Too funny…

By Reuters Staff
May 22, 2008

Democratic Congresswoman Laura Richardson of California was recently the victim of foreclosure, according to Capital Weekly. She quickly issued a statement “clarifying” the story; she says the house is not in foreclosure and that her loan has now been modified.

Reading her statement, which begins with a non-denial denial, it seems to me she probably moved to “modify” her loan only after this news hit the papers.

I just find the facts hilarious. She managed to get a zero-down mortgage, likely an Option ARM given the Neg Am that’s piled up, in January 2007….just as the housing bubble began bursting.

100% LTV on a $535k house; the report says she now owes $578k in total.

The story would be even MORE ironic if she’d voted in favor of the various House measures to aid “distressed” homeowners. Sadly, no: she claims to have been absent from the House when the crucial votes were taking place.

Article at LA Times.com

The statement:

 

CONGRESSWOMAN LAURA RICHARDSON

For Immediate Release
May 21, 2008

The story published in the Capitol Weekly regarding residential property that I own in Sacramento requires clarification.

Within a 12-month period last year (2007-2008), I was a member of Long Beach City Council, the District Director for California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, a member of the California State Legislature, and, now a member of Congress. While the transitioning has impacted me personally, the residential property in Sacramento California is not in foreclosure and has NOT been seized by the bank.

I have worked with my lender to complete a loan modification and have renegotiated the terms of the agreement — with no special provisions. I fully intend to fulfill all financial obligations of this property.

On two housing bills that were cited by the Capitol Weekly, the allegation is that I recused myself from these votes. I did not. I was absent from Washington, D.C., and my duties in the House of Representatives due to the untimely death of my father and his subsequent funeral in California.

I understand that these homeownership issues are a reflection of what many Americans are going through as they fight to keep their homes and to remain financially stable.

These are the people we trust to manage the Federal Government’s multi-trillion dollar budget….

3 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Totally agree, just look at the ratio of business news to “foxy CNBC” type fluff that shows up on the front page these days. WSJ will slowly morph into USA today. I am looking forward to gee whiz charts and heavy change in the S:N ratio for the worse. (S:N signal:noise)

Posted by ngogerty | Report as abusive

The last time I saw the journal there was a three-page article on which high heels made the best power-heels for women in the office. Based on height, comfort, and color. It was perplexing. However, I can say with all certainty I did want to know which were the best power heels. So basically I’m a big girly girl

Posted by Rachel | Report as abusive

Rupert isn’t a stupid guy, so he’s probably thinking he’ll keep the traditional journal readers cause they have nowehre else to go while expanding the general interest readership. But you’re right and he’s wrong. When I open the paper I want to see stuff I can’t get elsewhere. I still read it, but for how long?

Posted by John | Report as abusive

[...] is what investigative journalism should be; it’s disappointing that we may be seeing less of it in the [...]