New York Foreclosure Bill Strikes A Balance

June 24th, 2008 | Tags: Foreclosure

The much touted New York foreclosure bill strikes a balance and is a compromise between the two opposing factions. The law will bring about changes in sub-prime loans. These will be regulated and the handling of it by the courts will change. House owners will get a protection that has so far been denied to them.

The pro-housing lobby insisted that the bill should have much more strong. A statewide hold on foreclosures for a year finally met with failure. The banking and mortgage lobby felt that it was too harsh on them. Their argument was that as compared to other states the number of foreclosures in New York was less mainly because of the regulations that are already in force.

The bill will see light at the end of the tunnel on Monday – this being the last day of the session. It seems to have satisfied both sides half way down the road – a compromise and a balance. However housing advocates are skeptical how far it will benefit those already boiling in the foreclosure cauldron.

Josh Zinner of Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project commented. “This will certainly make a difference, and this will help save homes.” The organization deals in fair lending – one of the groups pressing for the passing of the bill. He added that although it is not as broad as had been hoped but nevertheless it spells hope for the foreclosure victims of New York. Along with Zinner many housing advocates and lawmakers have become more and more concerned at the increasing number of foreclosures emanating from the sub-prime lending. The worst affected are the minority pockets.

In New York City foreclosure postings started doubling from 2004. Last year it shot up to 14,912 from 7,069. The Queens region noted 6,157 foreclosure listings in 2007 – the number being nearly equal to that of the entire city in 1993 that had been 6,171. Considering this, it had been thought that the quickest remedial measure would have been a one-year moratorium on foreclosure that came from sub-prime mortgages. It would have been the first moratorium since 1933. But although passed by the Assembly it could not become law because of strong opposition from the mortgage and bankers group. There was however one plus point about the whole exercise – focusing on combating this major point the other points paled into insignificance to the lender group.