Miami activist thinks they are above reality / the law

[CmdrWilkens]

I'm also of the opinion that the banks should allow homeless people to move in; after all not all homeless people are tinfoil-hatter types. The banks let homeless squatters in, they get a bit of a tax break, maybe, for providing to the community.

Without the structure of a renter's lease it's a very difficult legal issue for banks. What's to stop squatters from giving false names and then completely stripping the house of all its wiring and metal fixtures for sale as scrap? A substantial amount of money can be made at this, and the bank would eat the cost. I agree that it's insane for banks to turn people out of houses, just so they can lock them up and then eat a net loss, but turning them over to whoever wants them isn't a good plan.

The problem is that if the squatters stay at the location long enough (measured in multiple years), are not forcibly evicted and make improvements to the property they LITERALLY can gain squatters rights to the property. With not a dime going to the banks they, the squatters, can claim title to the property which is what will result in a true net loss to the banks. So long as they own the property (or have an agreed renter's lease, though that brings in a whole other bag of problems) the banks retain the possibility of recouping the loss through a foreclosure sale or an actual re-sale once property values return. If squatters take over then right about the time the banks could re-sell the property they will no longer hold clear title and the banks will incur a huge cost to get clear title if they don't lose it alotogether.

So while I agree that housing the homeless in abandoned and foreclosed properties sounds like a great idea its a hell of a lot more complicated than it looks on the surface.

[ray245]

Why can't you use a public housing system instead? Meaning the government will build a low-cost apartments and sell it at a low cost to those squatters, and allowing them to own and pay for their apartment for a long period of time, say 20 years?

Set a maximum income level for people who can purchase those public housings and safeguard the poor or the squatters. In term, those squatters need to have a job as a minimum requirement.

[Broomstick]

Why can't you use a public housing system instead? Meaning the government will build a low-cost apartments and sell it at a low cost to those squatters, and allowing them to own and pay for their apartment for a long period of time, say 20 years?

Most public housing in the US charges residents no more than 20% of their income for rent. And it's rental, not "owning" the apartment. The biggest problem is that there is not enough public housing. Another problem is that public housing has a very, very bad reputation as high crime and poorly maintained. Nonetheless, most major cities have a 5-10 years long waiting list for either public housing or for government assistance with private housing (known as "Section 8" housing)

Set a maximum income level for people who can purchase those public housings and safeguard the poor or the squatters. In term, those squatters need to have a job as a minimum requirement.

What if they can't get a job?

Very high unemployment is a feature of many public housing projects in the US.

[ray245]

Most public housing in the US charges residents no more than 20% of their income for rent. And it's rental, not "owning" the apartment. The biggest problem is that there is not enough public housing. Another problem is that public housing has a very, very bad reputation as high crime and poorly maintained. Nonetheless, most major cities have a 5-10 years long waiting list for either public housing or for government assistance with private housing (known as "Section 8" housing)

I was wondering, why can't the US government adopt a house ownership scheme? Doesn't house ownership in some ways, ensures you wil be more concerned with the state of your house and neighbourhood?

[Broomstick]

The government does provide assistance to first-time home buyers... but reducing the requirements for the loans is part of the reason for our current real estate and economic mess.

The American culture society doesn't want the government being involved in housing people any more than it already is (and many would like less involvement) - basically, the government provides housing as the absolute last resort. It's seen as socialist or communist or at any rate government intrusion into what should be private enterprise. It's a cultural attitude that does drive people to better themselves sometimes, but it can also result in some cruel conditions for those incapable of improving their lot.

Some people should NOT own a home - those physically incapable of maintaining one, or who are of very low income. Some people choose not to own - perhaps they don't need much room, or wish to use their income on something other than a large house. However, in the US the bias is very strong towards owning a single-family home, or at least owning one's residence. Renting is seen as a second-class (or worse) alternative and there is resistance to helping people with renting, even when that may be the more appropriate alternative.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Ok, how about we use emminant domain to sieze the defaulted properties, then set up a program to make the property available for the poor and truely destitute while paying the owners/banks what they determine to be a fair amount. Come to think of it, that could work for the auto industry,,,,

[Solauren]

Too everyone defending this, I have a question to you;

You own a home, you pay a mortgage, but your neighbour can't afford there home anymore, and it's foreclosed etc.

Now, someone comes along, breaks into the house, lives there, FREE, but you still have to pay your mortgage, and are now living next to someone who may not haven an income, that has already shown they are willing to disregard and break the law if it suits them.

You shell out hundreds of dollars a month (or more) on a mortgage, and they are living in the house down the street, worth the same, for nothing.

NOTHING.

How the hell is that right?


I'm not talking about getting them housing (I'm all for LEGALLY finding the homeless housing). I'm talking about them stealing a house without the owners permission.

[Coyote]

I'm not blaming the high-risk buyers for simply taking what was offered to them...

maybe too far off-topic, but why not? Just because someone offers you something, does not mean that you are obliged - or halfway smart - to take it. No matter what blandishments a banker throws my way, I am still the sole person responsible for seeing that I don't take on more debt than I can service.

Because I believe that the onus of responsibility is on the bank to make wise selections on who they extend credit to. That's why some people are considered good or bad risks, why there's credit ratings, etc. People want homes; not all of them are really in a good position to obtain or keep homes, and that is why the banks have regulations to follow so that lending is fair and evenly applied.

[Coyote]

Too everyone defending this, I have a question to you;

You own a home, you pay a mortgage, but your neighbour can't afford there home anymore, and it's foreclosed etc.

Now, someone comes along, breaks into the house, lives there, FREE, but you still have to pay your mortgage, and are now living next to someone who may not haven an income, that has already shown they are willing to disregard and break the law if it suits them.

You shell out hundreds of dollars a month (or more) on a mortgage, and they are living in the house down the street, worth the same, for nothing.

NOTHING.

How the hell is that right?


I'm not talking about getting them housing (I'm all for LEGALLY finding the homeless housing). I'm talking about them stealing a house without the owners permission.

It sucks, and I don't argue that. But I think the problem should have been circumvented in the first place by letting the original owners stay at the reduced rates agreed to by the bank, but... barring that...

...I think it is, in fact, better to have someone live there who has a vested interest in maintaining security and maintenance at the empty house than it is to just let it go to seed, becoming a haven for druggies, where your children might wander in, or become structurally weak and collapse, or catch fire and endanger your own house.

This is one of those situations where none of the answers are really all that 'good', you just have to find the least bad option.

[ray245]

The government does provide assistance to first-time home buyers... but reducing the requirements for the loans is part of the reason for our current real estate and economic mess.

The American culture society doesn't want the government being involved in housing people any more than it already is (and many would like less involvement) - basically, the government provides housing as the absolute last resort. It's seen as socialist or communist or at any rate government intrusion into what should be private enterprise. It's a cultural attitude that does drive people to better themselves sometimes, but it can also result in some cruel conditions for those incapable of improving their lot.

Some people should NOT own a home - those physically incapable of maintaining one, or who are of very low income. Some people choose not to own - perhaps they don't need much room, or wish to use their income on something other than a large house. However, in the US the bias is very strong towards owning a single-family home, or at least owning one's residence. Renting is seen as a second-class (or worse) alternative and there is resistance to helping people with renting, even when that may be the more appropriate alternative.

Hmm, housing is a basic human need, and I fail to understand why is providing a basic need such a bad thing to begin with. If you want to drive yourself better, simply choose live in a private estate. It is possible to maintain the drive to improve and at the same time, improve public housing.

Basically, the middle ground between captialism and communism/socialism is ideal.


What I am asking for, is to allow people to own home and allow them to pay in monthly instalment, no higher than renting a house. It is bascially owning a house in name only. However, the name of ownership bascially assure in essence, they are not living in a second class home, and the idea of owning something can help in improving the neighbourhood. By sticking people in a root, you can reduce the need for loans to own a house, if housing is affordable to begin with, even to the poor.

That one can own a house as a person from a lower income group. Bear in mind, I am not talking about owning a private house with a lawn, I mean owning a public apartment with a single room.


Then restrict the resale of houses or apartments. By ensuring the person can only sell his apartment after his installment for his house is paid, it can prevent the housing or sub-prime mortage crisis the US is currently experiencing. To own a house, you no longer need to get a loan from a bank whic cannot be paid back.


And at the same time, strive to build a better housing for the lower income group.


If not, one can always grant people a long housing lease, meaning 50 years or more and resale of apartments is allowed.

[Tanasinn]

It isn't right, but considering the hand that banks had in creating the mortgage crisis to begin with, I'm not exactly a font of sympathy for the banks that have to deal with vagrants living on their property.

[ray245]

It isn't right, but considering the hand that banks had in creating the mortgage crisis to begin with, I'm not exactly a font of sympathy for the banks that have to deal with vagrants living on their property.

Well, when the government is bailing out the banks, the government could always ask for those property to be turned over to the government.

[The Yosemite Bear]

It isn't right, but considering the hand that banks had in creating the mortgage crisis to begin with, I'm not exactly a font of sympathy for the banks that have to deal with vagrants living on their property.

Well, when the government is bailing out the banks, the government could always ask for those property to be turned over to the government.

I think that's what I suggested, that since the government is bailing out the banks, emminent domain would allow the governement to rent out the property for a discounted rate, like those of us in the park pay about 40 a week in rent....

[Shroom Man 777]

With lots of people turning poor, can't these abandoned homes be used as cushy roofed "Hoovervilles"? Why create tent cities when there are disused condos and suburbs for bloody poor people and other forms of shitpieces to live in? The banks should sell them to humanitarian organizations or something - turn em into halfway houses, whatever.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Too everyone defending this, I have a question to you;

You own a home, you pay a mortgage, but your neighbour can't afford there home anymore, and it's foreclosed etc.

Now, someone comes along, breaks into the house, lives there, FREE, but you still have to pay your mortgage, and are now living next to someone who may not haven an income, that has already shown they are willing to disregard and break the law if it suits them.

You shell out hundreds of dollars a month (or more) on a mortgage, and they are living in the house down the street, worth the same, for nothing.

NOTHING.

How the hell is that right?


I'm not talking about getting them housing (I'm all for LEGALLY finding the homeless housing). I'm talking about them stealing a house without the owners permission.

It's right because I have the ability to make those payments, and they don't.

[Stark]

It isn't right, but considering the hand that banks had in creating the mortgage crisis to begin with, I'm not exactly a font of sympathy for the banks that have to deal with vagrants living on their property.

Social and economic policy based on emotional responses - especially revenge - is retarded. It's also simple-minded and immature, but this is obvious.

To me this thread is just another hilarious example of extremism. Yeah, social welfare is a terrible thing and politically unacceptable in the US... so let's attack property rights and wealth redistribute like it's 1208!

In any case, the idea that foreclosed houses have 'no value' is retarded; they have value, they're an asset, they're property. If you want to give that to someone, and you don't own it, that's theft, regardless of whatever ridiculous Robin Hood notions you might cook up. If the government wanted to take such property as security against the huge cash injections they're giving banks and set up a housing commission (omg social welfare lol) that's fine if authoritarian (which would be enough for many Americans to hate the idea), but class warfare is stupid drama-queen nonsense. Social policy should be based on things a bit more mature than 'fuk dose rich folkzz'.

[K. A. Pital]

Hmm, housing is a basic human need, and I fail to understand why is providing a basic need such a bad thing to begin with.

You see, "the market" does not recognize such things as "basic needs", even if they are biological. Screwed by economy? DIE.

I'm talking about them stealing a house without the owners permission.

You see, the "owner" in question is not using the house.

Would you apply the same logic to say, Irish people starving in the Great Irish Famine, and say they are guilty for stealing food supplies from hoarders who mercilessly shipped them over to England? Would you even dare? Or would you say that hoarders should be indicted for criminal neglience leading to death of people - and if legal measures fail, what then?

How are housing hoarders - the banks - different from food hoarders? In that housing is a less basic need than food? Well gee, I hope you see some cold nation one day and wonder of the fate of homeless people.

Robin Hood notions you might cook up

See above. Just because housing is less essential than food, it doesn't make your logic less retarded. A hoarder of food is a vile person, directly a murderer if there is famine. A hoarder of homes when there are millions going homeless due to economic circumstance beyond their immediate influence... is apparently a normal person.

And not a fucktard who deserves to be strangled by his own entrails.

Right.

[Stark]

Turns out there are ways to de-hoard houses that don't involve this kind of retarded, illegal, emotional silliness? Who knew.

The logic is even broken; every country has homeless people - many simply have sensible social policies to deal with it. I'm not seeing 'lol steal stuff' as a sensible social policy. Frankly, saying someone having xyz when others need xyz is intrinsically wrong is ridiculous; at the end of THAT logic lies wealth redistribution on a planetary scale. In my city right now someone is starving to death and I have a kitchen full of imported foods from around the world at a level and quality impossible to concieve a hundred years ago. Better steal my stuff and kill me, I guess?

Like I said, there are plenty of solutions to this situation that aren't stupid. This isn't really one of them, but I doubt even the guy in question seriously thinks this is what should happen, and rather that he's simply raising the profile of the issue so something gets done - probably an excellent idea in a country like the US. However, I find class-warfare chestbeating utterly hilarious, particularly coming from Americans.

[K. A. Pital]

Turns out there are ways to de-hoard houses that don't involve this kind of retarded, illegal, emotional silliness? Who knew.

Of course there are. The US government is too inept to act on them since they are "authoritarian", "socialist" and a myriad other crap words the US public will use in pathetic ignorance of the hoarding.

I'm not seeing 'lol steal stuff' as a sensible social policy.

Neither do I. But unanimous judgement of the person's extrajudicial action when the US government fails to act on an all to evident problem is morally grey, not morally black.

Better steal my stuff and kill me, I guess?

You aren't hoarding the food, or actively withholding it from the person. Also, do you really think a starving person is the moral evil if he kills someone for food?

Frankly, saying someone having xyz when others need xyz is intrinsically wrong is ridiculous

You again miss the difference between "having" and "hoarding", do you? But yes, if someone has some essential thing another person needs, and witholds it without even using it himself, that person is morally evil for acting that way.

It does not mean his death woudl be a lesser evil. But in extreme circumstances, yes, it would.

I find class-warfare chestbeating utterly hilarious, particularly coming from Americans

So do I, considering most of the people in this thread probably did not experience either hunger or homelessness. But then, you are correct - this issue is more about raising the government awareness about the problem and forcing it's hand to act.

If it acts wrongly (read: defends the hoarding as reasonable use of property), people will take a note. And a grudge. And taht would be good. It won't be class warfare, but it certainly will make public opinion more alert to the fate of property that is hoarded for no use.

[Stark]

Of course there are. The US government is too inept to act on them since they are "authoritarian", "socialist" and a myriad other crap words the US public will use in pathetic ignorance of the hoarding.

In that sense this guy's activism has worked; he's raised the profile of the (absurd) situation, so there's a chance someone will be able to break the mold on US social policy.

Neither do I. But unanimous judgement of the person's extrajudicial action when the US government fails to act on an all to evident problem is morally grey, not morally black.

Certainly, and I'm aware I'm not arguing with you at all. I just think all the moralistic chestbeating from others is counterproductive and simplistic - this is an actual problem that needs actual solutions, not feelgood nonsense like LOL STEAL SHIT FROM THE BAD MAN.

You aren't hoarding the food, or actively withholding it from the person. Also, do you really think a starving person is the moral evil if he kills someone for food?

Uh, yeah I do. Sorry. But then I have the advantage of being the beneficiary of a nation that looks after it's citizens, so such a situation is almost beyond my imagination outside of drug addicts or the insane.

You again miss the difference between "having" and "hoarding", do you? But yes, if someone has some essential thing another person needs, and witholds it without even using it himself, that person is morally evil for acting that way.

It does not mean his death woudl be a lesser evil. But in extreme circumstances, yes, it would.

I certainly understand your feelings on this, and you have much more (and more personal) experience with this kind of hoarding and want, so our perspectives probably couldn't get any different. There is definately a difference between the stuff I own and someone intentionally grabbing more stuff and sitting on it for no reason, but again we go back to the realm of social policy and 'authoritarian' government regulation.

So do I, considering most of the people in this thread probably did not experience either hunger or homelessness. But then, you are correct - this issue is more about raising the government awareness about the problem and forcing it's hand to act.

If it acts wrongly (read: defends the hoarding as reasonable use of property), people will take a note. And a grudge. And taht would be good. It won't be class warfare, but it certainly will make public opinion more alert to the fate of property that is hoarded for no use.

It's interesting from a sort of cultural perspective that America had a situation of great want in the people back during the depression, and that now this is happening. I don't think I can really imagine how I'd feel if I was homeless in the richest country in the world, since I can barely imagine it in AU.

[Big Orange]

Stark, if hundreds/thousands of normal famillies are rendered homeless, with their homes razorwired off because they're private property of inept banks that caused this mess in the first place, you think it is perfectly legal and above board?

[K. A. Pital]

There is definately a difference between the stuff I own and someone intentionally grabbing more stuff and sitting on it for no reason

Indeed. Of course you would think a person that breaks into a house inhabited by people, murders them and then claims the house as his own as evil. But a person who breaks into a house that is not inhabited, but instead simply rots for years in the hands of a glorified hoarding institution might not be the evil party.

I do think moralism from people who are not in this situation but side observers sounds a little ridiculous. On the other hand, isn't this thread for offering a moral opinion on the situation? Heh. What's up with myself being all tolerant to emotional kneejerking, dunno

[Broomstick]

Legal does equal moral - it may be legal to prevent the homeless from gaining shelter but that doesn't mean it's morally right.

[Flash]

Stark, if hundreds/thousands of normal famillies are rendered homeless, with their homes razorwired off because they're private property of inept banks that caused this mess in the first place, you think it is perfectly legal and above board?

It most certainly is legal. But legal does not equal moral (which I think is what Broomstick meant to say) - and it should hardly come as a surprise that big banks aren't too concerned with the morality of the situation, just the bottom line.

But it is legal.

And I have to address this:

Also, do you really think a starving person is the moral evil if he kills someone for food?

Absolutely, I do think he is the moral evil here. Not having something, even something as basic a need as food, does not allow you to murder for that want. Can I understand the motive? Certainly - I sure as fuck don't want to starve. But that doesn't make the action morally acceptable.

[The Grim Squeaker]

You aren't hoarding the food, or actively withholding it from the person. Also, do you really think a starving person is the moral evil if he kills someone for food?

I'll avoid the rest of this argument, as my thoughts on property rights can be summed up as "Yeah, people should have the right to their property, and if the banks let the squatters live there they risk damage to their property and squatters rights. It's silly, but best solved through government measures, not breaking and entering".
However, as to this point of yours - Yes, I do believe that killing someone for food (or any reason that isn't based on some form of self defense as a start) is wholly immoral.
Cannibalism is a bad thing children .