after your change, the new nomenklatura will allocate housing to whomever they deem fit and in such quantity as they think appropriate. So, if you're politically incorrect [or don't pay a big enough bribe] you'll get placed in the slums of Cleveland with vacant houses all around you.
thanks -- I think government has fouled up the housing market more than enough already [the bubble and crash were caused by Clinton's housing policies] and we should fold up HUD, FHA, et al and let the market determine what to build, where, and when.
oh, yes -- zoning and land use regulation can be abolished as well -- a famous economic study of a free market city without such regulations showed they accomplish nothing of value at high cost. Who was this daring economist, you ask? Karl Marx.
aside to "TheKitten": you mistake the owner of the loans and soon to be foreclosed houses you refer to. In the vast majority of cases, the bank you rail against is merely the agent for the owner of the loan and can not proceed contrary to the orders of the actual loan owner [if such orders have been issued at all -- which they may not have been]. In all too many cases, the loan owner may not even be known because the controlling document's provisions have yet to be triggered or executed -- and so the agent [bank] struggles to carry on as best they can with an agreement that did not make provision for the housing meltdown that actually occurred. In such case, the agent [bank] can not arbitrarily make up what to do -- but must legally wait until the owner is identified and issues instructions.
Yes, I'd agree that the agent [bank] should take possession and either sell or rent the property with reasonable expediency -- but their hands are tied by the agreement and that can not be changed without action by either a competent court or by legislation.
So, the ball is in your court -- you have to get the government [either Federal or state] to pass legislation ordering the agents for the as yet unknown loan owners to make decisions in the current course of events that seem to be in the best interests of the ultimate loan owner AND be held harmless for doing so.
So far, you haven't done this. And neither has your favorite politician -- despite the fact that he knows or should know what the actual problem and holdup is.
Ancient history: during the depression, banks foreclosed on and ended up as the landlords of about 25% of the nation's houses. They often held these houses for years, renting them out, and finally sold out after 1945.
modern history: today, any bank that did this [for loans the bank actually owns] would be criticized by all its regulatory agencies for holding and renting -- the agencies want the banks to sell and record the losses immediately since renting real property isn't in the normal course of a banking business.
In fact, every politician I know of is studiously avoiding the real issues here. Go figure.