Tent cities have sprung up outside Los Angeles

page: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Have read thru this thread and would like to add my two cents.

I had a good job making good money. I saved until I could afford my own home. I researched and studied up on mortgages and such. When i did buy my home, i made sure I had a fixed rate. The house i bought was nothing fantastic, only 1100 sq feet, a modest home by anybody's standard. Three months after I bought the house, I and 22 others in my department were called into a meeting to be told our jobs were being sent overseas. I was able to hang on to the house for another year and a half before savings and good graces ran out. The market in this city for my kind of work, technical publisher, had dried up completely. Most of the jobs were sent to other countries. My resume and portfolio quickly eliminated me from any serious consideration as the thought was that i would be to expensive to hire. In that year and a half and over 500 resumes sent out, I only had six interviews and one call back. In the end i moved home with my parents and took a part time job at a local factory.

I can understand a great many of the people who have ended up in the tent city. Not everyone of them lived beyond their means nor did they live to impress. They certainly did not get what they deserved. The American economy on the whole did not think globally. Companies thought it easier to ship work to cheaper venues without realizing the impact on their own "bottom line". Banks and lending institutions also was not far thinking and they too fell victims to this lack of foresight. If anything, we are all to blame.




posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I am not trying to belittle the people who have lost their homes, but I have to bring up one point.....
I have a friend who did mortgages for countrywide. He gave money to people, who used it for vacations, credit debt, home improvement, new t.v.s and cars, boats. Whatever. So do all these people give me those toys while we all bail them out? this is all a part of life. Rent if you can't own. Buy generic products. Don't eat out. At all. Buy a board game, used.
I know that there are some people who feel as though they are on the fringe. That their medical bills/joblessness/sickness/anxiety/debt/depression/loss of family/addictions/and now homelessness, are symptoms of a myriad of problems that all culminated in what they thought would never happen. Those that "rage against the machine" think of we who accept the losses and consequences of our actions as being wealthy, white, homeowners.
I am a poor white renter. A PWR. Not a WASP, anymore.
I accept that If I cannot find steady work, I will camp out on a farm, working for food and saving whatever else they give me to eventually correct my situation.
Suffering is actually a necessary part of the human condition. It breeds resolve, innovation, and adaptability. Those that are destroyed by average hardships, lack the ability to help this world in the rare event that they were actually needed to. (think E.L.E.)
I just read what the guy above me posted.
I know that you will land back on your feet. On a larger and longer scale, you will be alright. Have you ever thought to go back to school, tweak your skills a little? Humble yourself and tell these prospective employers that you will work below your expected income? Just wondering? Hope you moved back in and rented it out!



[edit on 15-3-2008 by jasonjnelson]



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
It serves them right.
If you take out a loan you can't possibly repay, or you fail to read the fine print, then you lose your home.
Sure, the financial institutions offered loans in a way that made them look very attractive while markets were rising, but they didn't forge your signature on the papers.
If you can't pay you're out.
Go live in a tent if you're that stupid or rent an apartment, because you deserve it.


Could not agree with you more.

Are we supposed to feel bad about people that lost control over their financial situation?

Your right they weren't held at gunpoint, and forced to buy a house.

Rent if you can't buy!

The BBC is portraying these folks as victims, no wonder the "Drive by media"(HAHHAH Rush) doesn't pay attention, they know its a load of sheet. Excuse my French!



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

"Once I get a full-time job instead of one day a week"


*slaps forehead* Well, there's your FIRST problem.

By the looks of her, she isn't going hungry anyway.

I have to say, most of those people don't look like middle-class people who were suddenly thrown on the street, they look like what they probably are... REDNECKS.

Everyone in this video either:
- Has a mullet
- Is morbidly obese
- Looks like a crystal meth addict
- Generally uneducated

So I'm going to have to say that it's most likely their own damn fault.

Is it even legal to just put up a tent anywhere you want like that? I thought it's illegal to sleep in public, camp on city property, or generally loiter around like that... unless they're in a campground/trailer park somewhere.

[edit on 3/15/2008 by Yarcofin]



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I do not think anybody is denying that there has been an increase in the ammount of foreclosures. Even the most optimistic and upbeat people have to concede that the economy is sluggish. This is not to say however that tent cities are widespread. Unfortunately, shanty towns and homelessness have always existed in America. The number of homeless people and people that live in shantytowns will go up when the economy goes down. This is not to say that a significant percentage of the population is or will wind up in a shanty town.

The below link is to a youtube video documenting a tent city in southern California. According to the video, the tent city has 350 residents. Southern California has over 10 million people. I do not know how many tent cities there are, but if they each have less than 1000 people, and there are no more than 100 tent cities in southern California, then less than 1% of the people in southern California lives in a tent city.


www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I have my prejudices, we all do, it's perfectly natural. However, I try not to let it affect me too much. It just makes me a weaker person. You tend to find that the more you understand people, the more insignificant your prejudice becomes.

I particularly try very hard not to be prejudiced against intollerent bigots. It's not their fault, they don't know any better.. and everybody should be allowed to express their own opinion, however ridiculous it may appear. Which is why forums such as this are so valuable.

Has anyone from from these tented camps posted on this thread yet? It would be interesting to read their viewpoint.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox
This is the current state of your America.


Now ask yourself how many people truly own what they own?

Every huge house, new car you see, lands, businesses, office buildings.....

How many are actually paid for? Now how many are owned by a bank?

How many new cars would be sold if the buyers had to pay cash for them on the spot?

How many houses would be built if the one building had to buy the materials and own it from the start?


This whole country runs on credit. It's fake and fraudulent. Those who appear to be rich have nothing. It's backed by nothing.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
One thing I should point out is that in California mortgages are non-recourse. This means that if you cannot pay your mortgage, you can walk away from your house and owe the bank nothing. In most other states, mortgages are recourse. If you walk away from your house and market value of your house is lower than the amount you owe on the house, you will owe the bank the difference between the ammount you owe and the market value.

People in California that are in over there head on their mortgages are not necessarily screwed. If somebody anticipates getting foreclosed on, the can prepare to walk away by getting themselves an apartment. It takes weeks for a bank to foreclose on somebody and kick them out of their house, but it takes only a few days to get an apartment. While these people will have lousy credit scores as a result of their foreclosures, they will not owe the bank any money in California.

Of course, not all people in California have non-recouse debt. Many people took out home equity loans, essentially using their home's over-inflated value as an ATM. Those with home equity loans will get reamed when they are foreclosed on, but of course many of those people used their home equity loans to live it up when times were good.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Black_Fox
 


Pretty entertaining... I find it strange how people end up in such situations, is it honestly that hard to live within your means?



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by altrock
 


No it's not. Greedy banks and greedy people make for a toxic situation.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Is there such a thing as 'Squatter's Rights' in the US?



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Myrdyn
 


Nope.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by WiseSheep

Originally posted by Black_Fox
This is the current state of your America.


Now ask yourself how many people truly own what they own?

Every huge house, new car you see, lands, businesses, office buildings.....

How many are actually paid for? Now how many are owned by a bank?

How many new cars would be sold if the buyers had to pay cash for them on the spot?

How many houses would be built if the one building had to buy the materials and own it from the start?


This whole country runs on credit. It's fake and fraudulent. Those who appear to be rich have nothing. It's backed by nothing.


Lawyers talk of property rights as a bundle of sticks. There are different types of ownership which involve having different types of sticks.

The best type of ownership is fee simple absolute. People who own property in fee simple absolute have all the possible sticks in their bundle. They can sell or give their property to anybody they please, they can destroy their property put any improvement they wish on it, they can exclude others from using their property, and they can control the property to some extent after they die.

Most people own their home in what is called fee simple subject to a mortgate. Here, the bank owns some of the sticks and the home owner has the remainder of the sticks. The home owner can exclude others from using his land, sell the land, give the land to other people, destroy their house or improve upon their house. The bank retains the right to take title to the house if the mortgage is not paid.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
This is why I live in an apartment, I know full well I cannot afford a house. Well I could, I choose not to. I prefer not to owe anyone anything if I can help it, and a home loan is entirely out of my comfort zone. I'll more than likely be a renter for life, unless one of my parents leaves their land/home to me. I kinda feel bad for the people who are losing their homes, but then again I don't. If they weren't so concerned with their images in the eyes of their friends, then they wouldn't have to have a huge house and all the trimmings that come along with it.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by chromatico
 


.. perhaps you call it 'Adverse Possession'?



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I guess many of those in trouble with their mortgages are simply victims of consumerism. TV and peer pressure are extremely powerful motivators. We all think we have to have the smartest car, latest laptop, flashiest phone, designer clothes, best house etc. Sadly, the most insecure of us will be most prone to that pressure. Misguided into thinking they have something to prove.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Myrdyn
 


All U.S. states have adverse possession laws. If you use land without the owners permission, open and notoriously, for a set period of time (in California it is six years but the time varies from state to state) you own the land. Some states may have additional requirements. For example in California you have to pay property taxes on the land. You also cannot take public or government land away by adverse possession.

So it is possible to move into an abandoned house or plot of land, without the owner's permission, live there for a few years just like the owner would, and eventually become the lawful owner of the land. If the owner allows you to come onto his land, you cannot take title to the land. If you are on the land for a brief period of time, or you are not continuously on the land, you cannot take possession. Your posssession on the land has to be open and notorious. This means you cannot sneak into some abandoned house every night in the hopes nobody will notice your adverse possession. Also, if the owner finds you on his land he can evict you and your adverse possession is over.

[edit on 15-3-2008 by hotpinkurinalmint]



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I'm in South America on vacation, only JUST got an Internet connection, haven't read all the comments and beg you to pardon my premature reply. I was blown away to see the BBC report of tent cities in the united states of America and am torn on the subject. I'm as personal freedom/personal responsibility as they come but this smells as badly as the horse# I stepped into in the streets of Uruguay.

How is there a difference between the people who've made poor home buying choices and the Bear Stearns bank types that invested so poorly? What's the saying? The fish stinks from the head down or something to that effect? Oh wait, from D.C. comes a salve to mask the scent of the rotted head instead of cutting the head and saving the meat of the fish!

People should be asking why we sacrifice the whole of the fish to protect the fishmongers' reputation when we could just cut off the disease ridden head.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 

Thanks HotPink.. Not too different to the UK. There was a recent case over here where a mortgage lender foreclosed but failed to evict. After a thirteen year period, the resident was given ownership. However, this occurance was very rare.

There are countless people in the UK living in abandonned or derelict properties. Under 'Common Law' they do have some rights. Not necessarily of 'ownership' but, to remain living there.

I guess I was just wondering if there are many large abandonned buildings where people could be sheltered, without necessarily upsetting the landowners.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Further to my last.. Does anyone feel that this is just the tip of a very large Iceberg?





new topics
top topics
 
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join