http://www.freep.com/article/2014051...state-michigan
Gee, I wonder why his ad doesn't disclose the actual nature of his business
Do Democrats running for office, the majority of whom oppose school choice, campaign on keeping black kids in shitty schools? Every politician hides their unsavory side.
Oh c'mon. There's a very real policy and philosophical disagreement over school choice policies and their outcomes. You may disagree with one side or the other, but its an actual political issue. That's quite a bit different than touting your business success as a qualification and leaving out the fact that your business is putting families and old folks out in the street.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
speaking of facts, those families and old people didn't pay their bills. curious to know how many years one should be allowed to live in their home without paying their mortgage?Quote:
Originally Posted by EastsideAl
Quote:
Mark Rozier and his wife, Nomora Rozier, tried to fend off foreclosure on their home in northeast Detroit, seen behind them, offering to buy it from the bank for $8,000 cash. The bank, through Trott's law firm, refused the offer. The house is now on the market for $4,900.
even if you think everyone should be kicked on their ass, do you want that many abandoned homes near you?Quote:
Why does Trott, the bank, want to spend $20,000 in attorney fees fighting to throw this family out of a home they won’t be able to resell?; she asked. It makes no sense.
I know his family. Arrogant SOB... which I guess is to be expected when you're a U-M and Duke Law alum, living in Birmingham... and worth $50M+.
THAT SAID, at least someone sharp is running for politics in SE Michigan. I'm sorry, but there are way too many corrupt clowns that loafed through a SE Michigan commuter college or Wayne State/Cooley Law diploma running the show. Good to see a guy with a peer education giving it a go.
I haven't seen the ads. Do they show him in an open-collared shirt, with his sleeves rolled up, forclosing on houses?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid
While I personally wouldn't do this line of work, it's really inaccurate to say he "got rich taking advantage of people".
He got rich doing the work of banks, and this work does in part, preserve the value of homeownership and the liquidity of the markets. If you've ever received a mortgage, or any other type of bank loan, you want integrity in the system so that customers actually pay their bills.
If you didn't have such people doing this [[admittedly) dirty work, typical families would have a much harder time owning a home [[because, absent options for enforcement of the loans, mortgage qualification would become much more difficult and expensive).
So what's more "mean", kicking people out of homes for not paying their bills, or letting unpaid bills slide and putting the financial burden on responsible homeowners?
Has the Free Press always been a race baiting, class warfare rag? Every day it seems to publish multiple click bait race stoking articles on their front page. It's embarrassing that is the most read paper in the region. I'm done visiting their website.
That's a broad brush you're using to paint over a very complex and nuanced situation. In many of those cases, borrowers were ADVISED BY their bank to miss payments so they would qualify for modifications. Prior to the advent of the mortgage modification/mass foreclosure law firms, borrowers were accustomed to an environment where banks wanted to retain the revenues generated by interest and servicing fees paid by its consumers. The Trotts of the country helped cultivate a new dynamic where it was more lucrative for them to complete foreclosures than to modify or even maintain the existing mortgage [[if one didnt qualify for modification).
Disclaimer: I am one of those consumers who "successfully" fought Bank of America in getting my foreclosure rescinded because of the obvious railroading and deceptive tactics used by Bank of America and its attorneys, Trott and Trott.
Yes, he got rich doing the work of banks. The same banks who made bad loans and then socialized the losses by getting bailed out by the taxpayers. The same banks that illegally robo-signed foreclosure docs on properties they couldn't even prove they had a right to foreclose on due to inept record keeping. The banks making huge profits now because they were to big too fail. Very admirable. I know how he'd vote on bank bailouts v. Consumer protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
If you hold a mortgage, and are able to pay a mortgage, it would be very foolish to vote for additional mortgage-based "consumer protection", which would mean more expensive borrowing/financing for all to socialize the losses of mortgage-holders in default.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast
The same people screaming for more "consumer protection" would likely be the same ones screaming bloody murder if we actually had the mortgage standards of other nations [[try 50% down, 10% interest rates, and liquidity equal to sale price). So the Elizabeth Warren acolytes better be careful what they wish for. They wanted "mortgages for all" now complain that some people don't qualify for homeownership, and say it's economic discrimination.
This is the truth that needs to be told. The fact is that Trott and Trott and other firms like them encouraged and pushed foreclosures [[more $$ for them), in cases where there was a settlement or modification process underway or available, and even in cases where there was a temporary lapse and the owner was able to catch up and continue their payments. But their aggressiveness and thir deceptive tactics have effectively changed the rules midstream on homeowners [[with no notice at all).Quote:
Originally Posted by mam2009
Now, there is obviously a point when a mortgage in default needs to be foreclosed, including actually putting the non-paying residents out. The fact that I and many others wouldn't do that job for a billion bucks doesn't mean that it's not a legal and legitimate business, or that it doesn't need to be done in a lot of cases. The problem with Trott and Trott is that they have been extremely aggressive in enforcing foreclosures on people who were willing to work with the banks, etc., who wanted to pay and wanted to stay, but often just needed a little help or a little time.
This has a huge cost for our communities in families left out in the street who need to be housed and much more vacancy and abandonment of homes that could still be occupied and maintained. Much of this is unnecessary and only profits Mr. Trott and his firm.
and the banks
This seemed to me a really irresponsible piece by the Free Press. Are they accusing him of criminal wrong doing? If not, then its not news. Its a story about a lawyer doing lawyer work within the industry in which he practices.
Trott made it an issue himself by putting out ads that tout his business experience as his major qualification for office, but in which he never says what his actual business is. One of these ads even makes it appear that he's involved in some sort of shipping or manufacturing business,
It seems to me that that bears some reportorial investigation as a legitimate news story, particularly when the business that the candidate is actually involved in is one that has attracted a fair amount of public attention and controversy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwxCnzavmXA
Blame the victim. Do you also blame rape victims because they 'made themselves sexy'?Quote:
Originally Posted by EastsideAl
He did NOT make it an issue. His business involves more than just the one activity with which you have a problem. I respect that you have issues with banks and bankers. I do too.
He made it an issue when he touts his business experience and yet curiously omits what business he's in. I don't think I've ever seen a political ad do that. Usually there is at least a handful of shots of smiling jobs creator guy standing in front of the sign for his business, or in-front of its building with his employees all smiling behind him, or on the shop floor looking intently at a large machine....etc. Terry lynn Land's comes to mind..shots of her at the Hotel with Mom and Dad. In this ad we get stock footage of actors pretending to work and Dave Trott all dressed down casual. c'mon, now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
No mention he's a lawyer with a truly massive foreclosure practice, or owns most of Coldwell Banker real estate here in Michigan, or the largest title companies, or the publishers of the legal news.....etc. its frankly so weird it stands out. Why WOULDNT you roll out that list of your interests as recognizable, examples of your business acumen?
I mean, what is his "mom and dad's" business that he took from small to large and what jobs did he create? [[ it was the law firm, not a hardware store)
It's not what he does that is the issue [[for me at least), its the silly way they tried to not mention it which made it a story. Which would indicate that those he's paid to run his campaign think the better strategy is to obfuscate his background....which is troubling.
instead of bailing out the banks, why didnt we just bail out everyone underwater on the mortgages?
the banks would have been fine either way. our taxes would have been used for it either way.
so which one would you vote for out of the two choices?
bank bailout or underwater mortage [[aka your neighbors and friends and family) bailout ?
How about neither?Quote:
Originally Posted by compn
That's gotta rank pretty high on the list of ridiculous analogies. [[And a rather disgusting one too, if you ask me).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
No way that Trott is anything like a "victim". He's a public figure running for office, which by definition opens him to the scrutiny of the press. He then deepened that scrutiny by broadcasting a series of ads that are all about his business experience and success and how it qualifies him to represent his district in Congress, but curiously omit any mention of exactly what business he is in. So, the Free Press investigated and published what they found out. All of which makes him a "victim" of what exactly?
thats an interesting thing in this thread and the comments on the article.
not one of them says the freep is lying about trott.
so if the freep is just giving us the facts, why are you guys mad at facts and reality?
so he makes his money due to the deregulation of banks and banking standards, makes millions off of foreclosures, then makes an ad saying he knows the problems of government overreach and regulation... what a tool. i get there is a need for his profession and what he does, but lets not act like his business didnt start booming because government was asleep at the wheel letting the banks do whatever they wanted. he doesnt want regulation because that would cut into the bottom line of his foreclosure empire.
if hes so damn proud of his family business and the jobs he has created with it i dont think its unreasonable for people to ask "well, what do you do?" most politicians when bringing up their past job experience do give some detail as to what that was, not run from it. im sure if he was truthful in the first place he would have gotten more support in oakland county...