« August 2008 | Main | October 2008 »

Kwame Kilpatrick Doesn't Live Here Anymore

September 22, 2008 11:39 AM

Vicki Mabrey reports:

Kwame Kilpatrick, Detroit’s embattled mayor, has finally left the building.

The Manoogian Mansion, to be exact. That's the name of the 4,000-square-foot Italian- and Spanish-influenced residence where Detroit's mayors live. The mansion, built in 1928 for $300,000, was lost by the original owner during the Depression. In 1939, it was auctioned off and purchased by Armenian immigrant Alex Manoogian for $25,000. Manoogian donated the 15-room mansion to Detroit in 1965 to give thanks to his adopted city.

Kilpatrick, his wife and two sons left the mansion Thursday. Friday was his official last day in office.
Newly sworn-in acting Mayor Ken Cockrel Jr. says he's not moving into the mansion, so it will sit empty for a few months until Detroiters elect someone new to take over the reins. Hopefully, that person will return stability and prosperity to the city. In the meantime, hope they're protecting the copper pipes.
Last year, Reuters ran a wire story headlined "Houses Cheaper Than Cars in Detroit," detailing the low prices paid during an auction of foreclosed Detroit properties. It's tragic, in a city with such glorious architecture and a proud history. Its economy is suffering terribly and it has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country.

Checking online, I see that houses in the 48214 zip code, where the Manoogian is located, range in price from $350 for an 889-square-foot bungalow being sold "as is," to $725,000 for a 9,607-square-foot, seven-bed, six-bath mansion. There's even a castle -- asking price $668,000 for seven bedrooms and 4.5 baths. Just in case you want a mansion you can put your name on it.

I'm most familiar with the areas known as the University District, Sherwood Forest and Palmer Woods, because that's where my cousin Leigh lives with her husband and two daughters. Amazing houses, and some might actually be cheaper than a car -- depending on what you drive.

Here's an absolute STEAL right on the Detroit Golf Club. It's less than you'd pay for a two-bedroom Manhattan apartment -- and at six bedrooms, 4.5 baths, and 7,228 square feet, it's even bigger than the Manoogian.

September 22, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Banker's Honor

September 17, 2008 9:33 AM

With Lehman Brothers imploding on Monday, and the market spiraling downward, my friend Deborah Lawrence Botham e-mailed to say she'd enjoyed my post on greed.  In the course of that e-mail she wrote a couple of lines about her late father.  It was so touching that I asked her to write more.  I just have the feeling that if there were more Robert Lawrences running things, we might be on more sound financial footing.      

My dad was a banker.

He was an honorable man, with a love for just-plain folks, and a sense of decency and honesty that is no longer common in the business he chose as a young man. Were he alive today, he would be appalled. Not only with the insatiable greed of lending institutions, but the rampant lack of common sense that pervades them would sadden and disgust him. 

His story is a simple as the wisdom he shared with his family and his friends.  Born Robert Eugene Lawrence in 1921, he returned from Saipan after World War II and took a position at the First National Bank of Landisville. In the heart of Amish and Mennonite farmland in southeastern Pennsylvania,  it was as small-town as it sounds. Dad looked upon his job as a service to the people he assisted with their routine financial matters. His concern was that no one ever ended up in a position that jeopardized the well-being of his or her family.

When he became manager of that bank soon after, he had simple rules when it came to mortgage lending:  A mortgage could not exceed 25 percent of the breadwinner's take home pay, and they needed to have the standard 30 percent down payment.  There was some flexibility to his rules -- he'd grown up in the town and knew when a potential borrower was a "good risk."   He often went to bat for folks who didn't look good on paper but had a work ethic that would knock your socks off. During his years in Landisville, l can't remember anyone defaulting on a mortgage.

But his work was a tremendous embarrassment to me in the 1960's, when we'd have knock-down drag-out arguments over the "profitability" of lending institutions. I was foolish and self-righteous; I had all the answers.

His take on it was always, "Deb, people trust us with their money, that we'll be able to pay interest and loan them enough to buy a new car when they need one, and we have to provide salaries and benefits to our employees." He loved people and loved to help them. I can't tell you how many people came to his memorial service from that tiny little town.

The First National Bank of Landisville eventually merged with a larger bank in Lancaster County, and that one merged with a yet-larger institution. Dad was offered promotions along the way but always recommended someone else for the job. Until he passed away in 1991, he chose to work directly with customers. At his death, his yearly salary was under $35,000.

I write this for two reasons. The first is to honor a man whose life lined up with what he taught me. My memories include much time spent together. He'd go back to work after dinner (we lived just a block from the bank), and I'd always get to go along. I'd take all my pennies and run them through the change counter, over and over again. It seems a bit silly now, but I treasured those evenings. The second is to remember a way of doing business that valued the individual and personal relationships while still maintaining profitability.  It all seems a bit of a cliché now -- as a child of the '60s who's now pushing 60, I wonder if I'm falling into the trap of remembering things in a too rosy light.

Still, as I watched the news footage of the Lehman employees walking out onto the sidewalk, I wonder if what seems a simplistic view of life might not be something to lean into once more.

September 17, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Is Greed Good?

September 15, 2008 2:18 PM

That mythic creation of the go-go '80s, the character Gordon Gekko in the film "Wall Street," said it is. I would beg to differ.

I started thinking about this when a friend from California found this in her inbox:

"Remember the (congressional) election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the following:

A little over 16 MONTHS ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet to the lowest point in over 75 years;

2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $4.50 a gallon;

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) American householdshave seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);

5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;

6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure."

Wow, the Democratic Congress did all that? It had nothing to do with overextended credit and house prices rising to the stratosphere? It had nothing to do with the whole thing being a house of cards with no support? Really?

I'm not sure how correct all those numbers are, but let's assume they're correct. I will then leave it to you to decide if those problems were caused by Democrats or Republicans. That's politics and opinion. What I would say is those problems were caused by GREED. Rampant and pure.

Here we are today, watching the Lehman Brothers investment firm circle the drain; Bank of America poised to swallow Merrill Lynch; Washington Mutual in potential trouble; Bear Stearns gone. What's the common denominator? The sub-prime mortgage crisis. And how did we get into that mess? I submit it's because we partied long and hard, with no parental control. In other words, firms got greedy and government turned a blind eye. Lenders devised ever more creative (read: crazy) mortgage "products" (and don't you know you're in trouble when it's called a "product"?), required less and less verification of the people seeking those loans, and in some cases even falsified information so they could make the loans to otherwise unqualified buyers. Were there home buyers who fabricated information? Yep, often with tacit approval from mortgage companies. Known to insiders as "liar loans." Wink, wink, we know you don't make that much but we're not going to check because that might spoil the fun of you getting a house and us making more money. So they all winked and pushed the paperwork along. Then rates began to rise and people started losing their homes.

I ask, whatever happened to the days when you had to have your income verified, your checking account, savings account, investments, credit report, assets, liabilities -- everything - thoroughly vetted? What happened to the 30-year fixed mortgage? What happened to the days when an "exotic" mortgage "product" was a bi-weekly loan payment -- the sole purpose of which was to help you pay off your house early? What happened is that lenders got greedy -- they wanted to make loans because loans made money and they could bundle and sell those loans as investments, known as "securitizing" them, so that others down the line could make money, too. That's when the music stopped and a lot of people were left without chairs. Or houses.

You can decide for yourself whether that is a Democratic or a Republican problem. I say it's an American -- and increasingly -- a global problem. And what got us there is greed.

September 15, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (20) | TrackBack (0)

Foreclosure Lists Used to Prevent Voter Fraud?

September 12, 2008 5:36 PM

Vicki Mabrey reports:

As if people about to lose their homes don't have enough to worry about, here comes this controversy: an alleged plan by Michigan Republican Party officials to use foreclosure lists to make sure there's no voter fraud. I mean, I expected the high rate of foreclosures would become a hot topic in this overheated election year, but who knew it it would morph into this??

It started Thursday with this article in the Michigan Messenger, a left-leaning paper (though the managing director says,  "We don't favor Democrats, we favor accuracy"), which reported that the chair of the Republican Party in Macomb County,  Mich.,  "is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP's effort to challenge some voters on Election Day."

The article quotes chairman James Carabelli as saying, "We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses." The reporter on the story, Eartha Jane Melzer, says Carabelli added that the party wanted to sure proper electoral procedures were followed.

ABC's Chris Bury contacted Carabelli, and writes, "According to Carabelli, the story is 'total  BS.'  He said it would be 'wrong' to use such foreclosure lists and county officials have no such plans. He also acknowledged that a foreclosure does not constitute proof of non-Michigan residence.

Melzer, for her part, told ABC's Diana Alvear that she stands by her story.

Today, ABC's Deputy Political Director Karen Travers reports that Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said, "The right to vote, no matter how hard you have been hit in this economy, is just too important for claims like these to go unanswered."

Jobs with Justice, a coalition of community, labor and faith organizations, is holding a press conference at McCain campaign HQ in Farmington Hills, Mich., today with people whose homes have been foreclosed. They're calling for Carabelli's resignation and plan to ask Sen. John McCain to ensure the Republican Party does not illegally target voters who are in foreclosure.

Karen also sends along this list of FAQs from the Obama campaign in Michigan:
Q: If you're being foreclosed on and are forced to leave your home, what are your voting rights?
A: If you move to another house or apartment in the same city  or township, you can vote at the old address one more time, no matter when you move. When you vote, you will automatically change your address and register at the new address.

If you move to another house or apartment in a different city, but within  Michigan, you can vote at the old address one more time if you move within  60 days of the election (Sept. 5 or later).

Q: If your house is in foreclosure, but you still live there, what are your voting rights?
A: You are entirely eligible to vote. The law requires that you have a place where you usually sleep, keep your personal things, and have a regular place of lodging to be an eligible resident.

There. Know the law.

However, if the Michigan Republican Party really does plan to use foreclosure lists to guard against voter fraud, it'll be pretty easy: they're headquartered at Trott and Trott, a local law firm that specializes in real estate issues, including foreclosures

September 12, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)