Mar 04, 2013
Four large U.S. banks (click here) seized more than 700 homes of active-duty military personnel after the housing bubble burst, their reports to regulators say.
The New York Times reported Monday that Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup uncovered hundress of cases of wrongful foreclosures of military personnel that occurred between 2009 and 2010.
The Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had ordered the largest mortgage lenders to hire independent consultants to review mortgages after the controversy erupted in 2010 over banks hiring so-called foreclosure mills to handle a mountain of delinquent loans....
I realize 'base housing' is provided in many instances, but, perhaps some career military might like to purchase the homes they live in while they are serving. ie" Hawaii. Hawaii never sells land, but, leases it as if a purchase for 99 years. So, if one purchases a leased home or property, it is there for them to treat as their own for as long as they care to. Equity and all.
The similar relationship exists with Lower Manhattan. The owner of the buildings in Lower Manhattan isn't really an owner; the NY-NJ Port Authority owns the land, but, a business person leases it for 99 years to make money from the structures built there.
So, for those that seek the military as a career option, they should have the ability to live on base and build equity in a home if they care to.
Oh, the 'thing' with these lands is that they are limited and valuable. So, for one person to purchase and own land in special places prohibits the land from ever being used for any other reason. One family could purchase the big island of Hawai'i and dominate it's use. That could result in lost service to the citizens and ECONOMY there.
99 years is a long time, but, most buildings are expected to maintain their integrity for at least 50 years with only maintenance. So, basically, a 99 year lease is passing on the right of the land for two generations while giving the people/government the right to review the benefit of the land use under a lease holder. I am quite sure in the instance of very valuable lands that leverage economic benefit such as Lower Manhattan, if the land is not developed there are provisions in the lease that would bring review of the land use before the expiration of the lease, too.
It is just something I thought the military might consider. Base housing is important. The well being, family life and education of families belonging to officers and otherwise should have the option of investing in their future, too. Something to think about.
I do know there is military housing frequently under utilized as well. So, it is a venue for the future that might even provide a sustainable operating income to some extent for a base such as a movie theater or some kind recreational fields. I would think if owning and living on a piece of the real estate would bring about a more vibrant economy, there is nothing wrong with that so long as the security of the base is maintained.
Happiness.
I would think any income a base could generate on it's own should center around providing happiness for those that serve. It would be nice. A campus, so to speak.
I realize 'base housing' is provided in many instances, but, perhaps some career military might like to purchase the homes they live in while they are serving. ie" Hawaii. Hawaii never sells land, but, leases it as if a purchase for 99 years. So, if one purchases a leased home or property, it is there for them to treat as their own for as long as they care to. Equity and all.
The similar relationship exists with Lower Manhattan. The owner of the buildings in Lower Manhattan isn't really an owner; the NY-NJ Port Authority owns the land, but, a business person leases it for 99 years to make money from the structures built there.
So, for those that seek the military as a career option, they should have the ability to live on base and build equity in a home if they care to.
Oh, the 'thing' with these lands is that they are limited and valuable. So, for one person to purchase and own land in special places prohibits the land from ever being used for any other reason. One family could purchase the big island of Hawai'i and dominate it's use. That could result in lost service to the citizens and ECONOMY there.
99 years is a long time, but, most buildings are expected to maintain their integrity for at least 50 years with only maintenance. So, basically, a 99 year lease is passing on the right of the land for two generations while giving the people/government the right to review the benefit of the land use under a lease holder. I am quite sure in the instance of very valuable lands that leverage economic benefit such as Lower Manhattan, if the land is not developed there are provisions in the lease that would bring review of the land use before the expiration of the lease, too.
It is just something I thought the military might consider. Base housing is important. The well being, family life and education of families belonging to officers and otherwise should have the option of investing in their future, too. Something to think about.
I do know there is military housing frequently under utilized as well. So, it is a venue for the future that might even provide a sustainable operating income to some extent for a base such as a movie theater or some kind recreational fields. I would think if owning and living on a piece of the real estate would bring about a more vibrant economy, there is nothing wrong with that so long as the security of the base is maintained.
Happiness.
I would think any income a base could generate on it's own should center around providing happiness for those that serve. It would be nice. A campus, so to speak.
