A LOLA yelled out to Joe "go ahead, lie some more!!"

[ChriswUfGator]

And as far as the renters living in properties that have been foreclosed on.  Big negatory on that one.  When a property goes into foreclosure, the owner has up until the date of sale to make good on the back payments or enter into a loss mitigation workout with the lender. If they fail to do so, in the state of FL, the property is sold at auction to the highest bidder.  Usually, the lender bids in full on the property taking full ownership so that they can market the property as a Real-Estate-Owned (REO) property where they have the best chance of recooping their loss.  That is when the bank officially OWNS the property.  Anyone living in the home is evicted long before that event takes place.  While there are new laws under the Obama plan that allow a renter to stay into the home past the previously allotted time limits under foreclosure, they do not get to stay in the property indefinitely.  They are served with notice of eviction and have 30-60 days to vacate.  If they don't, the sherriff will put them out. 

It's usually around 60 days from the time a Notice of Foreclosure is posted at the courthouse (how it's done in FL), before the sale takes place.  It's during this time period that eviction proceedings are in the works.  If at the time of sale, there is still someone in the property and the bank successfully wins the bid, they will be removed right then and there.  So, if you know renters that are living in foreclosed properties, the foreclosure either has been reinstated (payments paid in full or negotiated workout in place), or those renters will be finding a new place to live pretty darn soon.

You gotta be kidding me on the claim that nobody whose house was foreclosed still lives there, right? Even assuming the foreclosure and judicial sale goes unchallenged, the process can take a year or longer. It takes forever and a day just to get a hearing in circuit court here anymore. They're flooded with these. Then the bank would still have to obtain a writ of possession and send a representative out with a Sheriff's deputy to actually evict the former homeowner if they are still in the property. There is no automatic process, someone has to actually go and do it.

The banks have more foreclosed properties than they can digest at present, and it could potentially be years before this actually occurs. Some banks have even decided it is better to ignore it than to have the property vacant and suffer further loss by vandalism or theft. There are multitudes of people at all stages of the process still living in homes on which they haven't made a single payment in years. I'm really scratching my head on this one, my guess is you must not follow the real estate market very closely, or at least not recently.

[nvrenuf]

Why did Paul Hout tell the Prez of the SIAWC that she could not attend a meeting of a group (the garden club) which is a committee of the SIAWC?

[second_pancake]

Not arguing, Stephen, I'm merely stating facts that were left out in the conversation.  As I said, which I suspect you hardly read since it only took you all of 4 seconds to post your reply, the folks living in those foreclosed properties won't be there for long regardless of how "delightful" they are. Sad, but factual.

The weight you put on someone's input to neighborhood changes/revitalization is totally on a homeowner and that is not reduced because of that homeowner's inability to pay on a loan.  Again, we're talking about a lease of 6 months - a year at a time.  Mortgages are taken in terms of 15 years, and for a while, were up to 60 years.  An owner is a owner and a renter is a renter, you can't dispute the definitions of those words...it is what it is...A=A.

In Jacksonville over 44% of the homeowners are currently in a negative equity position through absolutely no fault of their own.  Typically, when someone is upside-down 70k or more, they walk.  The amount of time it takes for someone to build that kind of equity back up continually paying on their homes versus them taking their monthly mortgage payment and investing it into another investment fund is much longer.  The property owner walks and let's the home get foreclosed on.  To your point, you think that because someone had all intention of living in a community for a significant period of their life, invested in that community, and the economy worked against them, we should equate them to that of a life-long renter who has never saved enough money to buy a home, or never wanted to because they are perfectly content having no responsibility for a home???  Talk about "bunk."  Now, if what you're saying is that these folks no longer have money in the neighborhood because they're homes were foreclosed and sold REO, and yet they show up to the meetings and bitch and moan about what to do or not to do, then I agree, they don't have a say any longer because they no longer have an investment there.

Springfield needs help.  It would be nice if everyone felt about Springfield the way those that have financially invested in it do.  It would be nice if the folks that have rented and are renting in Springfield would put their money where their mouth is and start making the same investment.  Unfortunately, and getting back to the original reason for this topic having been posted, the gal who is the owner of property is running a business in a residential area for the purposes of housing drug-addicts and alcoholics trying to get clean.  She is not using the property as a standard rental, but a business that is bringing less-than-desireable people to the area.  She is working against what all those homeowners having invested in the area are trying to accomplish...rid the area of drug-addicts, alcoholics, and other folks with issues that are better handled through a professional, licensed,  addict treament center.  I'm sure that wasn't her intention ( I don't know her so can't say, just assuming she's not evil, lol), but that is the result.  If she wants to help these folks, then she needs to get the proper approvals and permits to have this type of facility, as well as have a structure that will support them.  And by doing so, the residents will be given a forum to discuss her proposal to house the folks in the area and then EVERYONE can voice their opposition or support.  No one said they can't choose to say what they (renters) want about the community they live in, just that if it's going to carry any water, they need to show that they have a vested interest in the community and usually that's done through the payment of property taxes....if someone doesn't believe in a community they usually don't buy into it.

 

[ChriswUfGator]

To your point, you think that because someone had all intention of living in a community for a significant period of their life, invested in that community, and the economy worked against them, we should equate them to that of a life-long renter who has never saved enough money to buy a home, or never wanted to because they are perfectly content having no responsibility for a home??? 

I think you're painting with a pretty broad brush there. Unless you live somewhere other than Florida, the sad truth is that most of the renters are probably better off financially for having rented instead of buying, after this bloodbath of the past couple years. Half the state carries negative equity. How is the guy who owes $100k more than a property is worth somehow smarter, or a better financial planner, than the guy who rents and owes nothing?

I'm all for owning, at least in the long-term view of things (this too shall pass right?), but surely you have to see the palmetto bug in your ointment? Your characterization doesn't make much sense, and probably won't hold true again for many more years. I know lots of people who could buy if they wanted, but aren't interested in catching a falling knife. Real estate isn't a biotech stock, it doesn't suddenly increase in value 1000%. It's not like there isn't plenty of time to get on that train before it leaves the station.

I don't see how you can randomly exclude people who rent in Springfield from having a say in the direction of the neighborhood. If they're stepping up to the plate to participate, then hasn't any argument about whether they've taken an interest in the neighborhood already flown out the window?

[cindi]

Why did Paul Hout tell the Prez of the SIAWC that she could not attend a meeting of a group (the garden club) which is a committee of the SIAWC?

are you freaking serious?

Some of these people have plain out lost their minds.

she asked a question.  is that your response? if so, did you read the question?

[second_pancake]

Guys, you are completely missing the point.  Those renters are renting the homes from a homeowner, are they not?  Where is that homeowner?  Do they not care about Springfield?  That is what I'm saying.  THOSE are the folks that carry more weight...not that the renters don't have a say as I stated in my previous post.

Stephen, yes, irresponsibility was the issue, however it's not all the folks that went out and took mortgages they couldn't afford.  When I say over 44% of the homeowners in Jax have negative equity, those are the folks that are paying on their homes.  Those are the folks that knew what they were getting into and the economy worked against them.  At some point they will make a business decision to either stay invested in that property or they will cut their losses and walk and thus become a renter.  Yes, my point would be moot, Chris, if no one owned homes anymore.  But the fact that we're debating over renters rights demands that there are homeowners...how could they rent a home if no one owned it?

When the entirety of Springfield exists of empty homes all for sale as REO properties, then we'll talk, but while there are still renters, there are homeowners, and it's those folks, IMO exclusively that should be making decisions as to what happens to their investment.

[second_pancake]

Stephen...oh, Stephen....again, I know mortgages.  The value of a home is not in what a property assessor (especially in the state of FL) dictates the taxable value of the property is.  The value is based on the market...comparable properties, and what they have statiscically sold for.  You can not convince me, because I have seen the numbers, that ANYONE in Springfield paid 450k for a home that had a Broker's Price Opinion (market value) of 80k.  Now, if you were to tell me that 4-5 years ago someone bought a house in Springfield for 450k and TODAY it's market value is 80k, then yes, that is absolutely true which is what I said...it is one of the 44% of the homes that is undervalued through absolutely no fault of the person that bought it.  And the fact of the matter is, again, (going back to what I said earlier ) if someone made that stupid decision in your example...to pay more than market value for a property in a declining market, then more than likely, they no longer own the home, or they are renting the property hoping for the market to turn so they can recoup their loss.  What's wrong with that?  Renters may be a better financial position right now, but they don't have their money in the market.  It's very easy to tell someone else what to do with their neighborhood and their investments when you don't have skin in the game.  I really don't know how anyone could disagree with that.  All you want to discuss is how irresposible all of these homeowner's are when your knowledge of the mortgage industry is based on what you've read in the newspaper or what neighbors have told you is happening with their homes and why.  I work it...I live it...I breathe it.  There is culpubility on both the banks and the homeowners.  I said it before and I'll say it again, when Springfield, or any other city for that matter, has no renters and just vacant properties waiting to be sold by the banks, then you have a community of your so-called "smart" homeowners homeless that made a business decision to invest their money outside of the housing market, and we'll sit down and talk about who should be deciding what.

We can disagree all we want.  I don't live in Springfield.  I don't own a home in Springfield...in fact I don't own a home anymore period.  I rent.  I can voice my opinion however I feel, but I have no claim to stake in that neighborhood.  You should just be more careful when quoting numbers and scenarios when it comes to the housing market.  I think facts should remain fact and opinion, opinion.  I am not on here to insult people or make snide remarks or try and posture myself through the use of cutting remarks or the analyzation and twisting of one's words.  I am stating my opinion on the subject as it was presented, and backing-up that opinion with facts.  I deal with mortgage issues on a daily basis and frankly this is just tiring.  I'm done now.

[DeadGirlsDontDance]

"Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count."

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow. so logically, those with a vested stake in the neighborhood should be the ones taking the lead on issues that will affect them long after the renter is gone and the next has taken his/her place. of course there are exceptions, but that's pretty much how it works in every neighborhood. which works out fine, because most renters in any neighborhood don't especially want to put in the extra time, energy, and money in the non-glamourous parts of improving the neighborhood.

I respectfully call bullshit on this Springfield property owner nonsense.

Everyone who lives in Jacksonville has a stake in Springfield, whether they know it or not, and whether they rent or own their homes. Any neighborhood full of run-down, empty buildings and vacant lots reflects poorly on the entire city.

For the record, I happen to be a property owner. My property is in Arlington, but my taxes go to THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, not just Arlington; and I have just as much right to a say in what goes on in Springfield as these uppity newcomers.

I was born and raised in Jacksonville, and feel a sense of ownership towards the city as a whole, but I admit a special affection for the historic districts (San Marco, Riverside, Springfield) because I have lived, worked, played and shopped in all of them.

Yes, yes, Springfield is a historic district, and the architecture and character of the neighborhood should be preserved. However, preservation does NOT mean dialing it back 100 years and reducing it to a boring enclave of wealthy white people.

Recent transplants from... Burbank or somewhere who want to tell life-long residents of Springfield how to live their lives, run their businesses, and treat their less fortunate neighbors deserve to be kneecapped with an aluminum baseball bat.

[Dan B]

Interesting stuff, these new posters screaming about "white people" messing up Springfield. Im shocked... not really.

[second_pancake]

White people screw up everything, Dan.  Don't you know that.

[Springfielder]

Regardless of who picks up more trash, the bottom line is that all citizens of (fill in the blank here, USA, Florida, COJ, Springfield) deserve recognition, consideration, and representation by the leaders of (fill in the blank here). 

To say anything else is pretty darn horrid.

Thank you!

And what gets me, even though the renters aren't paying the property taxes directly, they do so indirectly through their rent. As I've stated before, many of the renters I know of, also pay the new fees separately to the landlord.

For those that are of the mindset that renters don't have the same vested interest in the neighborhood in which they live, spend their money, work with and participate with the community...I suppose in your eyes, they're still substandard folks. Most of the people I know that rent, have lived in the same houses for well over 10, 15, 20 years. Some have and are members of spar, some are block captains and also members of other organizations within the neighborhood. But of course, none of that matters since they don't own and merely rent...ignoring the fact that the cost of property taxes are passed onto them via their rent. They pay utilities, they shop in the neighborhood, they support neighborhood functions...but alas, they're just renters and shouldn't be included in the same category as property owners with as much say in what happens in their neighborhood.

The entitle-list few that feel that way are indeed, what creates the divide between neighbors, with an attempt to exclude

[second_pancake]

Springfielder, renters don't pay property taxes unless their landlord actually uses the rent to pay the escrowed mortage or property taxes themselves.  Renters have no control over how their money is applied.  Again, not excluding anyone since I am also a renter, just stating fact.

[strider]

Some comments:

First, the average renter technically pays more property tax than the average live-in home owner.  Always. Unless, of course, the landlord likes to lose money and charges less than the actually cost of ownership.  If paying the taxes is what gives one the 'right" to have a say in THEIR community, then the renters could be said to have more of a right than the other owners.

second_pancake, before you post about a sober house again and what should and should not be done, you need to go do some research. This is not a licensed facility and it does not need to be. It is a rental that caters to those in recovery.  A large difference and perhaps even better than that treatment center.

Anyone who feels that a sober house is bad because it brings in the wrong kind of people needs to go learn the facts and report back to us.  You really have no idea of what you are trying to talk about here.

Anyone who really believes that race plays no part in any of this also needs to wake up.

I do not mean to be nasty here, but some of you really do need a reality check.  The studies that helped form the historic districts even stated that local orgs should include renters in the mix of the decision making.  Which is why the successful HSCC had board positions just for renters.

Much of the issues with houses used as sober houses are very much fear based rather than fact based.  The opponents of these places use that fear to keep the issue alive and do so out of spite and fear themselves.  The majority of the people living in these sober environments came from the streets of Springfield, except now they are sober and working and  paying taxes.   Many have been in their HOMES a year , two and sometimes even years longer.  It is very much THEIR neighborhood.

While it is indeed a good thing, Zoo, to integrate all of the social economic groups in a community, that is very much different than actively trying to push a group out, close businesses of all kinds down that cater to those groups and actively trying to avoid giving those groups a say in the future of THEIR neighborhood.  When you factor in today’s economy, I would think through no fault of the community, the numbers are going the wrong way today and so the needs and wants of those low income groups are getting more important to the success of the community than even before.  Working WITH them rather than AGAINST them seems to be what is needed.

And yes, the  large part of the downfall of Springfield was historically “racist“.  Sorry, just basic history.

[ChriswUfGator]

"Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count."

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow. so logically, those with a vested stake in the neighborhood should be the ones taking the lead on issues that will affect them long after the renter is gone and the next has taken his/her place. of course there are exceptions, but that's pretty much how it works in every neighborhood. which works out fine, because most renters in any neighborhood don't especially want to put in the extra time, energy, and money in the non-glamourous parts of improving the neighborhood.

I respectfully call bullshit on this Springfield property owner nonsense.

Everyone who lives in Jacksonville has a stake in Springfield, whether they know it or not, and whether they rent or own their homes. Any neighborhood full of run-down, empty buildings and vacant lots reflects poorly on the entire city.

For the record, I happen to be a property owner. My property is in Arlington, but my taxes go to THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, not just Arlington; and I have just as much right to a say in what goes on in Springfield as these uppity newcomers.

I was born and raised in Jacksonville, and feel a sense of ownership towards the city as a whole, but I admit a special affection for the historic districts (San Marco, Riverside, Springfield) because I have lived, worked, played and shopped in all of them.

Yes, yes, Springfield is a historic district, and the architecture and character of the neighborhood should be preserved. However, preservation does NOT mean dialing it back 100 years and reducing it to a boring enclave of wealthy white people.

Recent transplants from... Burbank or somewhere who want to tell life-long residents of Springfield how to live their lives, run their businesses, and treat their less fortunate neighbors deserve to be kneecapped with an aluminum baseball bat.

Amen.

[Springfielder]

First, the average renter technically pays more property tax than the average live-in home owner.  Always. Unless, of course, the landlord likes to lose money and charges less than the actually cost of ownership.  If paying the taxes is what gives one the 'right" to have a say in THEIR community, then the renters could be said to have more of a right than the other owners. 

That's exactly the point I've been trying to make, that renters do pay, although it's indirectly. Landlords, without a doubt, pass such costs onto their tenants, even though it's not specified, it's included. As are the costs of the three new taxes COJ placed upon us all.

This is why it bothers me, when others say that renters shouldn't be included because they don't pay property taxes, because that's not so. Just as it's not so that renters aren't involved and active within their community. Granted, some are not, but not all property/homeowners are involved either.