My sister's HOA in Santa Clarita has kept both white and yellow Banksiae machetted into shrubs for over thirty years. They pave' themselves with flowers every spring, but require being hacked several times annually to maintain the size and shape. I've seen walls planted with Banksiae in Pacific Palisades where the Banksiae have been maintained for many years only two feet thick and manicured to fit the angles of the house walls. It CAN be done, but it requires vigilance to maintain it. Once it gets away from you, it's difficult to regain the density of "green", with woody holes replacing it. It's honestly more maintenance than I would care to provide it. But, it CAN be done. Kim

Berniek is right: Much of the blame here falls upon the shoulders of the politicians (led by then-President Clinton), who forced banks to begin some rather foolish lending practices. Alan Greenspan certainly did his share to push this concept of "everyone can borrow" during his time as Fed chairman. Between creative financing, no money down offers, and other such options, the government has given people plenty of rope with which to hang themselves. We Americans haven't proven ourselves to be particularly strong in the moderation and self-discipline categories over the last 30-40 years. Also, remember the climate that existed in the 90s, when I bought my first house: Spurred on by the soaring housing prices, people were convinced that buying "as much house as you can afford" was a good move. Housing was considered an investment that couldn't fail. Yes, the experts began preaching about "the housing bubble" long before it hit, but the masses couldn't grasp how this sure-thing could ever fall. And there's always been a (faulty) basic belief that "If I couldn't afford it, the bank wouldn't lend it to me." I fully agree with those who say that Real Estate agents will push buyers to their upper limits and beyond, and banks will lend what they can -- it's all about profits for them. Yet, the home owner DOES also bear the brunt of personal responsibility. After all, who cares most about whether I can afford my mortgage -- and still buy groceries and other things I need? Clearly, it's ME! I reap the rewards or punishments of my decisions, so I should do the math and know whether I can comfortably afford a house (or anything else) before I buy it. However, we've sort of left that thinking behind in today's buy-now-pay-later society. We're constantly told that "we deserve" this or that thing. That if we're going to finance it, we deserve to have exactly what we want. That "everyone" has debt. We've got to get past that.

One has to look at the cumulative actions of the entire financial sector over the last ten years or so...or even the last five. IMO, it is not coincidence that everything they are cited for in terms of what is considered to be wrong doing by those outside the loop is invariably an action that added considerable millions if not more to their coffers, while it bleeds the overall economy dry. These companies have a tremendous amount of capital at their disposal...as well as some of the most brilliant financial players, business managers, analysts, statisticians, etc at their disposal....not to mention a good number of politicians in their pockets. If they are nailed on something, the fine is a mere tiny drop in the bucket compared to the profit that is made. It is simply the cost of doing business. They apologize..the gullible fall for it...and they proceed with business as usual. Remember, these are the entities that profited to the tune of trillions on the destruction of the global economy, manipulated a taxpayer bailout, and are now wealthier beyond imagining, while most everyone else struggles to pay their every day expenses. Don't be fooled into thinking that they made yet another mistake that just so happened to make them yet another bundle. The only reason they are admitting it now is because they finally got caught. And very possibly the appointment of Holly Petraeus, wife of Gen. Petraeus to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may have played a very important part as well in JPMorgan Chase all of a sudden magically seeing the light on screwing over active duty troops.

@ lana_roma There is a lot of yellow journalism out there. You can do your own research and there have been several peer reviewed publications on yellow journalism. We do know that the number of stories that predict economic decline increase in frequency as the time between economic declines increases. In other words, if we don't have a significant housing decline this year we can guarantee that there will be more stories next year about the impending housing decline. The phenomenon has to do with the psychology of what sells and doesn't, and very little to do with what is right and what isn't. If you find a journalist or blogger who doesn't write articles that predict some calamity, give him some money because he isn't getting paid to write. As to the above - This [real estate] market continues to be driven by the FHA issuing and guaranteeing risky mortgages written by thinly capitalized non-banks There is very little reason to attack the FHA for making risky loans. If anything the opposite is true and FHA loans are predatory. FHA loans are profitable because the MIP (interest rate premium of about .85%) far exceeds the low down payment risk. FHA loans are no more exposed than any other loan. In default the Mortgage insurance kicks in and makes up the shortage of down payment, and the cost of doing this is much less than what is charged to consumers. Our current policies create a questionable base for higher home prices when we consider the low end of the market is driven by Fannie, Freddie, and the FHA all insuring 3.5% down payments from borrowers that often have a weak credit history First - Demand creates the base for higher home prices, to think otherwise is naive. Access to cheaper cash does help increase house prices but not linearly. Cheaper money means that for the same payment (monthly cash outflow) you can get a better house. This often leads to more demand which leads to higher prices. But arguing this is bad is just silly, it is like saying - the price of steak is going up because now more people can afford steak and we didn't anticipate this many people being able to afford steak. Which is exactly his point... Second - Many countries have some institutions that encourage home ownership because home ownership is something we should encourage. While we have taken a financial look in this thread there are many non financial benefits to communities from home ownership. The above programs do exactly what they were meant to do, encourage home ownership.