The below discusses the impact upon U.S. city budgets of the foreclosure crisis; however, the ripple effect doesn't stop anywhere. Everyone in the world is negatively impacted even those who falsely imagine they've made off like the bandits they are.
Those bandits just don't understand that by being dishonest and unethical, etc., they've only succeeded in shooting themselves in the foot by virtue of lowering the general welfare and quality of life of the planet on which they too live. They think they got a leg up on everyone else; however, everyone else in the aggregate has slid down. Therefore, the bandits are operating under the false impression that they are higher then they would otherwise be were they all to stop being crooks.
This isn't rocket science. It's much harder than that. It requires being able to see the world as it would be without evil. It's being able to see the highest Heaven. Think about it. It's visionary.
Can you conceive of perfection? Can humanity live it? I say yes. It's a free will choice. It takes cooperation, not competition; although, conceptions of what is best are in competition for your heart, mind, and the very soul of humanity.
[I]nnovative legal tactics are designed to recoup the city's lost property taxes as well as the cost of fire departments, police, code enforcement or even demolition — any city services needed to clean up or deal with the foreclosed properties.
Cleveland; Baltimore; Buffalo, N.Y.; and Minneapolis, Minn., have all filed lawsuits against lenders or developers based on the devastating effects foreclosures have wreaked on their communities. The lawsuits were filed in recent months under different theories, in state and federal court.
Cleveland and Buffalo filed suits under public nuisance laws. Minneapolis' suit was brought on consumer fraud grounds, while Baltimore took the unusual approach of filing suit in federal court under alleged Fair Housing Act violations.
In addition to filing a lawsuit in February, Buffalo city prosecutors routinely haul banking officials before the local housing court to force them to fix up foreclosed and abandoned properties.
The notion that cities are also victims of the subprime foreclosure crisis started to catch on at the beginning of the year. While the details of the suits differ, they all allege that cities are losing tax revenue from foreclosed and neighboring homes whose values are reduced, and from having to keep the abandoned houses free from rats, vagrants and disrepair — and from potentially turning into crack houses.
Cleveland is seeking to hold lenders accountable for predatory lending practices. "The purveyors of subprime loans could have or should have ... foreseen a foreclosure crisis as inescapable consequence of their conduct," the lawsuit states.
The lenders — which have labeled the Cleveland suit without merit in countersuits — include the biggest financial institutions in the United States, including Bear Stearns, Bank of America, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Wells Fargo.
Merrill Lynch declined comment on the suit. JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley did not return calls for comment by deadline. The American Bankers Association also declined comment.
Baltimore's suit was filed in federal court on Fair Housing Act violations, targeting one lender, Wells Fargo. It alleges that the company discriminated against black borrowers by charging them a higher interest rate than whites. As a result, black borrowers were far more likely to suffer foreclosures than whites. Baltimore v. Wells Fargo Bank and Wells Fargo Financial Leasing, No. L08CV062 (D. Md.).
Despite some early-round victories, James Tierney, director of the National State Attorneys General Program, a Columbia University-based program that provides research to state attorneys general, said cities have an uphill battle.
"The people who have committed the fraud have long since gone," Tierney said.
"A lot of the banks will have good defenses," he added. "They will blame the mortgage brokers who repackaged the loans. These are very difficult cases as a matter of law, and very thorny issues to unravel."
Friday May 9,  3:02 am ET
Julie Kay , The National Law Journal
You are encouraged you to read the entire linked article.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)