Sub-prime crisis: hitting a nerve
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Business reporter Walter Hamilton put it this way: ‘This many e-mails is a virtual geyser for the Wall Street reporter, whose arcane subject matter normally doesn’t make people’s blood boil.’
He meant his Friday story on the federal proposal unveiled by President Bush last week to ease terms on some sub-prime mortgages. The piece hit a nerve by reflecting the reaction of those who held off on buying homes or cashing out their home equity. In Hamilton’s story, Casey Johnson of La Jolla was quoted saying that the plan feels like a ‘slap in the face.’
The story that same day out of Washington might have softened the imagined blow by reporting that the biggest winners were ‘struggling borrowers who have kept current with their adjustable-rate loans.’ In that story, which ran on Page A1 in the print edition, reporters Maura Reynolds and Jonathan Peterson quoted Erica Sandberg, a spokeswoman for Consumer Credit Counseling Service in San Francisco, as saying that ‘a lot of callers don’t realize that what was announced ...is tailored to a fairly small group of people.’
Still, the dozens of readers who responded to the Business story were resentful of the plan they called a ‘bailout,’ and glad to see their perspective in print.
Steve Beckett of Newport Beach spoke for many when he wrote: ‘I don’t think the government should do one thing to help people getting foreclosed on in this market. If we head into recession, that’s a lesson that these people need to learn. I didn’t buy because I couldn’t afford it. Now I’m being punished for it. But the 22-year-old kid who couldn’t afford the $600,000 home in Irvine is being saved because we don’t think he and the rest of the ignorant should have to own up to the consequences of their actions. If the government is going to do this, then I think I should get a loan of 0% interest for the next five years from the government of $7,000 a month. ‘Bail’ me out. Help me. I was too responsible for my own good.’ In a follow-up e-mail, Beckett wrote, ‘I think The Times should do a follow-up story...detailing the public sentiment behind this idea.’
Almost every reader e-mail included a plea to stay on top of the story. Says Business editor Davan Maharaj: ‘This story is not going to go away. As the housing market softens, we’ll see fewer winners and angry losers. We plan to keep covering the happenings from Wall Street to Rancho Cucamonga.’