Homes go for £800 - could it happen here?

bubblesmoney

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

Detroit, has lost more than half its population in the past 30 years and struggled with rising crime, failing schools and other social problems, largely missed out on the housing boom that swept much of the country in recent years.

...

---

second highest in the nation, behind only Mississippi.

"The home, at 8111 Traverse Street, a few blocks from Detroit City Airport, was the nicest house on the block when it sold for $65,000 in November 2006, said neighbor Carl Upshaw. But the home was foreclosed last summer, and it wasn’t long until "the vultures closed in," Upshaw said. "The siding was the first to go. Then they took the fence. Then they broke in and took everything else."

The company hired to manage the home and sell it, the Bearing Group, boarded up the home only to find the boards stolen and used to board up another abandoned home nearby.

Scrappers tore out the copper plumbing, the furnace and the light fixtures, taking everything of value, including the kitchen sink. [...]

So desperate was the bank owner of 8111 Traverse Street to unload the property that it agreed to pay $2,500 in sales commission and another $1,000 bonus for closing the $1 sale; the bank also will pay $500 of the buyer’s closing costs. Throw in back taxes and a water bill, and unloading the house will cost the bank about $10,000. [...]

Colpaert declined to provide the name of the prospective purchaser, because the deal had not been through closing. The agent did say that the buyer agreed to pay the full list price of $1, and planned to pay cash."

They say when the last person leaves Michigan, the bottom of the market will have been reached.

You still pay taxes on the land if even if you knock the house down.

You can be fined by the city for it not being up to standard, or being a blight on the neighborhood(they dont care if the rest of the neighborhood is crap), you have limited time to get the home up to standard, or you pay ever increasing fines until you do.

It makes you wonder why the banks don't let people stay in their home at a reduced payment - it has to be more economic than having to pay to maintain and secure a property and eventually pull it down - which is what they are starting to do.

If something appears to be too good to be true, it usually is!

looks like this 6000+ sq ft plot going for 1$ and it is located between the city airport and golf course from the looks of it as per this link !!! the neighborhood must be frightening for such a big plot to go for a big loss for the seller and essentially paying any buyer to 'buy' the place and take it off the banks hands. looks like there are worse days for banks that invested in the usa property market or its securities (what a misnomer calling them securities)

Sapphire

Generali wrote: »

The welfare state may well find itself in a spot of bother pretty soon.

We have millions of baby boomers planning to retire in the near future. Their state pensions are entirely unfunded as are the entirety of the pensions of the civil servants that are retiring. Many of the people in private pension schemes will find that as a result of recent stock market falls, their pension schemes aren't fully funded either.

We have (at a guesstimate) perhaps 500,000 children whose parents and grandparents have never worked and never plan to for as long as they can get away with it.

These 2 groups need paying for. It's going to be tough to pay for one or the other. Paying for both is impossible. The former group vote. The promises made to the former group are the more expensive.

The former group have also paid tax and national insurance all their lives, and have led productive lives.

It's disgusting and shameful that a supposedly advanced country like Great Britain has one of the lowest pension provisions in the whole of Europe. Also that the 'government', as a way of avoiding the issue, has fooled people by making them think they can rely on property for their pensions. This has caused problems for (and resentment in) other people who don't have properties and would like to buy one (as well as those who rightly did not believe the rulers and did not 'invest' in property). I cannot stand this 'government'. :mad:

carolt

Generali wrote: »

Perhaps. There are some very expensive bills coming up that are going to have to be paid somehow and as the welfare state is by far the biggest part of the central and local Government budget it seems like the obvious place to start.

What are we going to cut? Health, pensions or dole? That's pretty much going to be the choice. Richer pensioners will have a hard time of things IMO but there are a finite number of them (an increasing proportion of whom will be retired politicians, senior teachers and civil servants).

What would you cut after that? Healthcare or the dole?

But is it?

How come we can afford to throw billions at the banks, but can't afford a decent welfare state? I think a welfare state that motivated people to work BUT provided for those who couldn't would be fine AND affordable.

Clearly what is needed is some joined-up thinking to prevent the £2.5 billion wasted on benefit fraud announced this week (real figure I suspect much higher), or all the benefits paid to those who can work but choose not to. If some of the lazy benefit scroungers (yes, I know I'm beginning to sound alarmingly like the Dail Mail here! :eek:) were actually made to work, there'd be a lot more in the pot for all the hard-working pensioners coming to the end of their working lives.

kennyboy66_2

carolt wrote: »

But is it?

How come we can afford to throw billions at the banks, but can't afford a decent welfare state? I think a welfare state that motivated people to work BUT provided for those who couldn't would be fine AND affordable.

.

Because its likely that all the money thrown at the main banks will be recovered.
I'm not sure if I would say the same about Northern Rock though.

I'd guess we are going to see some form of "workfare" fairly soon.
Even John Prescot (last nights TV) seemed to despair of that guy in Rochdale who didn't work & had 7 (or 9!) kids.

Obviously it would be a better idea to introduce this when times are good rather than now when unemployment is set to soar.

carolt

Surely better to introduce it now, and keep skills levels up and prevent emotional depression as well as financial setting in.

They could be set to work to improve our infrastructure/educated to increase our skilled workforce, etc.

I'm tired of 'carrying' them. They're heavy.

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

Perhaps. There are some very expensive bills coming up that are going to have to be paid somehow and as the welfare state is by far the biggest part of the central and local Government budget it seems like the obvious place to start.

What are we going to cut? Health, pensions or dole? That's pretty much going to be the choice. Richer pensioners will have a hard time of things IMO but there are a finite number of them (an increasing proportion of whom will be retired politicians, senior teachers and civil servants).

What would you cut after that? Healthcare or the dole?

The answers could include;

Medicare similar to Australia.
Government pensions from 70 rather than 65
No full Police (and the rest) pensions at age 50
Workfare for benefits.
Top up payments for education (primary & secondary).

Theres probably no shortage of answers, just a shortage of political will.

kennyboy66_2

carolt wrote: »

Surely better to introduce it now, and keep skills levels up and prevent emotional depression as well as financial setting in.

They could be set to work to improve our infrastructure/educated to increase our skilled workforce, etc.

.

The trouble is that many are barely literate and lack motivation anyway.
One volunteer beats ten pressed men, and all that.

Sapphire

kennyboy66 wrote: »

The trouble is that many are barely literate and lack motivation anyway.
One volunteer beats ten pressed men, and all that.

Motivation and literacy could be relatively easily instilled in them through discipline, enforced if necessary. Better for them, better for society in general.

GDB2222

The trouble is that people who can only earn minimum wage are barely better off working than not. I know they only lose part of their benefits when they earn, but it does cut the effective wage that they earn to way less than the minimum. It's hard to motivate people in that position.

GDB2222

Basically, anyone in this country without good skills is pretty much competing in the world labour market with an Indian peasant, who thinks that 80p a day is a pretty good wage.