversight, they really owned or had easement rights the majority of the 20 feet despite home owners' surveys to the contrary. There was talk of a lawsuit but i have since moved on and have not heard anything since.
Brendan
QuoteAs a victim of eminent domain, I couldn't agree less. I was in the same situation except they took 20' of my front yard to add a lane which decimated my property's value (they decided that my two lane street would be a good candidate for a 4 lane through street). For that I got $100. I can't see relishing in someone's financial loss for a road widening; but since you work for TXDOT, you might be biased. I have no problem with eminent domain, but they generally don't seem to want to recompense fairly.
Brendan
Sorry to hear about your loss. Your are right that the government should plan ahead and avoid this situation. Most of the time around here they do. I do not work for TxDOT anymore, and thats not why I'm biased.
The reason for that statement is that I am tired of NIMBY's. The I-40 situations at Memphis really is annoying to me. I-40 is one of the most important highways in the country, and I don't appreciate having to go around the loop, making an already long trip longer, just to save some old, outdated, s*** buildings. Sorry people, but I-40 is more important than your ghetto.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah, that two extra miles is such a huge burden. Fuck those poor people and their park.
QuoteYeah, that two extra miles is such a huge burden. Fuck those poor people and their park.
Ok, I guess two extra miles really isn't that bad. Didn't realize that the extra milage was that short. But it still seems crazy to have such an important highway blocked by a park, leaving that stub that they spent alot of money on for nothing. Yeah, my attitude in that post did probably sound bad.
My point isn't to hate on people that happen to unfortunatly be in the way of progress, my point is that progress just has to happen, and sometimes big changes have to happen to move foward and do what needs to be done for the greater good, in spite of the fact that everyone will not be happy. Interstate Highways are a nessessity for cities and our country to function, we can't live without them.
Quote from: Brian556 on December 29, 2011, 02:23:56 PM
I love seeing property being taken from a few individuals for the greater good of the general public.
Much too often the governemnt pussies out and lets selfish individuals stand in the way of the greater good.
I'm used to socialist attitudes within the government, just not within DOTs. Thought this "we want what's rightfully yours" attitude was the exclusive property of the social services agencies.
Quote from: Brandon on December 29, 2011, 09:34:32 PM
I'd rather see proper planning and the ROW set aside well before the development arrives.
Really. But, how were the subdivision developers to know that the road would have to be widened sometime?
Quote from: Brian556 on December 30, 2011, 12:37:24 PM
The reason for that statement is that I am tired of NIMBY's. The I-40 situations at Memphis really is annoying to me. I-40 is one of the most important highways in the country, and I don't appreciate having to go around the loop, making an already long trip longer, just to save some old, outdated, s*** buildings. Sorry people, but I-40 is more important than your ghetto.
Except this doesn't look like a ghetto. These look like nice homes.
Eminent domain, while in many cases are necessary, is devastating to property owners. They never get fair compensation. Calling them selfish to protect their owned property is a bit of a stretch.
The good news is that the appropriate governing bodies are getting better at not just slicing through peoples houses. A blog that I stumbled on, Keep Houston Houston, featured a post about freeway removal (http://keephoustonhouston.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/no-not-really/). Towards the bottom of the post, notice the differences in 1960's mentality and 1990's mentality. Back in 1960 it was just fine to slice though inner city neighborhoods with no respect to the livelihoods in the way. Today, new infill roads tend to be built with more curves, just to avoid property condemnation.
Personally, I believe eminent domain should be reserved for just two uses; reservoirs and transportation corridors. Obviously, you need ALL off the property below to build a reservoir, so one holdout could effectively stop any new reservoir.
Eminent domain for transportation corridors is necessary, but only as a "last resort". While alignment A may be preferable, B-Z are also acceptable to varying degrees. They could have widened another road, converted that street and an adjacent one to a one way couplet, or even tried to fit 6 lanes in the existing ROW. Every once an a while, there truly is a case where a holdout might add millions to the project cost. Eminent domain should be reserved for those cases.
What I don't like are governing bodies using eminent domain in order to build non-site specific buildings in certain locations. Building layouts are flexible; therefore they still have options B-Z after A was exhausted.
Situations like what the OP posted are why I will never buy a house on a main road if at all possible. I don't want to risk losing property if a road is widened or reconstructed. (Regarding "reconstructed," consider that your property might be affected if they simply choose to regrade a road to even out the two sides, or to install a new turn lane, or whatever.) Heck, buying a house with a direct line of sight to a main road is something I'd avoid. We just came back from Florida, where my sister-in-law lives near, but not on, a road that is gradually being widened from two lanes to four lanes with a median, and there's also a Publix grocery store going up across that road. While there is a pond and some palm trees separating her house from the road, the backup beepers on the construction trucks sound like an alarm clock symphony beginning at 6:00 AM.
I don't have a picture of it, but there is a house on the corner of Cedar Lane and US-29 here in Fairfax County where a fellow not only lost his front yard when Cedar Lane was rebuilt, he also lost his driveway, rendering his garage useless for parking cars until he was able to have a new garage door and driveway extension constructed on the back side. Stuff like that STINKS.
I will say that I have very little sympathy for people who fail to check the planning documents or who assume a road won't get built just because it's taken a long time. If a planned road, or a widening project, is on the books and you buy next to it, you did a dumb thing and you have no basis for complaining.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 30, 2011, 03:46:47 PM
Eminent domain, while in many cases are necessary, is devastating to property owners. They never get fair compensation. Calling them selfish to protect their owned property is a bit of a stretch.
Thus the creation of "NIMBYs"
Quote from: Brian556 on December 29, 2011, 02:23:56 PM
I love seeing property being taken from a few individuals for the greater good of the general public.
...until it's done to you. I guarantee you won't be so happy then.
Quote from: Brian556 on December 29, 2011, 02:23:56 PM
I love seeing property being taken from a few individuals for the greater good of the general public.
Much too often the governemnt pussies out and lets selfish individuals stand in the way of the greater good.
Quote from: Brian556 on December 30, 2011, 02:15:46 PM
QuoteYeah, that two extra miles is such a huge burden. Fuck those poor people and their park.
Ok, I guess two extra miles really isn't that bad. Didn't realize that the extra milage was that short. But it still seems crazy to have such an important highway blocked by a park, leaving that stub that they spent alot of money on for nothing ... my point is that progress just has to happen, and sometimes big changes have to happen to move foward and do what needs to be done for the greater good
It's important to remember that Overton Park was/is
public land, not private. The Overton Park routing was chosen in large part because the land acquisition costs were less than they would have been if a routing through tracts of private property had been chosen. In a broad sense, the
Overton Park Supreme Court case addressed the question of whether the governmental authorities that chose to route I-40 through Overton Park had acted in the interests of the "greater good", i.e. preservation of irreplaceable park valued by many members (not "a few individuals") of the local populace vs. routing of new interstate that would be used by both the local populace and the entire U.S. The Supreme Court's decision led to an outcome of preservation of the public's park and an I-40 routing only two miles longer than the one that would have destroyed the park. Seems to me like the "greater good" won out, AND progress proceeded ("big change") with an I-40 routing in the Memphis area.
To assume that a street won't ever change is to be an idiot.
There are far too many people who seem to think that main roads and residential street are one and same. I've seen a lot of people create traffic backups by trying to back into a major road like they would a residential street with no traffic.
If you choose to live on a main road, don't complain about traffic or losing some yard when the road inevitably needs widening. And if the house is so close the the slightest work to the road would bring it to the building, run away and don't look back. You're just asking for trouble by buying that place.
Quote from: deanej on December 31, 2011, 11:56:46 AM
....
If you choose to live on a main road, don't complain about traffic or losing some yard when the road inevitably needs widening. And if the house is so close the the slightest work to the road would bring it to the building, run away and don't look back. You're just asking for trouble by buying that place.
Good summary. I'd add one other thought: If you're considering buying a house and you see a string of houses in a row all for sale, it's time to ask questions before deciding to buy. Homeowners may be trying to bail out prior to road widening or new construction or the like. (While there may be other perfectly legitimate reasons for several houses to go up for sale all at once, the person who fails to investigate the circumstances is foolish. In the legal profession we call it failing to perform due diligence.)
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 30, 2011, 03:46:47 PM
Eminent domain, while in many cases are necessary, is devastating to property owners. They never get fair compensation. Calling them selfish to protect their owned property is a bit of a stretch.
I don't know about the never getting fair compensation, the sum for a piece of land for the Page-Olive Connector ("MO 141 extension") in the St. Louis metro has me wondering:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/family-gets-million-award-for-property-taken-by-st-louis/article_041569e3-b69f-52e7-9175-7a075e3d85df.html?mode=story (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/family-gets-million-award-for-property-taken-by-st-louis/article_041569e3-b69f-52e7-9175-7a075e3d85df.html?mode=story)
In San Angelo, the currently two lane Loop 306 is planned to be converted to a four lane divided highway. All the buildings are built away from the current road, and all the houses have long driveways, because I guess TxDOT has already claimed the right of way. Here's a link to the map.
http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.401506,-100.367618&spn=0.012546,0.022724&hnear=Texas&t=h&z=16&vpsrc=6
BigMatt
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 30, 2011, 06:08:52 PMI don't have a picture of it, but there is a house on the corner of Cedar Lane and US-29 here in Fairfax County where a fellow not only lost his front yard when Cedar Lane was rebuilt, he also lost his driveway, rendering his garage useless for parking cars until he was able to have a new garage door and driveway extension constructed on the back side. Stuff like that STINKS.
This one (http://g.co/maps/xc6kn)?
Quote from: US-43|72 on January 03, 2012, 02:13:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 30, 2011, 06:08:52 PMI don't have a picture of it, but there is a house on the corner of Cedar Lane and US-29 here in Fairfax County where a fellow not only lost his front yard when Cedar Lane was rebuilt, he also lost his driveway, rendering his garage useless for parking cars until he was able to have a new garage door and driveway extension constructed on the back side. Stuff like that STINKS.
This one (http://g.co/maps/xc6kn)?
That's the house, but that picture is too recent and doesn't really illustrate how bad it was. When they first rebuilt the road, he lost his whole yard and that wall wasn't there. The Street View image is a little grainy, but if you look closely you can see where his brick steps end? When they first rebuilt the road, they graded his yard as a steep grassy slope from there down to road level and his steps abruptly ended right at the top of that hill. The retaining wall in the Street View image is much more recent. Similarly, his garage door used to be on the front where those two windows are and the hill came up almost right to his door. I do not remember whether a car got stranded in there.
Looking at the historical imagery on Google Earth of Cedar Lane the images from 2002 show a car parked diagonally in front of the garage. The only earlier image is from 1988 which shows woodland where the house is and no dedicated left turn lane approaching the traffic lights.
Over here this (http://maps.google.com/?ll=50.368467,-4.120195&spn=0.005605,0.013937&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=50.36837,-4.122128&panoid=0nB-CjAQTgkokoOIYEVKaA&cbp=12,70.76,,1,2.07) road was widened to three lanes last year and the gardens on the left have been 'eaten (http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Gdynia-Way-eating-garden/story-11690066-detail/story.html#)' by the road claim residents.
What about those who can't speak for themselves?
One of the most deplorable local acts in local roadwork I've ever heard came when US 75 was moved in Dallas from Greenville and Ross Ave. to the then-new alignment along the railroad ROW of the Houston & Texas Central (the namesake of Central Expressway, where US 75 runs now). Beforehand, the railroad ran through the Freedmen's Town neighborhood and past a nearby cemetery. The post-World War II timeframe was an era where optimism began and grew when it came to car ownership and freeway growth. Little did those of us in the modern day know that, when the time came to redo US 75-Central in 1989, a horrible reality would be unearthed.
When construction crews began prep-work and clearing in the vicinity of the Lemmon Ave. exit, they would find human remains. And more human remains.
That part of the project immediately slowed to a crawl. Eventually, after much painstaking work, more than 1000 bodies would be found. A sad truth was made known--no care was taken in the late 1940s when the Central construction was commenced about re-interment of any possible graves. People's bodies had been driven over on US 75, the Central service road, and Lemmon Ave., for OVER 40 YEARS!!
Now, those souls have some peace (if peace can be experienced after having cars roll over you for 4 decades), within the confines of Freedmen's Cemetery--even though they aren't marked.
Yes, US 75 needed to be realigned, made into a freeway, then later widened and modernized. Ordinarily, it probably should have been awesome, but progress came at an unnecessarily sad price.
I never understood the fuss over dead bodies. Why does anyone care what happens to them? They're dead, they don't have any feelings anymore.
It's a matter of respect.
Respect is certainly part of the reason. Another part is that if the cemetery is sufficiently old, or possesses enough historical or cultural importance to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historical Places, it is a Section 4(f) property and thus subject to the hierarchy of avoid-mitigate-take.
Cemeteries (and other places containing human remains) are not automatically covered by 4(f), however, so a cemetery does not necessarily have to be an obstacle to road improvement. Generally, graves in the way of a proposed improvement will be moved (i.e., the bodies will be exhumed and reburied, and the grave markers will be relocated). Quite frankly I am surprised this was not done when the original Central Expressway was built in the mid-1940's (?). Given that the remains discovered during the reconstruction were moved to a Freedmen's Cemetery, could racial discrimination have been part of it?
Quote from: US-43|72 on January 03, 2012, 09:07:54 PM
It's a matter of respect.
Exactly.
Post Merge: January 04, 2012, 02:33:28 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 03, 2012, 09:28:58 PM
Given that the remains discovered during the reconstruction were moved to a Freedmen's Cemetery, could racial discrimination have been part of it?
I'm pretty sure it was.
Quote from: Grzrd on December 30, 2011, 11:44:25 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on December 29, 2011, 02:23:56 PM
I love seeing property being taken from a few individuals for the greater good of the general public.
Much too often the governemnt pussies out and lets selfish individuals stand in the way of the greater good.
Quote from: Brian556 on December 30, 2011, 02:15:46 PM
QuoteYeah, that two extra miles is such a huge burden. Fuck those poor people and their park.
Ok, I guess two extra miles really isn't that bad. Didn't realize that the extra milage was that short. But it still seems crazy to have such an important highway blocked by a park, leaving that stub that they spent alot of money on for nothing ... my point is that progress just has to happen, and sometimes big changes have to happen to move foward and do what needs to be done for the greater good
It's important to remember that Overton Park was/is public land, not private. The Overton Park routing was chosen in large part because the land acquisition costs were less than they would have been if a routing through tracts of private property had been chosen. In a broad sense, the Overton Park Supreme Court case addressed the question of whether the governmental authorities that chose to route I-40 through Overton Park had acted in the interests of the "greater good", i.e. preservation of irreplaceable park valued by many members (not "a few individuals") of the local populace vs. routing of new interstate that would be used by both the local populace and the entire U.S. The Supreme Court's decision led to an outcome of preservation of the public's park and an I-40 routing only two miles longer than the one that would have destroyed the park. Seems to me like the "greater good" won out, AND progress proceeded ("big change") with an I-40 routing in the Memphis area.
There was talk of building a tunnel under Overton Park for I-40, but it begs the question: if the Overton leg of I-40 would have been built, would it have required widening now? And, if so, how would it have been widened? It would be expensive to widen, and if not widened it would be considered a bottleneck despite the current bypass routing.
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 04, 2012, 03:33:40 PM
There was talk of building a tunnel under Overton Park for I-40, but it begs the question: if the Overton leg of I-40 would have been built, would it have required widening now? And, if so, how would it have been widened? It would be expensive to widen, and if not widened it would be considered a bottleneck despite the current bypass routing.
Here's the pertinent 4(f) language regarding parks (http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/4fpolicy.asp):
"...the Secretary shall not approve any program or project (other than any project for a park road or parkway under section 204 of this title) which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of national, State, or local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use. In carrying out the national policy declared in this section the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior and appropriate State and local officials, is authorized to conduct studies as to the most feasible Federal-aid routes for the movement of motor vehicular traffic through or around national parks so as to best serve the needs of the traveling public while preserving the natural beauty of these areas."
Great point regarding the eventual need to widen the tunnels. The FHWA apparently disapproved of at least two tunnel proposals along the same routing through Overton Park (http://www.overtonparkforever.org/2011/03/forty-years-ago.html), but I doubt they foresaw the widening problem. It seems like the tunnel(s) would not have changed the use of the land from a park to an interstate, so it seems like the tunnel(s) would have complied with prong (1) of the test. I guess the FHWA determined that TDOT, et al did not perform "all possible planning to minimize harm to such park" and used prong (2) to kill the proposals. Plus, they were probably being ulta-cautious because they figured Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court would slam them again for sticking to the Overton Park routing, particularly with I-240 constantly growing into an alternative that would create zero harm to the park.
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 04, 2012, 03:33:40 PM
There was talk of building a tunnel under Overton Park for I-40, but it begs the question: if the Overton leg of I-40 would have been built, would it have required widening now? And, if so, how would it have been widened? It would be expensive to widen, and if not widened it would be considered a bottleneck despite the current bypass routing.
This is the same problem that will happen in Louisville at the I-64 tunnels under Cherokee Park. The route into downtown already backs up nearly to I-264 at rush hour, and while a new Ohio River Bridge will reduce some backup, having a six lane highway would help a lot.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 03, 2012, 09:28:58 PM
Respect is certainly part of the reason. Another part is that if the cemetery is sufficiently old, or possesses enough historical or cultural importance to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historical Places, it is a Section 4(f) property and thus subject to the hierarchy of avoid-mitigate-take.
Cemeteries (and other places containing human remains) are not automatically covered by 4(f), however, so a cemetery does not necessarily have to be an obstacle to road improvement. Generally, graves in the way of a proposed improvement will be moved (i.e., the bodies will be exhumed and reburied, and the grave markers will be relocated). Quite frankly I am surprised this was not done when the original Central Expressway was built in the mid-1940's (?). Given that the remains discovered during the reconstruction were moved to a Freedmen's Cemetery, could racial discrimination have been part of it?
Yes. This was Texas during the 1940s. From what I can remember, the community deeply opposed the alignment, but planners didn't care, because black voices simply didn't count in those days. After all, who was going to let a bunch of people who couldn't vote get in the way of rich white folks having a faster commute?
The original poster seems to have some major assumptions about the inevitability and desirability of so-called "progress." While I agree that many suburban residents are far too uptight about property values, it is understandable considering how much wealth is stored within them. Meanwhile, it's no secret that highways can make areas worse if built in certain ways. For example, I-676 in Camden, New Jersey, which heavily exacerbated the decline of civic unity in a time of deindustrialization and demographic shift.
Furthermore, those s****y old buildings referred to are what gives a city a sense of continuity and historical place. Destroying them can contribute to the destruction of a city's identity, and the identity of those who live within them.
That is why I would outlaw the use of property as an investment. You should only own a home if you want to use it as a home or rent it indefinitely. You should not buy a home with intent of using it as a stepping stone to more wealth.
Had people acted this way, we would not have had the housing bubble. We would not be in a recession today. We would have fewer NIMBYs. The world would be a better place.
Ditto for stocks.
Quote from: deanej on January 06, 2012, 01:18:01 PM
You should not buy a home with intent of using it as a stepping stone to more wealth.
Had people acted this way, we would not have had the housing bubble.
no, the reason why we had a housing bubble is because people bought shit they couldn't afford.
Quoteno, the reason why we had a housing bubble is because people bought shit they couldn't afford.
Foolish and irresponsible behavior by an individual will inevitibly bring him harm. So many people acted this way that it brought down the world's economy.
If people acted responsibly, none of this would have happened.
It's not just the bank's fault for making risky loans. Alot of the fault lies with the greedy boneheads that " bought shit they couldn't afford." Appearently they cannot do basic math.
Don't forget that the Feds, through things like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged the banks to give sub-prime loans.
However the collapse of sub prime loans caused the bust, what caused the bubble was that cheap credit was plentiful, thanks in part to sub-prime policies (in Ireland, which didn't have Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the ECB-set low interest rates meant that you could borrow money at a real rate of -1%) - this upped the demand, especially as sub-prime buyers could buy houses, which massively upped the price of homes. Likewise the business of buying a house, doing up a house and then selling it on lowered the supply of liveable housing (as a certain %age of houses were being done up, rather than lived in) as well as increasing the quality, and thus the worth, of the houses.
So deanej and agentsteel53 are both right at what caused the bubble, but agentsteel also gives the reason why it was a bubble and burst, rather than just that houses got more expensive.
Quote from: english si on January 06, 2012, 04:05:19 PM
sub-prime buyers could buy houses
except they
couldn't. if you cannot make every payment until the end of the term of the loan,
don't buy the item!
Quote from: deanej on January 06, 2012, 01:18:01 PM
That is why I would outlaw the use of property as an investment. You should only own a home if you want to use it as a home or rent it indefinitely. You should not buy a home with intent of using it as a stepping stone to more wealth.
Had people acted this way, we would not have had the housing bubble. We would not be in a recession today. We would have fewer NIMBYs. The world would be a better place.
Ditto for stocks.
No, the economy was brought down by banks issuing stupid things like reverse amortization, interest only, and balloon mortgages to poor people for mansions that they couldn't afford on a traditional fixed 30 year mortgage. they then bundled these crappy loans into what should have been safe securities. When the poor people inevitably defaulted, the "safe" investments collapsed. The housing bubble and resulting collapse had nothing to do with it.
Quote from: realjd on January 06, 2012, 06:32:15 PM
No, the economy was brought down by banks issuing stupid things like reverse amortization, interest only, and balloon mortgages to poor people for mansions that they couldn't afford on a traditional fixed 30 year mortgage.
no, the problem isn't stupid products. it's stupid people who buy them.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 06, 2012, 04:09:23 PM
Quote from: english si on January 06, 2012, 04:05:19 PM
sub-prime buyers could buy houses
except they couldn't. if you cannot make every payment until the end of the term of the loan, don't buy the item!
They did buy the houses, they couldn't afford to pay the mortgage (the bank doesn't own the house until you pay back the loan - the house is collateral on the loan used to buy it), so the bank took their houses as payment for the loan. Of course, they shouldn't have bought the houses, as they couldn't afford the mortgage payments.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 06, 2012, 06:50:12 PMno, the problem isn't stupid products. it's stupid people who buy them.
Which makes the bailing out of the stupid investors in such stupid products as Greek Government Bonds even more silly as it just encourages mal-investment.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 06, 2012, 06:50:12 PM
no, the problem isn't stupid products. it's stupid people who buy them.
There was tons of fraudulent activity, both in how the loans were originated and in how they were resold to investors. Actually, a lot of (street) smart buyers made out like bandits at the expense of various pension funds etc.
Back on topic, does anyone really like to live in those dense suburban areas which are criss-crossed with massive six-lane streets? I always found those places extremely tedious to drive around. The photo in the OP shows an area with large trees and nice fences -- it probably looked much nicer before they started paving everything.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 06, 2012, 06:50:12 PM
Quote from: realjd on January 06, 2012, 06:32:15 PM
No, the economy was brought down by banks issuing stupid things like reverse amortization, interest only, and balloon mortgages to poor people for mansions that they couldn't afford on a traditional fixed 30 year mortgage.
no, the problem isn't stupid products. it's stupid people who buy them.
People will be stupid. That's a fact of life and there is no fixing it. The banks should have known better than to sell self destructive mortgages to stupid people.
Quote from: flowmotion on January 06, 2012, 07:09:44 PM
Back on topic, does anyone really like to live in those dense suburban areas which are criss-crossed with massive six-lane streets? I always found those places extremely tedious to drive around. The photo in the OP shows an area with large trees and nice fences -- it probably looked much nicer before they started paving everything.
I'm very happy in the suburbs. I live 10 minutes from work by car or 20 minutes by bike. I have a giant nature preserve with a trailhead on my street within walking distance of my house. I have easy access by car to the country, to the beach, and to numerous restaurants and ample shopping. If I lived out in the sticks, it would be annoying doing things like grocery shopping due to the distance from the store. If I lived in the city, I'd be too far from nature and wouldn't have things like a swimming pool or a fire pit in my back yard. The suburbs are a good compromise and lead to a very good quality of life for me given my interests.
I do wish I had a good craft beer bar within walking distance!
Quote from: flowmotion on January 06, 2012, 07:09:44 PM
Back on topic, does anyone really like to live in those dense suburban areas which are criss-crossed with massive six-lane streets?
I live in one of those areas. I live here because it's cheap and I can walk to my office (albeit not a pleasant walk), whereas parking would be $80+ per month. But that's about the only thing I like. There are tons of places to go within a mile or two, but most of them suck, and walking to most of them involves extremely indirect paths and dangerous street crossings. Driving around here is slow because traffic lights take forever to cycle, and there are lots of them. Pretty much everything I'm interested in is at least a 20 minute drive. I'm moving to San Francisco in June, and I'm quite happy about that.
Quote from: realjd on January 06, 2012, 07:32:46 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 06, 2012, 06:50:12 PM
Quote from: realjd on January 06, 2012, 06:32:15 PM
No, the economy was brought down by banks issuing stupid things like reverse amortization, interest only, and balloon mortgages to poor people for mansions that they couldn't afford on a traditional fixed 30 year mortgage.
no, the problem isn't stupid products. it's stupid people who buy them.
People will be stupid. That's a fact of life and there is no fixing it. The banks should have known better than to sell self destructive mortgages to stupid people.
No, Greedy banks should have known better than to sell self destructive mortgages to people who don't pay attention to math.
Take it to the Off-Topic forum.
In the picture, it looks like the original fence line was far enough from the road to support a lesser widening. My guess would be that, when the houses were built, planning documents indicated that road would someday be widened to 4 lanes. Now it's being widened to 6 lanes, reflecting greater actual traffic growth in the area.
There is a difference between NIMBYism and eminent domain. True NIMBYs aren't losing their property per se, they just don't want progress near their property. To that I say, tough shit!
But when it comes to losing property and getting almost nothing for it in return that's not NIMBYism, that's a hard dry fucking by the government. Not that we shouldn't all be used to THAT by now.
I wonder how much these poor people's property taxes will decrease now with the loss of land... probably not enough to notice a difference in the monthly mortgage payment.
I do plenty for the greater good, esp right in my own community where it counts, but don't expect me to give you my front yard, when I bought it, paid for it, and continue pay for it every month in the form of taxes.