Congresswoman Laura Richardson Stiffs Local Vendors and Banks

LONG BEACH, CA - Congresswoman Laura Richardson is a rising star in the Democratic Party. Beginning her career with the Long Beach City Council in 2000 and becoming an Assembly member in 2007, she filled the unanticipated vacancy created by the untimely death of Juanita Millender-McDonald. With a 99% voting record, as outlined by her congressional website, it is clear that she takes her appointment to elected office rather seriously and is a very driven career politician.

Environmental Surprise

A supporter of Hillary Clinton's bid for the democratic nomination, it was thus a bit of a surprise when Kelly Puente reported in 2007 on Congresswoman Richardson's unwillingness to partner with Greenpeace in offering her legislative support for a gas emissions reduction bill. Termed the Safe Climate Act and considered the brainchild of democratic Representative Henry Waxman from Los Angeles, this bill was thought by many to be the answer to the brown cloud so frequently seen hovering over Los Angeles and nearby communities.

Mortgage Embarrassment

The early year of 2008 has not been a good one for Ms. Richardson and her public relations either and when her name is now bandied about in the local papers, it has to do with an acute mortgage embarrassment.

Gene Maddaus from the Daily Breeze reported that since 2004 on her three properties - one in Sacramento, Long Beach, and San Pedro -- there are eight recorded mortgage defaults. It became obvious that instead of paying her mortgages, Ms. Richardson was taking money out of her real estate in order to fund her congressional campaigns. While for the last four years it appears that she avoided the direst consequences, embarrassment finally caught up with her when one of her properties was sold under foreclosure.

Local Vendor Outrage

Does the cause justify the means? On 05-29 Dave Wielanga of The District Weekly wrote that Ms. Richardson has not just walked away from obligations to her mortgage bankers but also from expenses incurred with local vendors, notably Signal Hill's copy professionals Sir Speedy. Last year the local vendor prepared an election party emergency order and billed her $150 - an amount that is still outstanding.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul ... And Run For Office

Anthony York of the Capitol Weekly reported previously on 05-22 on the same issue but he raised a good point: do the ends justify the means?

Should a politician dismiss proper business conduct and knowingly stiff vendors - large or small - to fulfill a calling or destiny to which she (or he) believes to be called? To be fair, there is very clear evidence that Ms. Richardson has been making efforts to renegotiate one of her loans and paid off arrears several times. On the other hand, Congresswoman Richardson repaid herself for personal funds she lent to her campaign while still leaving her creditors high and dry.

Remorseless or Victim of Circumstance?

Quoted in Politico, Ms. Richardson has a different take on the events that are currently making for press fodder. She considers herself as enduring the mortgage crisis like so many of her constituents and in part blames the fact that in four months she has seen four job changes. Furthermore, she believes that her suffering enables her to be effective in the drafting of legislation that will protect other home owners with mortgages from enduring similar events.

Ms. Richardson, with respect, has it occurred to you that instead of owning real property you could just rent an apartment? In addition, your suggestion of helping other property owners is admirable but please do not couch it as protecting them against your experiences; the odds are good that most any homeowner will consider carefully whether changing jobs four times in four months is conducive to meeting his or he fiscal obligations. Those that fail to do so gamble with their ownership interest and should they lose, well, that is only fair.

Conversely, if you were able to legislatively prevent foreclosures from taking place, lenders would look long and hard at prospective clients and the numbers of mortgages written would be bound to go down since no bank could justify the risk of lending money to anyone with less than stellar credit, a substantial down payment, and sufficient money in the bank to cover a few mortgage payments. This, in turn, is bound to hurt first time homebuyers and those who are finally clawing their ways up to living the American Dream.

Will I sympathize with your staunch belief in following your calling and wanting to make a difference in the lives of others, doing so on the backs of businesses and ultimately fellow consumers is not the way to go about it.

Sources:
http://richardson.house.gov/
http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_7673341
http://www.dailybreeze.com/
http://thedistrictweekly.com/
http://www.capitolweekly.net/
http://www.politico.com/