Foreclosure Alley

[Vympel]

Sobering, depressing and a bit surprising. I can't believe that people who had their home foreclosed left such a huge TV to be trashed out - but then, they couldn't afford to take it with them I suppose.

[Bounty]

That's just perverse. So they can't spare the few hours it'd take to get this brand-new furniture to someone who needs it? They trash everything because it's too much trouble to do otherwise? No-one with two brain cells to rub together has thought to set up a coordinated recycling program?

Holy shit. The throwaway consumer culture at its nastiest.

As for the owners - if you go bankrupt, isn't it customary to try and sell anything of value to recoup your debts? Even if by force? I can't imagine how anyone can foreclose on a house when they have a few more payments' worth of luxuries left, or why the debt collectors don't think to auction off the contents of the houses.

[cosmicalstorm]

If I had a linegraph of my daily IQ it would register a sharp decline while watching that video.

[Azazal]

That's just perverse. So they can't spare the few hours it'd take to get this brand-new furniture to someone who needs it? They trash everything because it's too much trouble to do otherwise? No-one with two brain cells to rub together has thought to set up a coordinated recycling program?

Holy shit. The throwaway consumer culture at its nastiest.

As for the owners - if you go bankrupt, isn't it customary to try and sell anything of value to recoup your debts? Even if by force? I can't imagine how anyone can foreclose on a house when they have a few more payments' worth of luxuries left, or why the debt collectors don't think to auction off the contents of the houses.

Anecdotal, but sadly when people are being foreclosed on, they decide that since the can't have their toys, no one can. When my wife and I were house shopping we looked at several properties that had been foreclosed on, and almost everyone of them had been sabotaged in one form or another. Some, it was obvious they the previous owners had let the dog or kid run rampant, shitting and pissing everywhere, another had rigged the furnace to leak gas, holes in the walls and torn up carpet were common place in most of the houses. And these were cleaned up houses, our realtor told us of some houses that weren't even 5 years old that had been so trashed in what can only be described as an orgy of vindictive douche-baggery, the only way to renovate them would be to knock them over and rebuild from the foundation up

[Darth Wong]

Why aren't these people arrested and charged, since it is not really their property they are trashing? It belongs to the bank, not them. If I came and did that to your house, I would be arrested.

[Jaevric]

Why aren't these people arrested and charged, since it is not really their property they are trashing? It belongs to the bank, not them. If I came and did that to your house, I would be arrested.

I work in the mortgage industry, in collections, and I asked the same question. The answer is that most mortgage companies figure they're getting enough bad press without adding having former homeowners arrested for to the mix.

Incidentally, the worst example I've heard was someone who gathered up dozens of stray cats and left them in the house when they left it. For several months. With no supplies. I was extremely upset that they weren't charged for that regardless of the damage to the house.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

That's just perverse. So they can't spare the few hours it'd take to get this brand-new furniture to someone who needs it? They trash everything because it's too much trouble to do otherwise? No-one with two brain cells to rub together has thought to set up a coordinated recycling program?

Holy shit. The throwaway consumer culture at its nastiest.

It may be that the sheer volume precludes this. It costs money to give stuff away (transport costs, at the very least), and if they can't get rid of it straight away, they need places to store it. Even if they were auctioning it off, they'd run out of room in the auction houses before too long. So they save themselves the headache and just dump the lot.

[Ariphaos]

Why aren't these people arrested and charged, since it is not really their property they are trashing? It belongs to the bank, not them. If I came and did that to your house, I would be arrested.

How much money do you expect to get out of them and how much money do you want to spend prosecuting and imprisoning them?

[AdmiralKanos]

Why aren't these people arrested and charged, since it is not really their property they are trashing? It belongs to the bank, not them. If I came and did that to your house, I would be arrested.

How much money do you expect to get out of them and how much money do you want to spend prosecuting and imprisoning them?

I wasn't talking about suing them. I was talking about throwing them in prison for destruction of property.

As for the cost, is that something you normally raise as an objection to enforcing laws against destruction of property? Why not just legalize vandalism in general, since you seem to think it is not worth bothering to prosecute anyone who does it?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I've had to clear out foreclosed properties before. In general, its just cheaper and easier to take the stuff to the dump than to process and transport the stuff carefully for resale. If you're taking two desks and a couch to the dump, you can smash the timbers and snap the legs off to get it through doors and around corners. If you're selling it, you have to be a LOT more careful, and your work time is about double.

[Bounty]

In general, its just cheaper and easier to take the stuff to the dump than to process and transport the stuff carefully for resale.

It still makes me queasy to think that there are people in desperate need of the very same furniture and appliances that are being so casually destroyed. Maybe it's not viable for a single company to resell this stuff, but surely someone by now must've come up with the idea of doing it on a large scale? You've got thousands *if not more* of these homes brimming with very useful and very much needed equipment that's heading for the dump; surely you can set up a large-scale collection system that makes it practical for this stuff to be transported and stored?

It's just... mind-boggling. I'm actually having trouble processing the idea that people get away with buying all this expensive junk, not bothering to pay for it, and bailing out only for someone to come and trash it when all of it is perfectly usable. It's... insanity. Sheer insanity.

[Kanastrous]

Why aren't these people arrested and charged, since it is not really their property they are trashing? It belongs to the bank, not them. If I came and did that to your house, I would be arrested.

How much money do you expect to get out of them and how much money do you want to spend prosecuting and imprisoning them?

Don't imprison them.

Get a civil judgment and garnish their wages to the maximum extent permissible by law, until they are too elderly to work any more.

[CaptainChewbacca]

It still makes me queasy to think that there are people in desperate need of the very same furniture and appliances that are being so casually destroyed. Maybe it's not viable for a single company to resell this stuff, but surely someone by now must've come up with the idea of doing it on a large scale? You've got thousands *if not more* of these homes brimming with very useful and very much needed equipment that's heading for the dump; surely you can set up a large-scale collection system that makes it practical for this stuff to be transported and stored?

It's just... mind-boggling. I'm actually having trouble processing the idea that people get away with buying all this expensive junk, not bothering to pay for it, and bailing out only for someone to come and trash it when all of it is perfectly usable. It's... insanity. Sheer insanity.

If it makes you feel better, the appliances and electronics are almost always separated out and recycled. You can make good money showing up at a scrap yard with a load of ovens.

[Ariphaos]

I wasn't talking about suing them. I was talking about throwing them in prison for destruction of property.

Eight thousand families a day. Another source for you.

Explain to me how the United States would be capable of coordinating the logistics of imprisoning those families and handling the displaced children. I'm aware that his happens in most foreclosed homes (at least this is what people in the industry tell me). How long are you going to imprison them for? If it's just a few months, will the thought of having a roof over their head for a short period really deter them?

These are not people who are currently thinking rationally (as the linked video explained). Legal punishments are not exactly at the forefront of their mind since they have rather little to lose and prison at least offers a bed. Either you didn't have a freaking clue as to the magnitude of this or you have a misplaced sense of America's economic might. I doubt it's the latter.

As for the cost, is that something you normally raise as an objection to enforcing laws against destruction of property? Why not just legalize vandalism in general, since you seem to think it is not worth bothering to prosecute anyone who does it?

Because a certain form of vandalism would be extremely difficult to prosecute, you claim I think it's not worth bothering to prosecute any form of vandalism? What fallacy is that?

Seriously, many of these people have steady, productive jobs, unlike common vandals.

The bank needs to prove that 1) They did it, 2) They did it after they learned about the foreclosure (it is their property until the bank repossesses), and 3) They did it with intentional malice.

And then the government needs to find a way to deal with the children.

The United States simply could not cope with a prosecution on that scale. Maybe during less troubled times, but now? Hell no.

[Kanastrous]

Prosecution to jail, sure. Civil pursuit to recover the value of the damaged property, why not?

[AdmiralKanos]

Eight thousand families a day.

So? They don't all have to vandalize the property, and the rate at which they do so would certainly drop if they knew there was actually some serious consequence. Your argument is based upon the completely unreasonable assumption that the rate of destruction would be completely unaffected by the appearance of a serious deterrent.

Because a certain form of vandalism would be extremely difficult to prosecute, you claim I think it's not worth bothering to prosecute any form of vandalism? What fallacy is that?

Precisely how do you figure it would be so difficult to prosecute?

The bank needs to prove that 1) They did it, 2) They did it after they learned about the foreclosure (it is their property until the bank repossesses), and 3) They did it with intentional malice.

Obviously, in cases where they have no evidence or witnesses, they wouldn't bother prosecuting. That doesn't mean there should be a blanket refusal to prosecute.

Besides, the legislature could alter the laws as necessary to make it easier to prosecute these kinds of crimes. It wouldn't be the first time.

And then the government needs to find a way to deal with the children.

How does this part of the argument not apply to ANY crime?

[Ariphaos]

So? They don't all have to vandalize the property, and the rate at which they do so would certainly drop if they knew there was actually some serious consequence. Your argument is based upon the completely unreasonable assumption that the rate of destruction would be completely unaffected by the appearance of a serious deterrent.

What serious consequence is prison to someone who's lost everything? You are offering them a bed and a roof, for an unspecified amount of time.

Irrational behavior is common in these instances, as the video mentioned - have you ever had an irrational episode? Most of these people agreed to an ARM in the first place, you expect them to be making smart, long-term decisions like the repercussions of having prison time on their employment?

Even the death penalty has debatable value as a deterrent. What sort of percentage are you expecting?

Precisely how do you figure it would be so difficult to prosecute?

Mostly for the reasons I described, plus a ghetto edit in the case of those that lost their job (finding them).

The bank needs to prove that 1) They did it, 2) They did it after they learned about the foreclosure (it is their property until the bank repossesses), and 3) They did it with intentional malice.

Obviously, in cases where they have no evidence or witnesses, they wouldn't bother prosecuting. That doesn't mean there should be a blanket refusal to prosecute.

Besides, the legislature could alter the laws as necessary to make it easier to prosecute these kinds of crimes. It wouldn't be the first time.

The legislature could also make ARMs (or at least the predatory way in which they were pushed here) illegal, which would create another hurdle. That one swings both ways, it's not like the banks who are suffering these mass foreclosure rates are particularly innocent.

There is also the issue of overcoming such a well established and common case of temporary insanity on the part of the defense.

And, like I said, if the person is employed, you are removing a productive member of the workforce, and they now have a significant part of their budget freed up to pay for legal defense.

If they are not employed, you need to find them.

And then the government needs to find a way to deal with the children.

How does this part of the argument not apply to ANY crime?

Is there any crime that mandates significant prison time being committed by a quarter million families a month that pulls both parents out of the equation?