Since I was on a letter writing campaign, here is another letter to the Glendale City Council in response to this ridiculous situation I read in the LA Times. I got called by the Glendale News Press so I think my letter might have been published in their letters to the editor section. Who knows since I don't even read the GNP.
Hi Glendale City Council,
I just read the article regarding the Collard's incredible fine of
$347,600 for trimming trees and I would highly recommend you folks
getting a grip on common sense. Even though I read that the city has
backed down on seeking litigation, the conclusion of the article
implied that there might still be a "small" fine to the tune of
$10,000. Are you kidding me?! I live a couple of miles away in
Silverlake and if you folks insist on this boneheaded course of
action, I will need to reconsider visiting my favorite Glendale haunts
like Porto's bakery or the Galleria. I mean I might accidentally
knick a tree and be charged half a million dollars!
Sincerely yours,
Ben Luc
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Letter To Diane E. Watson, my local California representative
This letter was in regard to this article I read on CNN.
I am concerned about the Bush administration's plan under Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to freeze "teaser" rates for five years. Although I feel for homeowners who might lose their homes, the government cannot in any shape or form bail out people who make bad or stupid decisions. The real estate market, especially in the one in California, is over-valued. We must let the market play out for it to return to equilibrium. This plan is ill-conceived and smacks of a political ploy to gain popularity in an election year. In addition, since a good percentage of the segment of the borrowers this plan targets are already behind in their payments, freezing the rates for five years will not really help them. In my analysis, who this really helps are the lenders who can squeeze more interest from their properties for five more years and hope the market will correct before then.
I have also been concerned about Democratic presidential candidates, namely Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, making statements that this plan is not enough and that we should do more to help borrowers in trouble. As an independent voter, I will NOT support any presidential candidate or elected official who would forward a plan to solve this market imbalance through government interference.
I am concerned about the Bush administration's plan under Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to freeze "teaser" rates for five years. Although I feel for homeowners who might lose their homes, the government cannot in any shape or form bail out people who make bad or stupid decisions. The real estate market, especially in the one in California, is over-valued. We must let the market play out for it to return to equilibrium. This plan is ill-conceived and smacks of a political ploy to gain popularity in an election year. In addition, since a good percentage of the segment of the borrowers this plan targets are already behind in their payments, freezing the rates for five years will not really help them. In my analysis, who this really helps are the lenders who can squeeze more interest from their properties for five more years and hope the market will correct before then.
I have also been concerned about Democratic presidential candidates, namely Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, making statements that this plan is not enough and that we should do more to help borrowers in trouble. As an independent voter, I will NOT support any presidential candidate or elected official who would forward a plan to solve this market imbalance through government interference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)