Open Thread (7/1/2008)

Posted July 1st, 2008 at 04:33 AM by IlliniPundit
in

Tuesday, July 1, 2008.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
On July 1st, 2008 at 07:03 AM, Bruce Byrd said:

It seems that the News-Gazette is not going to let go of the Jon White story. In my opinion that is a very good thing indeed.  The Urbana School District is withholding documents,,,,and our states attorney has shown some hesitance to prosecute anyone.  I have a theory,,,,,just a theory, but I believe ie is possible, that the Supt of record at the time, Amberg, was coasting. He knew he was on short time,,,and it is possible, just possible that the daily running of the district was turned over to Preston Williams,,,,then asst, now Supt.  It is possible that Preston Williams is the key  name all over the documents the school board is refusing to let go. It sure would be bad form for the current Supt, to be charged with violation of the reporting rules, and as he is the only one still on the payroll,,,I can see them not wanting to let loose of these documents. Hopefully the News-Gazette, and the public will keep up the pressure until the full truth is known.

IlliniPundit's picture
On July 1st, 2008 at 08:41 AM, IlliniPundit said:

I think that it's more likely that they are withholding documents because they're embarassed how poorly they handled the whole situation, and because they're rightfully terrified of further litigation.

I doubt anyone is ever prosecuted, either here or in McLean County, for failure to report.  Though it looks like common sense to us, I imagine the prosecutors think it would be too difficult to prove what someone should have known.

On July 1st, 2008 at 09:01 AM, Bruce Byrd said:

I am sure you are correct about the litigation part, and probably also about the rest, you have a better feel for these things than I generally do. There is  good case to disclose this info, after all it was the tax payers in Urbana that paid for the law firm to come in and do that investigation.  Am I safe to assume in that during the suit trials, ( if not settled out of court ), the plaintiffs would have the right to demand these documents be entered into evidence? Please if someone with a legal mind could enlighten me, Thanks

On July 1st, 2008 at 09:27 AM, Ralph Langenheim (not verified) said:

"Trying to plan for the future without a sense of the past is like trying to plant cut flowers."  Daniel Boorstin

Regnad Kcin's picture
On July 1st, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Regnad Kcin said:

"Making botanical analogies without the knowledge that one can propagate plants by cuttings is like the studied ignorance implicit in one who is persistent in the error of being a Democrat." - Kcin.

On July 1st, 2008 at 12:47 PM, pattsi said:

Another aspect of subprime loans and foreclosures--this article in 1 July Christian Science Monitor covers very well the cost to cities and suburbs due to foreclosures. Would it not be a better approach for the banks to renegotiate a loan and keep humans in an abode because 1) banks do not want to own houses and 2) help minimize the cost shifting to communities that is occurring due to the foreclosures?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0702/p01s01-usgn.html

Pattsi Petrie

On July 1st, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Bruce Byrd said:

They could that,,,,,but most banks sell the paper off,,and they have no local control either.

On July 1st, 2008 at 09:29 PM, Gregg said:

"Another aspect of subprime loans and foreclosures--this article in 1 July Christian Science Monitor covers very well the cost to cities and suburbs due to foreclosures."

Isn't this less than 1% of All mortgages, It may come as a shock but 99% of the people that have mortgages ARE paying them on time. I think the Government should let the banks and the lenders that made these loans to people they knew could not afford to repay them eat the paper and go under, Also if laws were broken in the sale of these "sub prime" mortgages then let the law prosecute these lenders What ever happened to "reading the fine print?" all this talk of changing the terms after the closing??? When I bought my home my Attorney asked repeatedly if I , Understood the contract, If I understood the terms, understood the payments. Then when all the papers were mailed to me I went over them again. I also dealt with a  locally owned bank so the sub prime thing did not effect my loan,  FICO score of 780, excellent credit,15 year fixed interest rate, serviced locally. 

On July 2nd, 2008 at 08:01 AM, pattsi said:

Gregg, probably most of your comments have been addressed extensively under the topic heading, Mortgage "Crisis" Logic, in case you have not read this thread.

Pattsi Petrie

On July 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 PM, wayward said:

I also dealt with a  locally owned bank so the sub prime thing did not effect my loan,  FICO score of 780, excellent credit,15 year fixed interest rate, serviced locally.

Gregg, if you had a FICO score of 780 and good credit, you would have been a candidate for a prime rate mortgage and wouldn't have had any reason to mess with a subprime loan.

On July 3rd, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Gregg said:

I did get a prime rate mortgage. Im sorry if I implied that I was hunting for a subprime.