One seemingly unlikely reason rents are going up | The Globe’s big blind spot when covering the Krafts’ soccer stadium plan | Nonprofit CEO and Healey pal’s staggering comp package | Former T chief eyes local comeback after forging national transportation empire |
Thanks Susan. I did a lot of reporting on the foreclosure crisis in Boston in the late 2000s when I was at the Herald. One of the common refrains from homeowners who were facing foreclosure after taking out mortgages from really terrible lenders was that they weren't aware of all the terms and conditions. BlueHub is hardly Fremont or Ameriquest. But were process mistakes made that have come back to haunt BlueHub? That certainly seems like a question that is going to be hashed out in litigation. I take your criticism on reading too much into social and political relationships and the potential for favoritism. That said, these are also fair question to raise.
Thanks Jacob. BlueHub offered some interesting points and stats which I got into the story about the number of homeowners helped and the savings. Clearly it works for some people. I think the issue seemed to be in the process - how or whether homeowners understood clearly they would giving up part of the equity they would gain. Not sure what the issue is there but hopefully BlueHub is looking or has looked its procedures. Got your point on pay. However, another reference point would be state authorities, where half a million is a lot for a chief executive.
As the author of a book, Feel Good and Do Well by Doing Good”, I never envisioned the philosophy generating $1 million in personal income for the CEO of a nonprofit preventing foreclosures. But then again it does prove that social entrepreneurship doesn’t necessitate losing money or working for for a pauper’s wage. Not sure, however, what it says about corporate social responsibility.
For both the BlueHub and inclusionary housing pieces, history and context matter.
Re: BlueHub
In today’s housing market the foreclosure crisis seems almost impossible but it was very real and hit hardest in lower-income communities. The state was scrambling, trying to mitigate impacts for these communities. I can’t remember what source of money BlueHub used to create a fund, the purpose to save homes, restructure mortgages to reflect lost value (ie forgive mortgage obligations), with a structure that included shared equity at time of sale. This was well reported and marketed. And I am sure were NOT fine print in saved homeowners new mortgage documents. If there’s anything amiss I’d ask what the source of funding for the program was and what the costs of those funds have been and are the profits from both the lending and shared equity being recycled to serve BlueHubs mission. If so, there’s no there there and the state’s move to protect an entity that stood up with funding at a time the state could not, and was successful in stemming a tide of families losing their homes, is appropriate. The AG’s office was very much involved during this crisis supporting multiple programs to limit the devastating effects of foreclosures and going after banks and predatory lenders.
Regarding the friendship between Ms Cherry and the Governor, of course they’re friends! They’re both civic- minded democrats who have been working in Massachusetts for almost their entire professional careers. They know each other because they’ve been on the same path at times, supporting and protecting lower-income citizens. The automatic inference of ‘favors for friends’ is a dangerous yet easy path to take. Try to refrain without hard evidence.
I can and have been critical of both the AG’s office under Coakley then Healey, and some of BlueHub’s decisions, but in this case a forgotten foreclosure crisis and all the state and local efforts to mitigate impacts, has created smoke where there’s no fire.
I don't see anything wrong with what Elyse Cherry is doing. She created a free market solution to underwater mortgages that our national banks, lacking local connections and information, could not. Frankly, this is admirable and capitalism at it's best. She runs a bank, let her be paid like a banker!
It's not like the head of other billion+ nonprofits aren't paid a lot around her. Check out the leadership at the MFA or the BSO.
That other nonprofit execs have vendettas against her success should not distract us. All the criticism seems to come from....one source, Bruce Marks, which is dubious to me.
Thanks Susan. I did a lot of reporting on the foreclosure crisis in Boston in the late 2000s when I was at the Herald. One of the common refrains from homeowners who were facing foreclosure after taking out mortgages from really terrible lenders was that they weren't aware of all the terms and conditions. BlueHub is hardly Fremont or Ameriquest. But were process mistakes made that have come back to haunt BlueHub? That certainly seems like a question that is going to be hashed out in litigation. I take your criticism on reading too much into social and political relationships and the potential for favoritism. That said, these are also fair question to raise.
Thanks Jacob. BlueHub offered some interesting points and stats which I got into the story about the number of homeowners helped and the savings. Clearly it works for some people. I think the issue seemed to be in the process - how or whether homeowners understood clearly they would giving up part of the equity they would gain. Not sure what the issue is there but hopefully BlueHub is looking or has looked its procedures. Got your point on pay. However, another reference point would be state authorities, where half a million is a lot for a chief executive.
As the author of a book, Feel Good and Do Well by Doing Good”, I never envisioned the philosophy generating $1 million in personal income for the CEO of a nonprofit preventing foreclosures. But then again it does prove that social entrepreneurship doesn’t necessitate losing money or working for for a pauper’s wage. Not sure, however, what it says about corporate social responsibility.
For both the BlueHub and inclusionary housing pieces, history and context matter.
Re: BlueHub
In today’s housing market the foreclosure crisis seems almost impossible but it was very real and hit hardest in lower-income communities. The state was scrambling, trying to mitigate impacts for these communities. I can’t remember what source of money BlueHub used to create a fund, the purpose to save homes, restructure mortgages to reflect lost value (ie forgive mortgage obligations), with a structure that included shared equity at time of sale. This was well reported and marketed. And I am sure were NOT fine print in saved homeowners new mortgage documents. If there’s anything amiss I’d ask what the source of funding for the program was and what the costs of those funds have been and are the profits from both the lending and shared equity being recycled to serve BlueHubs mission. If so, there’s no there there and the state’s move to protect an entity that stood up with funding at a time the state could not, and was successful in stemming a tide of families losing their homes, is appropriate. The AG’s office was very much involved during this crisis supporting multiple programs to limit the devastating effects of foreclosures and going after banks and predatory lenders.
Regarding the friendship between Ms Cherry and the Governor, of course they’re friends! They’re both civic- minded democrats who have been working in Massachusetts for almost their entire professional careers. They know each other because they’ve been on the same path at times, supporting and protecting lower-income citizens. The automatic inference of ‘favors for friends’ is a dangerous yet easy path to take. Try to refrain without hard evidence.
I can and have been critical of both the AG’s office under Coakley then Healey, and some of BlueHub’s decisions, but in this case a forgotten foreclosure crisis and all the state and local efforts to mitigate impacts, has created smoke where there’s no fire.
Susan Connelly
COO
Housing Opportunities Unlimited
Scott,
I don't see anything wrong with what Elyse Cherry is doing. She created a free market solution to underwater mortgages that our national banks, lacking local connections and information, could not. Frankly, this is admirable and capitalism at it's best. She runs a bank, let her be paid like a banker!
It's not like the head of other billion+ nonprofits aren't paid a lot around her. Check out the leadership at the MFA or the BSO.
That other nonprofit execs have vendettas against her success should not distract us. All the criticism seems to come from....one source, Bruce Marks, which is dubious to me.