03-02-2012, 12:26 PM
My exposure to it has been different. But it's okay to disagree. I have watched landowners "sell" the property with no or nearly no money down, high interest on land with no (legal) improvements and practically no paperwork.
After the buyer invests a few months of time and effort improving the property the true value of the deal sinks in and the buyer pulls out losing time and money. The landowner reaps the improvements (such as they might be) and cash and repeats the cycle.
To me it is taking advantage of the poorest of the local folks.... and I simply don't approve. It's kind of the real estate version of Payday Loans.
It is part of what bothers me about proposals to amend the building code for alternative building or reused material building. Slumlords will simply love that if it gets passed. Throw up a crappy shack, sell it for too much, no money down, take it back and repeat ad nauseam.
After the buyer invests a few months of time and effort improving the property the true value of the deal sinks in and the buyer pulls out losing time and money. The landowner reaps the improvements (such as they might be) and cash and repeats the cycle.
To me it is taking advantage of the poorest of the local folks.... and I simply don't approve. It's kind of the real estate version of Payday Loans.
It is part of what bothers me about proposals to amend the building code for alternative building or reused material building. Slumlords will simply love that if it gets passed. Throw up a crappy shack, sell it for too much, no money down, take it back and repeat ad nauseam.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Punaweb moderator