New Haven Independent

Posted by: Esbe | January 24, 2008 2:41 PM

Good job, NHI, keep up the pressure here. Starting foreclosure proceedings on $700 debts is a terrible waste -- the costs of foreclosure would far outweigh the debt itself. More agressive collections and placing a lien on the property would be a better starting point, with foreclosure proceedings saved for a much later date (and larger amounts!)

Posted by: Walt | January 24, 2008 2:51 PM

Not an expert, but the idea of foreclosing on a house for a $1,000 debt does not make sense to me,....putting a lien on it makes sense, but foreclosing leaves the house in the WPCA hands, and is more of a bother than it is worth, isn't it?

Supposedly you must sell it at a fair price and then give the net amount leftover back to the original owner

Of course it is also an opportunity to feed extra business to your cooperating attorney, and home inspector and realtor, and other folks who are friendly to your regime,

Maybe you can also sell it to Brancati or other friends at a very low price so they can make a deal and your net will be so low that the original owner will lose not only the original $1000 owed but also all or most of his home equity.

Should collect the $1000 plus interest at some time, but taking the whole house looks fishy, or at least overkill.

Having gotten innocently involved with Cuticello and his cronies trying to get me to pay many thousands of $$$$$$ in back taxes,on a Fair Haven house that I had never owned, lived in and I think, never even seen before, gave me several months of angst before the suit was finally dropped , after intervention by the Mayor, who looked at the facts while Cuticello and his cronies ignored the truth.

Whether it is the City or the Sewer Group, they should be checked to make sure they are not just illegitimately ganging up on Joe Homeowner,

Am I ranting? Sure, but for good reason!

Posted by: on whalley | January 24, 2008 2:51 PM

I don't like how they can use a debt to take a home. Obviously the home is worth more than $700.

Why not announce which properties are about to be lost to debt in the paper or something? Let me pony up the $700 and transfer the home and the balance on the mortgage to me.

I've no problem with picking up where others have left off. It's win for the lender (their mortgage gets paid) it's win for the lien holder (their bill gets paid) it's win for me (I get a home with half of it's mortgage already paid off for $700) and it's win for the previous owner who couldn't make the payments (no bankruptcy).

I've got $700 cash and check my credit/employment history. I'm more than good for it.

Not that I actually want this house but why not get this sort of mortgage transfer option going? Otherwise the bank just gets a property it's going to have to sell at a markup in a crappy housing market to make it's money back and the homeowners file for bankruptcy.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | January 24, 2008 2:55 PM

Here Here Esbe

I second that! OMG I called and payed my lousy $100.00 today in fear they may go after me. :)

ouch so if these people owe lets say 1200.00 they are sure to now owe 2000.00 or up with fees and expenses added. I am sorry that just seems wrong for such a small amount. Although how long past due are these accounts? A year 2 years??

Posted by: Dan | January 24, 2008 3:49 PM

The City of New Haven uses a similar style to collect back taxes. A couple of years ago my I fell behind in my taxes. I received a letter to go in and speak with them. I called within a few days of receiving the letter to notify them I would be paying the taxes within a week. I was placed on hold. The person came back on the phone and told me that sorry my file had already been sent to the attorney. The sherrif would be serving me papers sometime soon. They would be happy to take the money but I would have to make arrangement to pay the almost $1700 in legal fees that I would find out about when I received the papers. And you expect DeStephano to care why? I guess I should have been as lucky as the political figure (alderman I think) that owed hundreds of thousands of dollars for taxes on a building in the hood that the city bought for enough money to pay his taxes and make a profit. I paid my taxes and got charged almost 1700 for doing so, not to mention the interest. What a joke.

Posted by: WEBblog 1 | January 24, 2008 4:32 PM

Here we have a classic example of hypocrisy advanced by the Mayor.
On the one hand he announces the city's intrusion into the mortgage crises, which is not supported by the city charter or city ordinance.
While at the same time the mayor pursues foreclosing on city properties for back taxes.

According to this news article the Mayor is taking no position in this matter regarding the WPCA foreclosures. The Mayor contends he wants to speak to the WPCA before making a statement, but no one answers the city phone.

In addition, Consider the fact that the Mayor's Litigation settlement committee recently awarded the Anastasio's a $480K tax right-off and they are not a railroad under the state statue.

As recent as last week the Mayor announced a new economic development package worth 1.2B, coupled with 937M in new tax exemptions. This proposal raises the question of who is getting stimulated and who is getting the bill?
That is the jeopardy question; the jeopardy answer:

THE TAXPAYER, STUPID...!

Posted by: andy ross | January 24, 2008 7:19 PM

Here is my simple solution to the problem. If the city wants to help keep homeowners on tract with their dwelling associated bills such as taxes, insurance, and utilities, then a city ordinance can be passed which requires lenders to escrow those monies. It is done 50% of the time with taxes. Most of the time it is a requirement by the bank for a borrower to escrow taxes and homeowners insurance in order to help them budget. This is a good thing. It helps the homeowner, protects the bank, and the city is assured of getting its tax money.

So why not escrow the small stuff too? Water, sewer, and maybe even other utilities, those which are vital to a household can be escrowed and paid directly by the bank.

Every one wins. The homeowner has a built in budget, and every one gets paid on time. Sure it is a little more work on the banks part, but if the city really wants to be proactive in reducing foreclosures, it has the power to make this mandatory by the lenders.

Call me Mr. Mayor; I have a lot of ideas on this issue.

Posted by: goose and gander | January 24, 2008 7:45 PM

WPCA has been sitting on a million dollars that was set up in the privatization deal for environmental benefits to the community in which its facility is located, New Haven. At 5% per year interest they still need to cough up the principle and interest for two years at least. Can we foreclose on their profit generating properties?

Posted by: king james v | January 24, 2008 9:07 PM

I think it would be both fun if the independent had a special section called "Jessica Mayorga's non quote of the week". Just a general question, is the mayor in fact alive and breathing? Has there been a sighting of this guy lately?

Posted by: WOOSTERST | January 24, 2008 10:21 PM

Well pay your bills when the come and they won't get out of hand.take there homes and let someone buy them that will pay the bills,

Posted by: George | January 25, 2008 5:19 AM

I can relate to this. I'm writing from Bridgeport. I am being sued by Brooklawn Condo Association and put Foreclosure on my Condo Unit for a $304.00 debt of an assessment fee. How can they do this? It is rediculous!

Posted by: James | January 25, 2008 8:53 AM

First, I agree with the majority sentiment here. This isn't about wheter or not it's fair. It's just a bad way to collect debt. Put a lein on the house, go through a collectioons agency, whaterver. But forclosure in an already struggling town in a bad market helps no one and doesn't make financial sense for the WPCA. It's certainly not good for the city.

That being said, pay your bills and you won't have a problem. George, they can do that because it's likely in the bylaws of the homeowners association of which you agreed to be a part when you purchased your condo. So I got to ask, why not just pay your bill? Do you not enjoy the cut common lawns, the paved streets and parking spaces, or the outdoor lighting? If you want automony you shouldn't have bought a condo.

Why do people in this town always seem to think it unfair that they should have to meet their financial obligations and obey the law? Maybe we can set up an anarchy zone and let all of these people live there. No water, no power, no streets, schools, cops or courts. No hospitals, no welfare checks, no heated bus shelters. No trash pickup, no heat, no government subsidized housing. And best of all, I don't have to pay your way! Sounding better and better!

Posted by: Gary Doyens | January 25, 2008 12:10 PM

Let's understand that people should pay their bills. That's a given. But it's also a given there are a lot of ways to get somebody to pay that are more practical and have less of a downside for all involved than foreclosure.

But the dirty little secret is that Mayor DeStefano loves the heavy boot. He boasts a 98% collection rate on property taxes. He does so by fines, penalties, usurious interest rates, foreclosure and the taxman's favorite: The Car Boot.

So it is ironic that the perky, pesky and predominant mouthpiece of the mayor is left gasping for air like a fish out of water. Given the mayor's concern over the evil mortgage industry who is foreclosing on tens of thousands of dollars in delinquent payments, how do you craft a statement that sounds sincere and honest and concerned when you know it's a complete fraud?

So the mayor stays silent on $1,000 foreclosures - but turns his people loose to protect the Anastasios and a corporation council that's not worth a plugged nickel.

There is no difference in the WPCA foreclosing on a $1,000 or the City Hall foreclosing on $5,000 in property taxes or towing your car for $500. Taxman Cuticello is happy to roll out the boot and a fleet of tow trucks to rip your car from your hands for parking violations, fines and taxes. All these enforcement actions are heavy handed and the direct result of policies and tax and spending excess at the hands of the DeStefano Administration.

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | January 25, 2008 1:42 PM

If the unpaid bills are so "low," as the article states, why haven't they been paid? How long have they gone unpaid? Years? What will it take to get them paid?

Why doesn't the writer answer these questions?

Posted by: Gary Doyens | January 26, 2008 8:07 AM

I don't know anybody who is not paying their sewer bill - but I would imagine that they aren't paying because there is some sort of financial problem. If you have financial problems, it doesn't matter how low the bill is, it's that you don't have the money to pay.

These folks are most likely living paycheck to paycheck covering their bills, and then once a quarter, a bill they weren't expecting, shows up and they don't have the money to cover it. I doubt these people are just ignoring it or not willing to pay. I imagine it's more complicated than that.

The mayor and Mayorga saying nothing is not too complicated.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | January 28, 2008 8:43 AM

If you want to see why people are not paying there bills go to www.faireconomy.org and click on
foreclosed state of the dream 2008, and npr foreclosed.

Posted by: Onebyd | January 28, 2008 11:31 AM

Okay, I have to chime in here: I am tired of hearing excuses being made for people who have chosen for whatever reason not to pay their bills. If you have own a home in New Haven, you know that every quarter you will get a bill for your water and sewer use, it is not a bill that "you did not expect", you know you have to pay it and it comes every three months, so that gives you three months to put away money for the bill. The bills are very consistent, they may vary a few dollars each quarter, but usually very little. So now myself as a homeowner, I have a budget that I swear by and I put aside money out of my budget to pay all my bills, especially the ones I know could put a lien on my home, much less a foreclosure. If you are legitimately having financial issues, then you can call and make arrangements for payment, companies are much willing to go this route, than to foreclose, but people choose to throw up their hands and say they can't pay and that's it. Perfect example, I know a person who had an $1800.00 sewer bill; he fully acknowledged this and said that he had let it go, it was his fault, but at the same time, this same person spent over $2500.00 on xmas presents! Tell me where the logic is in that? Why didnt he use that xmas present money to pay his bill??? I am a responsible homeowner and I make sure that all my bills are paid, and if for whatever reason I cant or they are going to be late, then the first thing I do is call the creditor to let them know. Stop making excuses people and pay your bills; if you do, you will have nothing to worry about!

Posted by: Ned | January 30, 2008 11:51 AM

Here's an interesting solution walkawayfrom your mortgage.

Posted by: Dan | February 2, 2008 2:29 AM

Think outside of the box.....I don't think anyone said their sewer bill was unexpected but there could be other unexecpected things that come up.

I'm not sure about other people, but I did not expect a war in Iraq that made my gasoline double and my home heating oil triple. My electricity also doubled because of the delivery charges. My groceries increased substantially because of the transportation costs not to mention everything else involving transportation. And of course, don't forget the tax increases.

Of course, employers use those same excuses to not be able to give raises while everyone else continues to reach into our pockets.

Now you may know someone who owed $1800 sewer bill but chose to buy $2500 worth of Christmas presents instead. Do you honestly think everyone falls in that category?

I don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't be responsible and pay their bills. However, when times are difficult the last thing that people need are a bunch of vultures filling their own pockets at the expense of people already struggling.

The person who chooses to buy Christmas gifts instead of paying a bill is the exception not the rule. Personally, I think it would be rare for a foreclosure to actually go through for a small amount. This just further shows how the greed of the vultures rack up frivilous charges and frivilous lawsuits and waste the tax dollars clogging up valuable court time.