On mortgages, a flood of ideas

AT THIS POINT, no one can accuse state policy makers of ignoring the meltdown in the home-mortgage market. The Patrick administration has either proposed or endorsed a variety of good ideas, including credit counseling for those taking out certain loans, a licensing system to weed out unscrupulous brokers, criminal penalties for mortgage fraud, and better oversight of companies' lending practices. These and other provisions were part of a bill passed by the state Senate late last month. The administration also announced a $250 million fund to help ease some at-risk borrowers into manageable fixed-rate loans.

Still more initiatives are in the pipeline. But as the administration responds to a deepening crisis, it shouldn't lose focus on what ought to be the state's primary goals: discouraging ill-advised mortgages in the future, helping struggling homeowners keep their homes if possible, and limiting the damage mass foreclosures cause to neighborhoods.

As the Globe's Robert Gavin reported recently, the administration is considering whether to seek payments of $5,000 from lenders in foreclosure cases. The money would go for "transitional assistance" -- moving expenses and first and last months' rent for the departing homeowner, and administrative costs for nonprofits that help people in these situations.

Details of the proposal are still evolving. Kofi Jones, spokeswoman for the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, notes that the number of foreclosures is only likely to rise as rates on adjustable mortgages reset upward this fall. The transitional assistance, she said, is part of a neighborhood-stabilization plan.

While that plan has some promising elements, the transitional assistance idea could increase the cost of lending without making foreclosures any less likely. And while the measure in theory could benefit lenders by encouraging delinquent mortgage holders to move on more quickly, lenders are hardly clamoring for such help.

The public debate on the mortgage mess has hinged upon a distinction between borrowers who were duped into taking on predatory mortgages, and careless "dopes" who failed to look out for themselves. Industry types tend to argue that "dopes" outnumber "dupes" and that the market is now correcting itself; housing advocates presume the opposite and often favor reforms that lean hard on lenders. Yet in many cases, perhaps most, no one is blameless: Aggressive brokers gave the hard sell, and inexperienced borrowers signed on without digesting the fine print.

Complex problems demand nuanced responses, and policy makers should be careful not to pile on too many new policies at once. There are many sensible initiatives already on the table, and they deserve a chance to work.