Posted by J. Clifton on February 27, 2001 at 16:12:14:
Indeed! The whole thrust of the story is moot, as the writer would have clearly objected to the investor’s actions even if NO owner had made a complaint, or all had indicated they were fully informed/aware of the consequences of the deals. He just didn’t like the very EXISTENCE of a subject-to type option. A standard HUD booklet (PA-426-H, How to Avoid Foreclosure) reads just like the Denver Post article, with the same mentality—“institutional/government approved or licensed solutions, good, private party non-conventional alternatives, scams.”
The underlying problem is the journalist (and in fact, most people) don’t see creative RE investors as valid business operators, faced with meeting the standard requirements of a business system (that is, to make a profit, protect a profit, and to lower risks). They see buying or owning residential property strictly as consumer activity, with the consumers/owners’ “rights” as the primary factor. Investors are just supposed to likewise “consume” (pay out bail-out money with no expectations of a return), and assume broad liability in all cases. To the media and the government, only banks, brokers and other state-controlled people are supposed to make money in the RE industry; only state-regulated parties can be reputable businesses. After all, the whole private sector is just a scam!