And those are very difficult and challenging things. Its not a large solution to every piece of it. They want to continue to address some of the challenges. I think theres more to be done there. Moving to a different servicer affords a different opportunity and some other tools to be able to move it. There is work to be done there, and nsi extension was certainly part of that, the neighborhood stabilization. And i think its also about treating different buckets of delinquent loans even differently. Selling off decent condition notes is very different than selling a bunch of vacants. We havent seen real different treatment from the bulk sales programs. Going forward, maybe we do trstop that a little bit more. If your fha and servicers cant, or you dont want to do principal reduction, there is this idea that the note buyers getting a discount will be in a better position than economically incentive to do principal reduction. But right now we dont have a requirement that they do that. Sim
Protected material theres also, frankly, some law that points to things called administrative searches that might be seen as validation of the secs position. If i were to judge it, i would probably say come down against it, but nobody makes a lot of money predicting the Supreme Court. Could it withstand the Fourth Amendment challenge in the courts do you think . I would say no. Thank you so much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Conyers. The chair recognizes the man from wisconsin for five minutes. Thank you. In the case of 2010 the sixth Circuit Court ruled that americas emails is protected by the Fourth Amendment. I agree with that holding. Since that decision, the sec has been unable to subpoena email content from Service Providers. Now mr. Cresny, i read your testimony and did you write it in 2009 . No, i wrote it okay, thank you very much. Now if the sec cannot currently subpoena email content from Service Providers, is it truthful to testify that if hr699 becomes law the s
Part of the resolution that you think knows this additional time and additional clarification would be useful to have . I think the reason why those particular buildings wore called out in addition to the peas plaza was because of hits history in the japaneseamerican community. You know, because those probably are buildings that are need protection landmark designation status but within that same paragraph that instead of calling them out specifically just adding some language to say that to add peace plaza as well as i dont know other properties that are noted in the j h s statement as japan cure all what is it the japan resources i dont know how its worded. That building is of what is it . Not only look at those particular buildings but others as well. Community identified buildings of importance. Yeah. Maybe that. Commissioner highland. Can we add those buildings to our work plan. Theyre not on there. Can we audits this resolution even today ask those two buildings to be added to th
Other building its k i mo n. Its the building on bush street to that first paragraph. On that motion calling names so move commissioners thank you everyone. It passes unanimously 6 to zero. And 5 minutes and truly five minutes. This will be a quick break. Were going to call this meeting of Historic Preservation back to order. Commissioners you left off under your regular calendar. Excuse me. On item 10 for the spur historic heritage report my understanding is those members had to loaf and so if you care to continue the matter okay. So we hear a motion to continue. Second. I believe the recommended date was october 16th. So do we have much choice laughter . More the benefit of the public. laughter . Commissioner calling names so moved commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you under case 13 for the case. The Historic Resource survey consideration to adopt or disprove the fbtd of the Historic Preservation survey. Good afternoon. Im mary before a Department Sta
If i might though commissioners lets also go in order right now please at the 9 a. Any other comments on the Historic Context statement i want to say its really well done there was a lot of work. And we had a motion on say flower. Second. Im sorry the denying the motion was from the motion i didnt hear the motion for 9 a. Its straight approval. I didnt hear who made the motion and a i did. Okay for clarity sake you talked about including the preif his. Its updated 2011 when this is updated to do some beginning analysis of how the implementation of the information that we passed in resolution h b resolution 0698 can be included to strengthen what did i say shelly strengthen. I wrote down to include a purpose to acknowledge the one 2011 and today is it sufficient . On that motion then as mainstreamed to include a previo statement. calling names . So moved commissioners that motion xraufg the context statement passes 9 to zero. One of the things it does is a hero be it further received th