June 24, 2008

Home Rule Petition

City Councilor discussed a home rule petition that would prevent a foreclosed owner from evicting a tenant for 180 days, unless there is just cause for the eviction. This is a very bad idea.

First of a foreclosed owner, typically a bank, does not want tenants and has every right to terminate a tenancy at will with a 30 day notice. That said a tenant still has rights in housing court. Bottom line a tenant given a 30 day notice by the foreclosed owner (the bank), as at least the 30 days and can usually stretch this out 2-4 months through the eviction process. Ask anyone, who has ever tried to evict a tenant through Housing Court.

Second at the end of six months what is going to happen? Answer: the bank will end the tenancy anyhow. What have we really accomplished? The underlying bank will not market the property until the house is empty so we have in essence slowed down the entire process and properties will end up in limbo now even longer.

The mortgage market is already tighten increasing cash down payments on multi families to 20%, how do you think lenders will feel that when they foreclose that they will not be able to evict tenants for six months. It can help. I can understant the good intentions of the people involved, but it will only make the situation even worse.

Lastly I find ironic that many people did not feel bad for three businesses that were asked to leave ( I agreed since they did not have leases), since they were tenants at will, but when a bank that has probably lost in excess of $100,000 wants to end their tenancy at wills?


Anonymous said...

We need to start a list of all the anti business initiatives, acts and regulatiosn the city council backs.

Whats this Bank Amer. thingie that Paulie is talking about in the Canal District?. I am sure BAnk Amer. will esp. love this new proposed city foreclosure law. Leave it to Ms Haller to show up at the game in the top of the 9th inning and start cheering for her team who is losing 11 - 0.

If and when this petition ever sees the light of day on Beacon Hill........95% of the so called foreclosure damage will be already done. Let the market place handle the foreclosure issues.

Sometimes I wonder if certain coucillors have ulterior motives with the things they propose....maybe even a possible personal agenda? Enough said.

What's this Pharma-care in the S. Worc Industrial Park? Guess I am not reading too well lately and mising some items of interest.

Anonymous said...

Bank of America has urban renewal funds that they are using to bring back areas like the Canal District..they have been hegotiating with a number of large property owners in the area to build a large scale village-not sure if the water issue is part of it..I have not heard it is or isn't...anyway a number of property owners are balking...the City has been involved with it for sometime..T&G did something on it 6 months ago..

Anonymous said...

Paulie are you telling me they may take property via eminent domain.......if the canal district goes through....which is no problem if its for a public park.........but I'd sure hate to see private property taken and then handed off to private interests.........similar to what was done in New London, Ct..........

If I owned property in the area, I'd hate to see it taken for a park, too.

They should have built the canal into a park in conjunction with the 146 project............then the visitors center would be right there, too. Both endeavors belong in the same locale, IMO.

Bill Randell said...

You wonder why Pressmet left town?

Gabe said...

Jahn, re: Visitor's center

Don't you understand by now that the folks there in city hall do not understand the word synergy one bit?

Anonymous said...

The picture that I have in the back of my mind of the Providence "Canal District" from years ago before the days of Waterfire.....is a waterway (the Blackstone) and surrounding "parkland" that cuts a path that is maybe 300 feet wide through a section of downtown providnce very close to nearby office towers. As I said it's been a long time since I have been in that area.

If my memory is correct........how wide will the path or footprint of our proposed canal distict be? The City right of way for most streets is 50 feet (street plus sidewalks). Harding St maybe a bit wider.....maybe 60 feet total...........so some conjecture here leads me to believe the city would have to take via eminent domain everything on both sides of Harding st..........plus maybe even more??....and for how long of a distance......from Temple St to Kelley Sq..........WOW!!!!!!!!!!...

I am sure it would like nice..........but entities who can barely even pay their recurring monthly obligations and who are also technically bankrupt s/b concentrating on what they have now......and forget expanding their horizons with wet dreams.