After Pressure from Occupy Bernal, Wells Fargo execs fly across country to meet with Bernal Heights man

|
(50)
Alberto Del Rio speaks at an Occupy Bernal press conference Feb. 14
IMAGE VIA OCCUPY BERNAL MEDIA

People facing eviction and foreclosure often report hardly being given the time of day by banks and lenders. But yesterday, three top Wells Fargo executives flew to San Francisco to meet with Alberto Del Rio, a Bernal Heights resident facing foreclosure.

Del Rio's parents purchased their home in 1973. The home was refinanced multiple times, he says “for a better life” for his family. The most recent refinance, in 2007, was a result of lenders convincing Del Rio’s mother that refinancing would be an easy to pay for some of her retirement. 

“It sounded really great because my mother had no monies for retirement. The loan officers told her pull out some cash and reinvest it so she could have a better retirement. They told her, ‘after two years, you’ll be able to refinance out of this,’” said Del Rio.

The loan she got was a pick-a-pay loan, one of the most notoriously predatory loans that banks offered in the years leading up to the 2008 crash.

After continued requests from Bernal resident Alberto Del Rio and support from that neighborhood’s foreclosure-focused branch of the Occupy movement, Del Rio was finally given the time of day- by top executives in the Wells Fargo home preservation department.

The executives, including Sharon Zuniga and Shawn Woods, who flew in from Wells Fargo’s headquarters in Texas, met with Del Rio Feb. 22 at the San Francisco offices of Consumer Credit Counseling Services for about an hour and a half.

Del Rio says they gave him three options: to move out of his home and convert it into rental units, allow a short sale on the house and accept $3,000 to move, or let foreclosure proceedings continue as planned.

“They flew a guy here all the way from Houston to try to bully him into giving up,” said Buck Bagot, an organizer with Occupy Bernal.

But the fact that they took the time to do that was a result of continued pressure from Del Rio and his supporters.

“It was a good thing,” said Del Rio.

“But it also felt like they were trying to pressure us into doing something they wanted us to do rather than what we wanted to do.”

Del Rio says he’s grateful to Occupy Bernal for supporting him thus far. And when the Wells Fargo executives pled with him to give up his home, he refused.

“I’ve made up my mind. I told them, if I’m going to lose the house I’m going to lose the house to a fight, to what I want.”

His perseverance worked to a degree; the bankers agreed to give Del Rio 90 days to “increase his income,” and then, potentially, work towards loan modification. Del Rio, an independent contractor, thinks its possible.

Meanwhile, Occupy Bernal will continue to struggle others who, often, are ignored by banks when they express their need for loan modification.

“Looking at everybody that I’ve been meeting that’s going through foreclosure and eviction, every single person is either a person of a minority group, a senior citizen, disabled, or someone else that would be easily influenced when approached with a better life, a better financial life. It can be seen in all their faces,” Del Rio told me.

Occupy Bernal has help postpone and prevent dozens of evictions, including that of Monica Kenney yesterday morning. They are planning a forum tonight on foreclosures to be held at the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center.

Comments

they took out vast and unsustainable amounts of cash out?

The longest mortgage you can get is 30 years. So this loan should have been paid off in 2003. But no, of course, these greedy little turds kept using their home as an ATM and now they are whining because they ran out of cash.

Too bad.

Oh, and it's an eviction, it's a foreclosure. at least get your terms right.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 6:15 pm

The debtor said "Del Rio’s mother that refinancing would be an easy to pay for some of her retirement. "

Oh year, borrowing more than you can afford is the "easy way to pay for" retirement.

These people were imbeciles.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 6:24 pm

where people would be making excuses for the criminals this way. Imagine if a con artist had bilked some unsuspecting old lady out of her life's savings by selling her some worthless investment or something.

Would anyone say it's her fault because she's an imbecile for trusting the guy?

Would anyone say she should've "paid just a few hundred dollars to hire a good lawyer" to go over any contract she signed, like matlock does below? I mean, how stupid can she be! All it takes is finding a "good" lawyer through the extensive professional network she surely has, paying him a "few hundred bucks" which she surely has lying around the house, and presto, all of this could be avoided!

Would anyone be calling her a "greedy little turd" like "Greg" does above?

Or would we be demanding that the con artist be put away for many years?

Are these people for real? Well, OK, we know "Greg" isn't real. Given his tactic of using someone else's identity (which by now is thankfully clear to all), it's pretty obvious he's a paid shill. But seriously... do real people really believe this kind of rubbish?

fyi: The only greedy little turds are the criminal bankers who steal people's homes, and the trolls who defend them.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 9:18 am

It's probably worth twenty times now what they paid for it. So to end in this position requires a stunning level of malice, greed and stupidity.

If there was a crime then give your info to the DA. Otherwise this family seem like a very unsympathetic poster child for Occupy.

With evictions, living in the same place for 40 years is tragic. But with ownership, it takes a real special type of stupid to screw up to the extent that this family did.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 10:43 am

We are a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in
our community. Your site provided us with valuable information to work on.
You have done an impressive job and our whole community will be grateful to you.

Posted by when to refi on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 5:02 pm

Hmmm... where did all that money go that they pulled out of the house? Maybe they should use that to pay the mortgage. No free lunch here fellas. This is the USA not Stalinist Russia. No one is going to just give you a house. If you owe debts, better get cracking paying them....

Posted by Guest on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 6:58 pm

And now of course they want to be bailed out of their stupidity because this is America and nobody should ever have to take responsibility for their actions.

I'm disgusted.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 7:05 pm

Most of it probably went to much larger interest payments, because of the refinancing at a higher amount, most likely at a higher rate than before. Yield spread premiums, paid to brokers were common; i.e., the broker was given a sizable kickback for luring the borrower into a loan with a higher interest rate than their credit qualified them for. Yield spread premiums are now illega.

It's quite likely that the borrower was also making negative amortization payments, getting deeper and deeper into debt for three years, until the three year statute of limitations on the Truth in Lending Act ran out, at which point they were suddenly hit with a demand for fully amortized payments they couldn't make.

Most borrowers didn't understand these loans. The negative amortization payment, if not the 1% teaser rate, was presented to them as the monthly payment to refinance or buy a house.

Another typical tactic in these loans was to persuade borrowers to "roll their credit card debt into the loan," thus turning unsecured debt into secured debt, often at a higher interest rate than credit card debt, which was often advanced at very low rates, even 1% or 0% at the time these loans were being written. It's not likely to dawn on a lot of people that they're turning unsecured debt that could be renegotiated in bankruptcy to secured debt that's going to cost them their home.

Posted by Guest Ann Garrison on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 4:21 pm

"The home was refinanced multiple times, he says “for a better life” for his family."

Come on guy. You used the House's equity to live beyond your means and now you can't pay it back. I'm generally sympathetic towards many things.. but this guy's a joke.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 7:16 pm

pick the most unsympathetic and clueless people to stick up for.

There are genuine cases of people who have suffered, and yet they pick folks who cashed their homes out up the wazoo and were doomed from the getgo.

Hopeless.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 7:37 pm

well said. I'm over it. Waste of a read. I'm glad God blessed me with not only the means, but also the will to get up and earn money everyday, and also being able to save some, and only spending what I have.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 7:49 pm

and 49ers season tickets weren't worth it.

Hopefully someone will get the house who appreciates it for what it is - a home, not a piggy bank.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 8:59 pm

Oh, go figure that borrowers took financial advice from banks instead of asking the smart ass people leaving these lovely comments. The bankers got paid! The ultimate cost of the millions of dollars they put in their pockets for their so called professional lending advice? How many lives have been tossed upside down, kicked out of their homes, lost their jobs and way of life? Shame on everyone for trusting these lending institutions for lending advice. The banks should be held accountable for all their lies.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 4:16 am

People I would never take advice from would start with bankers. Record execs, drug dealers, ex-cons, etc...

Having a reliable lawyer go over this would have cost a few hundred, there are even low cost ones who specialize in these things, there is also this thing called the internet where a person can look things up.

Are you being ironic?

Posted by matlock on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 6:05 am

Look, the banks were stupid for knowingly offering loans to people buying way beyond their means, bundling the loans, and selling them off to duped investors. They need to be punished.

But in this case...

The house was bought in 1973 and used as an ATM for decades. This guy deserves no sympathy.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 7:38 am

It was and arguably still is official policy at every level of local, state and national government to deceive unsophisticated home owners to take out unsustainable, fraudulent loans to keep the economy floating during the Bush tax cuts and trillion dollar plus wars that by definition we will never know if we won or lost if you believe Dick Cheney's definition, or that we completely lost if you believe Bin Laden when he said his goal was not to militarily defeat America, but to bankrupt it the way he claimed he bankrupted the Soviet Union.

which leaves the average American to ponder right here, right now, on message boards just like this one, every day, philosophical questions for which they are not educationally equipped, such as if an entire industry has been criminalized and then pardoned by the government to prevent total collapse, is it morally justified to save the wealthiest people on the planet from losing everything, because you can't have capitalism without capital and the fraud is so massive that virtually every private investor lost virtually EVERYTHING, while at the same time forcing normal people to eat their losses and then say they deserved it?

Yeah that's right.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 9:06 am

I agree with you about the banks.

But I also think this guy deserves no sympathy for using his mother's house as an ATM.

As noted above, Occupy needs to find more worthy victims to toss into the limelight.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 6:52 pm

That's all.

Posted by Guest Ann Garrison on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 4:54 pm
Posted by Guest Ann Garrison on Mar. 03, 2012 @ 8:37 am

truth is that for a disasteer this big, it requires all links in the chain to be at fault, including realtors, appraisors, brokers, lenders, investment banks, investors who bought these securities, the government and - let's not forget - the borrowers themselves who could and should have known they were taking on more debt than they could reasonably afford.

And for borrowers to compound that by treating their home as an ATM rather than as a place to live is inexcusable.

So yes, mistakes all round, perhaps. But those borrowers still need to face the consequences of their own benahior and contribution to this mess. And accept that they must lose their home.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 03, 2012 @ 8:52 am

After 9/11 George Bush defined a new kind of war, a war fought in secret, in battles we will never see, never know whether we won or lost, a war that would last decades and that we would fight off balance sheet in accounts that would not be part of the official government budget.

I don't know about you guys, but looking around, I feel like we lost an economic war, and I feel like that in this strange future war that the casualties are people all over the world like the people who are represented by Occupy Bernal.

They're not dishonest ATM spending housing thieves. They are victims of a schizophrenic national policy thought up by people who make us all look like a species of talking ape.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 9:30 am

"Look ma! Schizoid national policy cause me to run up my house ATM debt machine!"

Paying way beyond your means is the fault of our schizoid national policy?!

Who knew?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 6:54 pm

If the issue is a second mortgage I don't think they paid anything. If anything it is the lenders fault for over appraisal in a bubble market. My family has been in real estate for decades and let me tell you something if you are too dense to have figured it out already. The professionals on the ground knew. The homeowners did not.

I had a friend who was in her first year as an agent who was shocked at the sales tactics of her broker. They were using every dirty trick in the book to stimulate sales.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 7:05 pm

Show of hands - how many people here thing that without staggering historic bail outs that are still on going, along with staggeringly vast immunity from prosecution, the president of wells fargo would not only be bankrupt, but also in prison?

And, how many of you think that right now he is living a life good beyond what most people can imagine?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 9:34 am

Many Americans with hardships due to layoffs, illness, death, or divorce and used all their life savings (401k, pension, annuity, stocks and w/o health insurance) to pay their house mortgage(s) between 2006-2009 during the downturn of the economy before HARP/HAMP and recession. There are many American baby boomers homeowners of 10yrs or more, are losing addition NET WORTH, whom houses are still "Not Underwater" and some have over 50% equity still in their houses, and these homeowners are now employed, or self or under employed (many still looking for work, EEOC?), do not qualify for HARP/HAMP because the banks are receiving incentives to foreclose/or (short) sale house “With Equity” and then the banks, brokers, housing groups, courts, lawyers, and city are profiting when houses are resold, instead of helping the current homeowner get a lower rate. These banks tell American homeowners that their DTI > 31% (base on their now lower income and current mortgage, not a "new calculated mortgage payment amount including PI and/or PITI") or their LTV < 80% (they do not have PMI, “the gov bailed out only mortgages with private mortgage insurance”, banks not helping any homeowners that have equity) and/or their credit history is now worst after late payments and/or forbearance while applying for mod and/or refi. QUESTION: What can you to help homeowners with equity, w/hardships over past 6yrs? COMMENT and SOLUTION: Modify/Refi their mortgage(s) ex; interest rates 2%/3%/4%, term’s 20yr/30yr/40yr, modify/refi the monthly mortgage(Prin&Int&Taxes+Insur aka PITI) total housing ratio cannot exceed 40%-50% of their income over last 4-6yrs using Fed tax returns (2006-2012).
If the ReCalculatePrincpleBal exceeds 50% reduced principle balance put on back of loan as a balloon until the end of this new current mortgage using the same calculations recalculate again as this new mortgage until paidoff in full.
Stop the middle man with the housing counselors, they are not helping, they are just getting a paycheck, abusing bailout funds, and not doing anything except taking our NET WORTH away .

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 10:28 am

Actually they lose money because the debtor stops repayments. A foreclosure process than adds further costs to the bank but they have to do it to prevent further losses.

If the loan can be modified in some way, then it's possible that the bank may eventually make some profit on the deal. But if you think banks have been doing well out of the mortgage mess, then you've been asleep for the last five years. We had to bail them out, remember?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 12:49 pm

Just do the Math, not if the house has alot of equity because the bank refuses to work with homeowners due to their LTV < 80%. Read HAMP/HARP requirements! The Bailout Only Helped the banks,courts, judges, realtors, etc (keep their jobs) and mortgages with "PMI", only the people with initial minimum downpayments of 20% or less, or now currently has no equity, or house currently underwater. They are not helping homeowners who have greater then 20% equity, and who put all of their income and other life savings assets into their house "NOT UNDERWATER" yet and have had Real Hardships (lost of job, illness, etc). Being Underwater is not a Hardship as long as you can afford the current payments because you had no hardships, but if you lose your job due to the economy or have illness or death then you can lose selfworth and networth after you put every penny of your life savings trying to keeping the mortgage payments going and have not money to refi at a lower rate/term.They are only helping underwater mortgages that have mortgage insurance on them "PMI" (Insurance Bailout FRAUD!) and they have no hardships (still can afford their current payments). This includes FANNIE, FREDDIE, Wells Fargo, gov owned and non-gov owned mortgages whom have done way more foreclosures, and new mortgages for the new homeowners or investores of foreclosures, then modifications or refi's for the current homeowners with Hardships between 2006-2009.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 1:47 pm

and that is what caused their problems.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 10:46 am

Dude, why do you say banks lose money on foreclosures?

They don't own the mortgages and don't have standing to foreclose in the first place.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 7:00 pm

lose money. It's ridiculous to pretend that banks make a profit from that. They are simply cutting their losses.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 10:45 am

Might want to look into REIT's (Real Estate Investment Trusts) They can wither bid that the market is good or the market is bad.

Any Banking institution that has a loan in dfault is a tax write off. Take your Credit Card, that you defaulted on. Now the Bank can write it off as a deduction (Tax Credit), then they rack up your card with Interest (money acrude while in default = tax credit), sell your information to a Collector for 25% or less of balance (Money in their pocket, and that is just the begining...

Remember yes the GOVERMENT bailed them out and then They gave MILLION DOLLAR BONUS to EXECUTIVES ... REMEMBER

Posted by Del Rio on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 10:51 am

http://www.equilar.com/ceo-compensation/2011/wells_fargo_john_g._stumpf.php

they make millions a year, they're the ones who need to be bailed out, given tax breaks, and rewarded, not the retired homeowners... *sarcasm*

Posted by tomo on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

since they are the ones who effectively pay the wages. That's how the system works in the US. If you're a Wells Fargo shareholder you can vote against those bonuses.

Or, of course, sell your shares.

Otherwise it's up to the market what level of pay is appropriate to retain talent.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 3:23 pm

Investment banks commonly sold off the interest payments on mortgage backed securities to investors like pension funds, etc. Those are the investors now suing banks for misrepresenting mortgage backed securities and even betting against them as soon as they'd sold them off.

However, many banks also held on to derivative strips, such as pre-payment penalty charges, or the difference between the price paid, meaning "beneficiary interest" offered as payment at auction, and the price the home then sold for to another party.

Posted by Guest Ann Garrison on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 5:06 pm

no matter how often a mortgage is sold, or how it is diced up, in the end the borrower has to pay whomever ends up with the note. And if they fail to, they lsoe their home.

Everyone understands that. So while the paper chain may be complex, the principle is very simple - default and you lose your home. It could never work any other way.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 6:10 pm

I was responding to that question with an explanation as to how banks have profited rather than lost money on foreclosure.

Posted by Guest Ann Garrison on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 7:15 pm

I guess my experience is unusual, but after owning several homes over the last 25 years I have never been subject to some sort of conspiracy to encourage me to refinance or take a home equity loan. I've never received a phone call from my lender, nor have I received anything other than junk mail offering to refinance my home. I would have to take an active role in any effort to drain money from my home and being prudent, I have chosen not to do so.

I think the "victim" card is too easily played by those who borrowed beyond their means. One can argue that the banks should have been left to their own devices and allowed to fail (A view I certainly can and do support), but to compound the problem and allow anyone who fails to pay their mortgage to remain in their house is not the solution to the housing crisis.

Posted by Guest666 on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 1:48 pm

If you work your entire life do everything right you do not expect to be laid off (H1B-Visa used by Banks), illness (cobra$), and other hardships (death, divorce), you do not expect the economy to fail when you personally did not create the bubble due to investors (some never worked a day in their life, and many are foreigners) flipping houses, so they can live free in a new condo after one house flip or two, and banks overpricing houses giving these homeowners the funds to do so and then banks failing after sending their money overseas. Why should homeowners suffer because the bailout, bailed out the wrong people instead of middle class American homeowners that worked hard non-stop over 25yrs, without any handouts, but now first time unemployment, and now these homeowners can endup on welfare, Medicaid, and foodstamps which can cost even greater but it keeps other’s working, when all they are asking for is a modification or refi by extending the terms and/or lowering the new rates due to their now lower income because companies are not hiring baby boomers, so they do not endup on the street and the economy becomes worst in the future. The Bailout should be for Hardships between 2006-2009 and not a handout/bailout for “Underwater houses” due to equity loss when you can afford your current payments and still receiving the same income when you obtained your mortgage/or refi and/or you can refi again due to your flexible rate interest rate went up and if underwater the bank should not use bailout funds to refi you since they made the bad loan in the first place.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 2:34 pm

"If you work your entire life do everything right you do not expect to be laid off."

The house ATMers are partially responsible for this mess. They did not "do everything right."

Mr. Del Rio should have taken Accounting 101 at night school. If you borrow over your head and run up major debts, you eventually have to pay the price.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 6:57 pm

Do you own a home? Do you have debt? I am sure you have taken a loan or two in your life. If not you then you know someone who has a home and refinanced it to pay off debts, or if you are older, your kids are going to college and have accessed your equity to help pay tuition ... They are ATMers too, yah dip.

"If you work your entire life do everything right you do not expect to be laid off."

Your right, you DON'T EXPECT but IT STILL HAPPENS. You are a body filling in a position that can be filled with ANYONE....

I know of a good class ... Humaity 101 that I can recommend. Pray this never happens to you or anyone in your family legacy, BUT IT CAN!

Posted by ATMer on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 12:41 am

I wonder who really got the refi money? Mr Del Rio or his mother?

The banks certainly deserve blame, but Mr Del Rio (AND his mother) had an obligation to use some common sense. Unless they had some type of major emergency, or were refinancing to get a lower rate, why did refi "multiple times" I how many vacations trips were taken? cars purchased? etc.

In 1973, the common home loan was for 25 years. so by 1998 the house should have been paid off, and the would be living there for free.

Also, if the banks had NOT given them the money they wanted, would they be compaining about discrimination?

Posted by Cityside415 on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 9:30 pm

NO trips , NO car, and the money went back to the bank to try and reach a modification to payments that can be afforable ...

Posted by Del Rio on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 10:55 am

Thank you everyone for either your support or opinion (your entitled to it)...

Posted by Del Rio on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 10:08 am

Who gets the refi money? That's a good question.

It would be great if you could use your house as an ATM machine for a decade and then successfully sue the banks to get them to cover all your debt.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 10:32 am

In some states, the lawsuit funds are being used to service public debt.

Maybe the "city family" should receive this money to pay for some of its ballooning pension costs.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 10:49 am

very worst thing we can do with any windfall funds.

Spending it on housing might be more appropriate.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 11:04 am

God Bless you all for your comments .... this will be my last for this article

Posted by Del Rio on Feb. 25, 2012 @ 10:58 am

When I think of Bank ATMers, I instantly think of how the banks used our tax dollars, taxes that are paid by families like the Del Rios, like it was an ATM. However, the coining of this phrase makes no reference to that.

I sure there are some conservatives (or as conservative as you can get in SF), homeowners that weren't "stupid" enough, people with "common sense", financial experts that can easily judge a person like the Del Rio family will flock to comment in my defense of the Del Rio family.

But you many of you pointed out, no one forced the Del Rio family to take out the loan that lead them to this situation. And no one forced the banks to create toxic loans, flood communities like Bernal and the rest of the South East Sector with types of loans.

No one forced the banks to purchase lists of people with medical debt and solicit those people to refinance their homes with interest only, no document loans.

No one forced the banks to offer higher interest loans to non-white families who had the same income, credit score as the white family.

No one forced the banks to advertise in Spanish, hire people in who spoke Spanish, to solicit loans and only have loan documents in English.

No one forced the banks to heavily incentivize mortgage companies, their sales departments, brokers to push these loans.

No one forced the banks to package loans that are typically for developers who build large scale malls, property which typically expect and receive a quick return in order to pay of this type of loan and sell them as security back mortgages to pension funds.

No one forced the banks to push the Federal Government and the State legislature to deregulate the banking industry in order to make it legal to put these type of loans on the market,

No one forced the banks to push the CA legislature to pass legislation that would make it impossible for local counties and cities to legislate their own policies around banking and loans.

Actually, the banks did this all on their own.

Perhaps the 2 million people in California, over 6,000 in San Francisco that will have lost their home by the end of the year were stupid, had no common sense, used their homes as ATMs.

All 2 million, and growing, probably conspired to do this. But, since they were stupid and had no common sense, this isn't likely.

And these poor banks, the 5 (Wells, BofA, Chase, Citi, Ally) banks all of which bought over 20 banks in the last 20 years and had the expertise, resources, insight and connections with the Federal Reserve, made over $160 Billion in BONUSES (enough to bail out everyone person in foreclosure in CA 4 times over) MIT graduates creating these types of bank all they did was crash the economy, preyed on families like the Del Rio with promises, and continue to get bailed out, although there has been evidence of forgery through Robo signing, violations in the foreclosure process in 84% of homes that were already foreclosed on.

NO ONE FORCED THE BANKS TO GIVE LOANS TO FAMILIES LIKE THE DEL RIOS. They did all by themselves, and probably to turn a profit at that point in time and right now. All the Del Rios did was believe a promise that was a lie in order to secure a better future for their family.

However, I can promise you that I, and many people in the Del Rio's neighborhood, a good portion of families losing their homes and fighting back, and thousands, and growing, of people will fight to MAKE THE BANK PAY and give the Del Rio's a fair modification.

So, thank you nay sayers. I'm glad your 2 cents here are just worth that as I know, as is evident that in the plethora of criticisms, that this is the level of activism you are able to commit to your side of the argument.

Posted by Del Rio Supporter on Feb. 27, 2012 @ 6:43 pm

They sell crack and heroin on the street corner and somehow most folks manage to not buy crack and heroin even though it is readily for sale and temporarily alleviates the troubles of the day.

At some point the left has to get over its catholic liberal guilt insistence on helping the most pathetic amongst us first and only and throwing a hissy fit if someone suggests otherwise.

That shit does not play anywhere outside of the precincts of the left where most folks expect to play by the rules and not get screwed for it and to take ownership of when we fuck up.

Progressives gain traction when we put forth "victims" deemed "worthy" by the general public who powers the sentiments of Occupy with populist outrage. We lose when we put forth people who made really stupid choices and expect for others to clean up their messes.

I'll be damned if I'm going to have sacrificed to play our housing finance conservatively and I'm going to sacrifice more to subsidize bailing out homeowners, who like banksters, played fast and loose with finance.

The problem has escaped from scam mortgages, bundling toxic with quality, and bad practices to the general economy through unemployment caused by the toxic original sins. The solution must escape the initial framings as well.

Either we all see universal principal reductions for owner occupied homes so that the housing market can seek its level for all of us or nobody gets bailed out.

This insistence on showcasing people who made really stupid choices as worthy victims while there are plenty of sympathetic cases is why the left loses. It is like the nonprofit rally during Occupy when some 5 year immigrant from Central America said that nobody should have ever sold him a $300K home in east Oakland. Gimme a break.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 8:55 am

"Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it."

"The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence."

"Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country."

http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

Posted by Guest 99% on Feb. 28, 2012 @ 6:25 pm

Also from this author

  • Privatization of public housing

    Many residents feel they're moving from the frying pan of Housing Authority control into the fire of developer and nonprofit management

  • Homeless for the holidays

    Changing demographics in the Bayview complicate city efforts to open a shelter there

  • Betting on Graton

    Newest casino targeting Bay Area residents promises to share the wealth with workers and people of color