Archive for 'Real Estate'

What Is A Land Trust, a 5Minute Land Trust?

 

Get More Information and Your Own 5M Land Trust

www.5mLandTrusts.com


 The decline in home prices is accelerating across the nation, according to a new report, and a record number of foreclosures is expected to push prices down further through next year.

 
 
But a second report released on Tuesday indicated that consumer confidence in the economy rose in November to the highest level in five months amid some more hopeful signs.
 
The Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller 20-city home price index released Tuesday fell 0.7 percent in September from August. Eighteen of the 20 cities recorded price declines.
 
Cleveland recorded the biggest drop, 3 percent from a month earlier. Prices in San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, which had been showing strength this year, also dropped in September from August.
 
Washington and Las Vegas were the only metro areas to post gains in monthly prices.
 
The 20-city index has risen 5.9 percent from its April 2009 bottom. But it remains nearly 28.6 percent below the peak, in July 2006. And home prices have fallen in 15 of the 20 cities in the last year.
 
Prices rose in many cities from April through July, mostly helped by government tax credits that have since expired.
 
The national quarterly index, which measures home prices in nine regions of the country, dropped 2 percent in the third quarter from the previous quarter.
 
In the other report, the Conference Board said that its Consumer Confidence Index for November rose to 54.1 points, up from a revised 49.9 in October. Analysts were expecting 52.0. November’s reading is the highest since June’s 54.3.
 
The November reading is the highest since June, when the index stood at 54.3 just as the economy’s recovery started to lose momentum. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected 52.0.
 
It takes a level of 90 to indicate a healthy economy, which has not been approached since the recession began in December 2007.
 
One component of the index, how Americans feel now about the economy, rose to 24, up from 23.5. The other gauge, which measures how American feel about the economy over the next six months, rose to 74.2, up from 67.5 last month.
 
“Consumer confidence is now at its highest level in five months, a welcome sign as we enter the holiday season,” Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board Consumer Research Center, said in a statement. “Consumers’ assessment of the current state of the economy and job market, while only slightly better than last month, suggests the economy is still expanding, albeit slowly. Hopefully, the improvement in consumers’ mood will continue in the months ahead.”
 
Others were less optimistic.
 
“The rise in consumer confidence in November is not consistent with a sustained acceleration in consumption growth at a time when income growth is weak, the unemployment rate is high and a double dip in house prices is under way,” said Paul Dales, United States economist at Capital Economics.
 
The consumer confidence index, which measures how respondents feel about business conditions, the job market and the economy over the next six months, has recovered fitfully since hitting a record low of 25.3 in February 2009. Economists watch confidence closely because consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of economic activity and is crucial to a strong rebound. The improved confidence mirrors an increase in spending in November, fueled by early discounting on holiday goods that lured shoppers into stores.
 
The Conference Board’s index, based on a random survey mailed to 5,000 households from Nov. 1 to Nov. 19, showed that worries about jobs eased, but that concern remained high.
 
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
For more: http://nyti.ms/eoUCAk
Question: What’s worse than having your house foreclosed upon?
 
Answer: having your house foreclosed upon twice . Unless, of course, you get it back the second time.
 
Homeowners in Massachusetts are now facing "back-to-back foreclosures," due to problems with property titles. When lenders are unable to get title insurance for the property on which they have foreclosed, they are now opting to try the whole process again. In Massachusetts, where the issue has affected at least hundreds, and "possibly thousands," of homeowners, it has become common enough to merit its own name: "re-foreclosure."
 
It sounds pretty awful. But the “re-foreclosure’’ storm clouds may have a silver lining for some homeowners: Sometimes, the banks lose the second time around.
 
From the Boston Globe article:
 
"Zepheniah Taylor lost his Dorchester three-decker to foreclosure two times in 17 months. Now the 59-year-old grandfather has returned home to stay. The scenario, once implausible, is becoming more common in the crazed and fast-changing world of foreclosures."
 
Also of note, homeowners are able to purchase their houses back at "current market value" — which means if the property value has deteriorated, as is often the case in neighborhoods with high foreclosure rates, the homeowner may be able to benefit by buying the property back at a cheaper price.
 
In the words of one such beneficiary: "I’m starting over fresh…It feels good. It is a new chance. "
 
But the whole process can be a little unsettling. In the words of Zoe Cronin, an attorney with Greater Boston Legal Services, a group that represents low income people: "They are weirded out…What is this? I got a letter saying I own my house again."
 
At the moment, it is still unclear how many properties and homeowners could be affected by these types of issues in the future.
 
By: Ash Bennington, writer for CNBC
 
For more: http://bit.ly/a7mX5v

 Fixer Jay shares tips for today’s investor

 

 

Even as investors put aside their worries on Friday about the effect of the foreclosure mess on bank stocks, new signs emerged of what is likely to be a long and expensive legal battle for the financial services industry over mortgages gone bad.

 
Citigroup disclosed in a regulatory filing that it was being sued by several investors, including Charles Schwab and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, in an effort to force Citigroup to buy back soured mortgages that the investors contended did not conform to proper underwriting standards.
 
Meanwhile, Wells Fargo said in a filing that it “cannot estimate the possible loss or range of loss” from these cases, and Bank of America said in a filing that investors holding $375 billion worth of mortgage securities had filed similar suits.
 
In a separate announcement, however, Bank of America said a lawsuit brought by the Maine State Retirement System and other investors was dismissed on Thursday by a federal court in California, reducing that $375 billion figure to $54 billion. But that news came after the S.E.C. filing had already been prepared.
 
The dismissal is a significant victory for Bank of America and underscores the legal challenges in trying to force banks to buy back defaulted mortgages.
 
“The court’s ruling demonstrates the strict legal hurdles plaintiffs face in bringing these sorts of claims,” said Brian E. Pastuszenski, counsel for Bank of America’s Countrywide unit.
 
Still, Bank of America faces a different effort by other investors, including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Pimco, the giant money management firm, to force it to buy back a portion of roughly $47 billion in mortgages they hold. Neither the $375 billion nor the $54 billion figure reflects this push, because those investors have yet to sue.
 
On Thursday, Bank of America’s lawyers sent a strongly worded letter to the lawyer leading the $47 billion effort, rejecting her claims as “utterly baseless.” The bank contends the any loss of value stemmed from the economic downturn rather than an underlying problem with how the mortgages were sold to investors or have been serviced.
 
Bank of America and other large institutions like JPMorgan Chase and GMAC Mortgage have been criticized for pursuing foreclosures without the proper paperwork or with signatures by so-called robo-signers.
 
But on Wall Street, the worry is that efforts to force the banks to buy back defaulted mortgages could actually be a longer and more expensive fight for the industry. Some analysts estimate the eventual cost could total tens of billions of dollars, and that worry pushed down shares of the big banks sharply last month.
 
Indeed, Bank of America’s chief executive, Brian T. Moynihan, has signaled that the threat of forced buybacks will not be resolved quickly — or cheaply.
 
“It’s loan by loan, and we have the resources to deploy in that kind of review,” he said last month, during a conference call to discuss the bank’s financial results for the third quarter. “We’d love never to talk about this again and put it behind us, but the right answer is to fight for it.”
 
Despite the disclosures, bank stocks rallied for the second day in a row. Bank of America shares closed up 23 cents, at $12.36, while Citigroup rose 16 cents, to $4.49, and Wells Fargo jumped $1.76, to $29.22.
 
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
For more: http://nyti.ms/aQgZUD

 Consumer advocates, the press, investors and homeowners have already compiled a compelling list of transgressions: conflicts of interest that have banks pushing foreclosures, without a good-faith effort to modify troubled loans. Dubious fees that inflate mortgage balances. The hundreds of thousands of flawed foreclosure affidavits that violated homeowners’ legal protections. The misplaced documents. And it goes on. 

 
 
IN Congressional hearings last week, Obama administration officials acknowledged that uncertainty over foreclosures could delay the recovery of the housing market. The implications for the economy are serious. For instance, the International Monetary Fund found that the persistently high unemployment in the United States is largely the result of foreclosures and underwater mortgages, rather than widely cited causes like mismatches between job requirements and worker skills.
 
This chapter of the financial crisis is a self-inflicted wound. The major banks and their agents have for years taken shortcuts with their mortgage securitization documents — and not due to a momentary lack of attention, but as part of a systematic approach to save money and increase profits. The result can be seen in the stream of reports of colossal foreclosure mistakes: multiple banks foreclosing on the same borrower; banks trying to seize the homes of people who never had a mortgage or who had already entered into a refinancing program.
 
Banks are claiming that these are just accidents. But suppose that while absent-mindedly paying a bill, you wrote a check from a bank account that you had already closed. No one would have much sympathy with excuses that you were in a hurry and didn’t mean to do it, and it really was just a technicality.
 
The most visible symptoms of cutting corners have come up in the foreclosure process, but the roots lie much deeper. As has been widely documented in recent weeks, to speed up foreclosures, some banks hired low-level workers, including hair stylists and teenagers, to sign or simply stamp documents like affidavits — a job known as being a “robo-signer.”
 
Such documents were improper, since the person signing an affidavit is attesting that he has personal knowledge of the matters at issue, which was clearly impossible for people simply stamping hundreds of documents a day. As a result, several major financial firms froze foreclosures in many states, and attorneys general in all 50 states started an investigation.
 
However, the problems in the mortgage securitization market run much wider and deeper than robo-signing, and started much earlier than the foreclosure process.
 
When mortgage securitization took off in the 1980s, the contracts to govern these transactions were written carefully to satisfy not just well-settled, state-based real estate law, but other state and federal considerations. These included each state’s Uniform Commercial Code, which governed “secured” transactions that involve property with loans against them, and state trust law, since the packaged loans are put into a trust to protect investors. On the federal side, these deals needed to satisfy securities agencies and the Internal Revenue Service.
 
This process worked well enough until roughly 2004, when the volume of transactions exploded. Fee-hungry bankers broke the origination end of the machine. One problem is well known: many lenders ceased to be concerned about the quality of the loans they were creating, since if they turned bad, someone else (the investors in the securities) would suffer.
 
A second, potentially more significant, failure lay in how the rush to speed up the securitization process trampled traditional property rights protections for mortgages.
 
The procedures stipulated for these securitizations are labor-intensive. Each loan has to be signed over several times, first by the originator, then by typically at least two other parties, before it gets to the trust, “endorsed” the same way you might endorse a check to another party. In general, this process has to be completed within 90 days after a trust is closed.
 
Evidence is mounting that these requirements were widely ignored. Judges are noticing: more are finding that banks cannot prove that they have the standing to foreclose on the properties that were bundled into securities. If this were a mere procedural problem, the banks could foreclose once they marshaled their evidence. But banks who are challenged in many cases do not resume these foreclosures, indicating that their lapses go well beyond minor paperwork.
 
Increasingly, homeowners being foreclosed on are correctly demanding that servicers prove that the trust that is trying to foreclose actually has the right to do so. Problems with the mishandling of the loans have been compounded by the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, an electronic lien-registry service that was set up by the banks. While a standardized, centralized database was a good idea in theory, MERS has been widely accused of sloppy practices and is increasingly facing legal challenges.
 
By YVES SMITH
 
For more: http://nyti.ms/aPlvOQ
 

The Fed Bought Fraud and Plans To Buy More

 
By Greg Hunter
 

In the wake of the financial meltdown of 2008, the Federal Reserve announced it would buy mortgage-backed securities, or MBS.  The January announcement by the Fed said it would buy MBS from failed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the amount of $1.25 trillion.  
 
At the time, the Fed said in a press release, “The goal of the program was to provide support to mortgage and housing markets and to foster improved conditions in financial markets more generally.”  (Click here for the full Fed statement.) It did provide “support” to the mortgage market, but did it also buy fraud and cover the banks that sold it?  The evidence shows, at the very least, it bought massive amounts of fraud.
 
We now know the Fed definitely bought valueless MBS because it has joined other ripped-off investors to demand Bank of America buy back billions in sour home debt.  A Bloomberg story from just last week, featuring Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser,  reports, “The New York Fed, which acquired mortgage debt in the 2008 rescues of Bear Stearns Cos. and American International Group Inc., has joined a bondholder group that aims to force Bank of America Corp.to buy back some bad home loans packaged into $47 billion of securities.  On the one hand, the Fed has “a duty to the taxpayer to try to collect on behalf of the taxpayer on these mortgages,” Plosser said today at an event in Philadelphia.”
 
Mr. Plosser lamented the “difficult spot” the central bank is in because it is both bank regulator and plaintiff.  He said, “Should we be in the business of suing the financial institutions that we are in fact responsible for supervising?” (Click here to read the complete Bloomberg story.) To that question, I ask shouldn’t the Fed have done a much better job of supervising the big banks in the first place?
 
The whole financial and mortgage crisis from sour securities to foreclosure fraud is in the process of blowing sky high.  The entire mess is clearly the biggest financial fraud in history!  It looks to me like the regulators were just supervising their pay checks being deposited into the bank.
 
And remember, the $1.25 trillion of mortgage-backed securities the Fed bought from Fannie and Freddie?  How much of that is fraud?  William Black, the outspoken Professor of Economics from the University of Missouri KC, says all the big banks were committing “major frauds”in the mortgage-backed security market.  Black says, at Citicorp, for example, “. . . 80% of the mortgage loans it sold to Fannie and Freddie were sold under false representations and warranties.” (Click here for the complete Black interview.) Black claims the frauds increased at some banks, and it is sill going on today!   (I admit I used this same video in a recent post.  I use it again, because it is the single most important and damning indictment of the big banks out there.  Professor Black defines the size of the entire fraudulent mortgage mess.)
 
If he’s right, and I think he is, that means the Fed just spent the last 20 months (the  program ended in August 2010) buying a trillion dollars in mortgage fraud!  
 
That is a staggering amount even for the most powerful central bank in the world.  
 
Could the Federal Reserve have bought that amount of fraudulent MBS and not have known it?  
 
Could the Fed have been buying that amount of rotten worthless debt to cover the banksters in the syndicate?  


Who knows if we will ever find that out because the Federal Reserve cannot be independently audited.
 
And who knows what else it bought in sour debt to bail out their banking syndicate buddies because the Federal Reserve cannot be independently audited!
 
It has never been audited in its 97 year history.
 
I know one thing, if the Fed is going to keep its banking cartel alive, it is going to be forced to print massive amounts of money out of thin air to buy a heck of a lot more fraudulent mortgage-backed securities.  
 
That’s what worries and scares me the most.
 
Greg Hunter
 
For more: http://bit.ly/dkjp2s

 Wells Fargo said that current reviews found that bank employees had failed to “strictly adhere” to its required procedures during a final step in its documentation processes. It also acknowledged that “some aspects of the notarization process” had not always been properly followed, creating the potential for paperwork errors.

 
After several weeks of insisting its foreclosure processes were sound, Wells Fargo & Company said on Wednesday that it planned to correct and resubmit up to 55,000 improperly filed documents by mid-November.
 
Wells Fargo said that current reviews found that bank employees had failed to “strictly adhere” to its required procedures during a final step in its documentation processes. It also acknowledged that “some aspects of the notarization process” had not always been properly followed, creating the potential for paperwork errors.
 
Wells officials said that the bank started to correct the 55,000 questionable files, and “out of an abundance of caution,” planned to resubmit them in 23 states where foreclosures require court approval. Bank officials maintained that the underlying information in the loan files was accurate and that the bank had not improperly foreclosed on any troubled homeowners.
 
Wells Fargo also said that it had no plans to temporarily freeze foreclosure sales, an action previously taken by its rivals Bank of America and GMAC.
 
Still, the revelations that Wells had identified as many as 55,000 improper foreclosure files add to the mortgage morass. Attorneys general in all 50 states are conducting a sweeping investigation into the industry’s practices, while a White House task force and several federal regulators have embarked on similar reviews.
 
In addition to Wells Fargo, four other large mortgage players are resubmitting tens of thousands of cases in large swaths of the country. Chase said it was looking at about 115,000 files in 41 states. Bank of America is looking at 102,000 in 23 states, where foreclosures require court approval. GMAC and PNC Financial have come forward to say they are resubmitting files with improper paperwork, too.
 
Still, Wells Fargo’s announcement was the second time a bank had backtracked on statements it had made about the extent of its foreclosure problems. After weeks of insisting that its review had not turned up any serious errors, Bank of America acknowledged a number of paperwork errors, including incorrect data and misspelled names.
 
Wells Fargo had previously taken an even more combative stance. In its Oct. 20 conference call with investors, bank officials said they were confident that the foreclosure processes and controls were sound. That statement gave the impression that there were few if any problems but left room for the possibility that the bank might have to fix a small number of mistakes.
 
During the conference call, Wells officials dismissed concerns that the bank had systematically engaged in so-called robo-signing, where a single employee would sign thousands of loan documents without verifying their contents, as the law requires. Instead, the bank emphasized that their policies called for the same employee who compiled the foreclosure file to sign off on it — a crucial legal requirement in many states.
 
But revelations in an obscure Florida lawsuit and elsewhere raised concerns about whether that process was always followed. Under questioning, Xee Moua, a Wells Fargo manager, said she would sign off on as many as 500 foreclosure files a day without verifying the accuracy of their contents. “We don’t go into the details with these affidavits,” she said in a deposition.
 
Oscar Suris, a Wells Fargo spokesman, declined to comment on whether any of the problems the bank identified stemmed from such violations. He previously called Ms. Moua’s testimony “one isolated case” that is being disputed in the courts.
 
Wells officials also acknowledged the possibility of notarization errors. Previously, Wells officials said they believed that their notarization procedures complied with the law in South Carolina, where the bank’s loan foreclosure operations were based. As a result of the reviews, bank officials now say they are taking into consideration the unique requirements of different counties and states.
 
By ERIC DASH
For more: http://nyti.ms/bs89x7

GOLD Member Roger Taylor just sent me this very interesting article.

My hometown has a neighborhood in the TOP 25. Beth and her mother think Louisville is safe.

What do you think?

Please VOTE for your most dangerous neighborhood in America!

——————————————————————————————

 

Top 25 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods In USA

Do You Agree?

1. Chicago, Ill.
Neighborhood: W. Lake St.
Found within ZIP code: 60612
Predicted annual violent crimes: 297
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 257.72
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 4

2. Cleveland, Ohio
Neighborhood: Scovill Ave.
Found within ZIP code: 44104
Predicted annual violent crimes: 307
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 165.56
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 6

3. Las Vegas, Nev.
Neighborhood: Balzar Ave.
Found within ZIP code: 89106
Predicted annual violent crimes: 351
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 145.98
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 7

4. Las Vegas, Nev.
Neighborhood: N. 28th St.
Found within ZIP code: 89101
Predicted annual violent crimes: 875
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 135.09
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 7

5. Atlanta, Ga.
Neighborhood: Carter St.
Found within ZIP code: 30314, 30313
Predicted annual violent crimes:118
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 126.77
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 8

6. Philadelphia, Pa.
Neighborhood: N. 13th St.
Found within ZIP code: 19123
Predicted annual violent crimes: 488
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 117.19
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 9

7. Atlanta, GA
Neighborhood: Marietta St.
Found within ZIP code: 30313, 30303
Predicted annual violent crimes: 307
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 114.18
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 9

8. Las Vegas, Nev.
Neighborhood: D St.
Found within ZIP code: 89106, 89101
Predicted annual violent crimes: 392
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 113.53
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 9

9. Washington, D.C.
Neighborhood: L St. SE
Found within ZIP code: 20003
Predicted annual violent crimes: 240
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 111.34
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 9

10. Chattanooga, Tenn.
Neighborhood: King St.
Found within ZIP code: 37402, 37403, 37408
Predicted annual violent crimes: 114
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 110.79
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 9

11. Charlotte, N.C.
Neighborhood: N. Tryon St.
Found within ZIP code: 28206
Predicted annual violent crimes: 352
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 108.94
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 9

12. Memphis, Tenn.
Neighborhood: Florida St.
Found within ZIP code: 38106
Predicted annual violent crimes: 203
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 108.91
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 9

13. North Charleston, S.C.
Neighborhood: Echo Ave.
Found within ZIP code: 29403, 29405
Predicted annual violent crimes: 233
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 108.86
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 9

14. Louisville, Ky.
Neighborhood: E. Breckinridge St.
Found within ZIP code: 40203, 40204
Predicted annual violent crimes: 226
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 106.01
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 9

15. Fort Worth, Texas
Neighborhood: E. Lancaster Ave.
Found within ZIP code: 76102, 76111, 76103
Predicted annual violent crimes: 284
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 98.12
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 10

16. Winston-Salem, N.C.
Neighborhood: E. 21st St.
Found within ZIP code: 27105
Predicted annual violent crimes: 175
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 95.79
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 10

17. Atlanta, Ga.
Neighborhood: Richardson St.
Found within ZIP code: 30312, 30303
Predicted annual violent crimes: 119
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 94.94
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 11

18. Chicago, Ill.
Neighborhood: 4000 S. Federal St.
Found within ZIP code: 60609
Predicted annual violent crimes: 202
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 93.04
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 11

19. Memphis, Tenn.
Neighborhood: N. Danny Thomas Blvd.
Found within ZIP code: 38105
Predicted annual violent crimes: 147
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 90.42
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 11

20. Cleveland, Ohio
Neighborhood: Chestnut Pl.
Found within ZIP code: 44104, 44115
Predicted annual violent crimes: 156
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 90.38
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 11

21. Galveston, Texas
Neighborhood: Church St.
Found within ZIP code: 77550
Predicted annual violent crimes: 84
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 88.1
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 11

22. Atlanta, Ga.
Neighborhood: Humphries St. SW
Found within ZIP code: 30310
Predicted annual violent crimes: 119
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 82.96
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 12

23. Kansas City, Mo.
Neighborhood: Independence Ave.
Found within ZIP code: 64106
Predicted annual violent crimes: 82
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 81.97
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 12


24. Cincinnati, Ohio

Neighborhood: Moore St.
Found within ZIP code: 45210
Predicted annual violent crimes: 150
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 81.92
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 12


25. Orlando, Fla.

Neighborhood: W. Central Blvd.
Found within ZIP code: 32805, 32801
Predicted annual violent crimes: 299
Violent crime rate (per 1,000): 79.83
My chances of becoming a victim here (in one year): 1 in 13

 

Thanks to Roger and Wallet Pro
Read more of this article: http://bit.ly/Top25DangerousNeighborhoods  

PLEASE VOTE!

For Your Most Dangerous Neighborhood in America!

Fire Away… I Want To Read Your Comments!
 

This is what we can expect if ‘CAP & TRADE" legislation is enacted:

We thought we were angry before!  This is getting even scarier! 
 
Well read this one, it is all snoped and links are at the bottom of the page. If Congress strong arms this through America is finished!!! Hope you pass this on to every single person you know. Our government is totally out of control. 
 
A License Required for your HOUSE? 
 
Thinking about selling your house?  Take a look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and Trade bill), that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. 
 
Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners! 
 
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. 
 
H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. 
 
The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. 
 
A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house
 
The caveat is that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator. 
 
To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Cost $200 to start. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements, which easily could cost over $50,000. 
 
Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license 
(called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. 
 
And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. 
 
The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program  (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he/she alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. 
 
Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year. 
 
The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.Sect. 202 Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America. 
 
The label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year. 
 
The government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. 
 
That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program. 
 
CHECK OUT Just a few of the sites; 
 
Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home 
 
http://www.nachi.org/forum/f14/cap-and-trade-license-required-your-home-44750/ 
 
HR2454 American Clean Energy & Security Act: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454 
 
Cap & Trade A license required for your home: http://www.prisonplanet.com/cap-and-trade-a-license-required-for-your-home.html 
 
Cap and trade is a license to cheat and steal: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/oped_contributors/Cap-and-trade-is-a-license-to-cheat-and-steal-45371937.html 
 
Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2393940/posts 
 
Thinking about selling you House? Look at HR 2454: http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/10/01/thinking-about-selling-your-house-a-look-at-h-r-2454-cap-and-trade-bill/ 
If you own a Home, Read this!!
 Page 2 of 3 « 1  2  3 »