Foreclosed Homes Trashed During "Sharpie Parties" , page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 26 times

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 02:01 PM by Xtrozero

Originally posted by benrl
I can see why these people are doing that, I could only imagine the anger at being forced from a home by an uncaring bank.

Do you really think any of these young people at these parties were actually evicted, or actually owned a house in the first place.

I agree that banks are stupid...but it goes both ways, MANY stop paying their mortgages once their homes lost 30% value over night. Also many stopped once their extremely low interest/no principal payment loans started to go up on a variable rate. They still stayed in the homes for a year plus without making any payments or doing anything but living free for as long as they could. After my mom passed away my sister stopped paying house payments and is still living there for over a year. She drove my mom into bankruptcy and the house was upside down due to the economy and a 2nd on it, so no money to be made if she tried to sell it. She just lives there caring little and when she is finally forced out she will just move into an apartment.

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 02:03 PM by Wrabbit2000

I think I have one simple question to ask the people who do this. Did they sign a mortgage contract and did they then fail to make the payments, as agreed and through the foreclosure process?

Now, if they did NOT and there is some funny business, as has happened on a large number in recent years then I have real sympathy for them. Although destroying the property for the next buyer is still wrong. (The bank doesn't care...what human being at the big bank was supposed to get mad or upset anyway?)

Now if they did fail on the payments, hey...Life sucks. I'm not back in school and just overflowing with "free" time because I want to retire at 38. Jobs aren't exactly out there to be had at the moment. However...... Really??? Trash the house?? Again, WHO is this supposed to piss off?? The people at the bank just check different boxes and push a few more sheets of paper with a check out to someone for repairs..IF they repair it at all.

50/50 chance these days, the bank won't even care to fix it and the people doing this will have actually helped the bank by trashing the property they go find someone to sucker into being stuck with it. Way to stick it to 'em.

Err... Yeah

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 02:10 PM by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I think I have one simple question to ask the people who do this. Did they sign a mortgage contract and did they then fail to make the payments, as agreed and through the foreclosure process?

Now, if they did NOT and there is some funny business, as has happened on a large number in recent years then I have real sympathy for them. Although destroying the property for the next buyer is still wrong. (The bank doesn't care...what human being at the big bank was supposed to get mad or upset anyway?)

Now if they did fail on the payments, hey...Life sucks. I'm not back in school and just overflowing with "free" time because I want to retire at 38. Jobs aren't exactly out there to be had at the moment. However...... Really??? Trash the house?? Again, WHO is this supposed to piss off?? The people at the bank just check different boxes and push a few more sheets of paper with a check out to someone for repairs..IF they repair it at all.

50/50 chance these days, the bank won't even care to fix it and the people doing this will have actually helped the bank by trashing the property they go find someone to sucker into being stuck with it. Way to stick it to 'em. Err... Yeah

This makes me wonder to the true motivation for this....

Lets say I like to flip houses, and so I find a house I want to flip...I have a sharpie party and get the house for 1/2 of what it would cost me before the party. I then fix it all up like I would have done in the first place and get a huge return off my flip....

Banks don't care they do everything based on formulas no matter if it is stupid or smart at the time. I tried to buy a house on a short sale. I was even going to give the prior owner 10k not to mess anything up and he was very happy with that. After four months the bank finally disapproved my offer and the house sits empty today over two years later and they can't get it sold now even 100k below my offer.

edit on 19-8-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 02:11 PM by benrl

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

thats all well and good, if we weren't in the current economic dire straights, with a large portion of the problem being at the feet of the Banking industry.

Liar loans, predatory lending etc...

Sure Ill give you a house you can't afford, with no stated income, with a payment that increases annually.

It is 50/50, the lender for lending, and the homeowner for accepting.

Except when this 50/50 burden comes down to it, the homeowner is the one that suffers, meanwhile the bank will just turn around and churn the house out to someone else.
All the while taking government bail outs to save their asses from the stupid mistakes they made...
Meanwhile the homeowner is homeless.

The end result is angry people, angry people do not act rationally.

I am not excusing the behavior, I said I understand it.

edit on 19-8-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 02:20 PM by texasgirl

The article says they're posting invitations, giving addresses and people are showing up. Breaking and entering is a crime. If these kids keep doing this without any consequences then what's to stop them from getting more brazen and doing this to an occupied house?

Someone shot an arrow that pierced the wall and hit another house. It sounds out of control to me.

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 02:23 PM by MrUncreated

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Neither situation makes malicious destruction of property "OK"

Sure it does.

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 02:25 PM by MikhailBakunin

Originally posted by Sergeant Stiletto
While I understand and sympathize with the sentiment behind this, it's just juvenile and wrong.

What if every time someone didn't like an outcome they behaved like this? It's uncivil and it's criminal. It seems the height of irony and ignorance to be pissed off at the banks uncivil and possibly criminal behavior only to do the same.

Plus think of the natural resources wasted on revenge as well as the even further devalued properties surrounding these homes...

Of course, the reasonable and rational minds will give their side and ask people to weigh out both sides of it, rightly so. Thank you.

What actions, though, didn't have pros and cons from both sides? Of course, the property surrounding will drop and it's juvenile. Why would it not? And who even questions these aspects?

If it wasn't juvenile and had ripple effects, it wouldn't be as big a statement.

Newton's 3rd Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 02:28 PM by Xtrozero

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

thats all well and good, if we weren't in the current economic dire straights, with a large portion of the problem being at the feet of the Banking industry.

Liar loans, predatory lending etc...

Sure Ill give you a house you can't afford, with no stated income, with a payment that increases annually.

It is 50/50, the lender for lending, and the homeowner for accepting.

Except when this 50/50 burden comes down to it, the homeowner is the one that suffers, meanwhile the bank will just turn around and churn the house out to someone else.
All the while taking government bail outs to save their asses from the stupid mistakes they made...
Meanwhile the homeowner is homeless.

The end result is angry people, angry people do not act rationally.

I am not excusing the behavior, I said I understand it.

Was the home owner homeless before they bought the house? Back in the early 2000 all these people were renting when Barney Frank and co pushed banks into providing anyone who wanted a house a house ... Prior to that only people who could afford house could get a loan.. AND most of these houses were bought well AFTER 2000 and so had little or no principle in them.

SO what is the family out of? I'm missing the point here, they would have had to pay rent in either case if they didn't get a house loan they could never afford in the first place. How is it that losing their house puts them on the street and not back into renting once again.

The point is most of these foreclosures should never been given a loan in the first place, and many lived free for a year or more and then trashed the house on exiting. I can't see the bank making anything off of this other than what basically comes down to rent money, but they can't sell the house again because they would lose their ass in the sell, so it sits....kind of like stocks as in you don't lose money until you sell.

Try and buy a house today...not very easy since you need to once again really qualify for it, and I'm not totally sure who is the victim here...

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 02:31 PM by benrl

reply to post by Xtrozero

Was the home owner homeless before they bought the house? Back in the early 2000 all these people were renting when Barney Frank and co pushed banks into providing anyone who wanted a house a house ... Prior to that only people who could afford house could get a loan.. AND most of these houses were bought well AFTER 2000 and so had little or no principle in them.

Yea its not like as a result of the housing crash rents have gone through the roof or anything right?

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 02:35 PM by MikhailBakunin

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

thats all well and good, if we weren't in the current economic dire straights, with a large portion of the problem being at the feet of the Banking industry.

Liar loans, predatory lending etc...

Sure Ill give you a house you can't afford, with no stated income, with a payment that increases annually.

It is 50/50, the lender for lending, and the homeowner for accepting.

Except when this 50/50 burden comes down to it, the homeowner is the one that suffers, meanwhile the bank will just turn around and churn the house out to someone else.
All the while taking government bail outs to save their asses from the stupid mistakes they made...
Meanwhile the homeowner is homeless.

The end result is angry people, angry people do not act rationally.

I am not excusing the behavior, I said I understand it.

Was the home owner homeless before they bought the house? Back in the early 2000 all these people were renting when Barney Frank and co pushed banks into providing anyone who wanted a house a house ... Prior to that only people who could afford house could get a loan.. AND most of these houses were bought well AFTER 2000 and so had little or no principle in them.

SO what is the family out of? I'm missing the point here, they would have had to pay rent in either case if they didn't get a house loan they could never afford in the first place. How is it that losing their house puts them on the street and not back into renting once again.

The point is most of these foreclosures should never been given a loan in the first place, and many lived free for a year or more and then trashed the house on exiting. I can't see the bank making anything off of this other than what basically comes down to rent money, but they can't sell the house again because they would lose their ass in the sell, so it sits....kind of like stocks as in you don't lose money until you sell.

Try and buy a house today...not very easy since you need to once again really qualify for it, and I'm not totally sure who is the victim here...

what it really puts in perspective is not the loan sharks or the real estate agents or companies or the sharpie-readied delinquents... it brings us to question the economic system in place... and it begs for a change.

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 02:37 PM by frugal

The banks new rules for lending money to buy a house have changed dramatically since 2008. They will only allow people to have three mortagages, the days of slum lords are over. The banks are asking for 20% down payments, also you need a near perfect credit history, and they ask all kinds of personal questions in a conversational forum to find out about you. The paper financial trail that a person needs to apply is substantial. The only questions they don't ask are sexual preferences and religious backgrounds. But you know they want to.

People who rent will probably never own a home, saving up 20% is very hard for some. I don't think offering renter discounts help, most of the people just tear up a property as a matter of course. There is a reason why renters rent. A certain level of responsibility is required for financial success in life.

edit on 19-8-2012 by frugal because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 02:49 PM by Jetman44

I feel that if a bank is going to forclose on any type of property( home, business or property), they should be required by law to have insurance on said property. We have to have insurance to protect the property, so should they.... my .02

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 02:56 PM by texasgirl

Originally posted by MikhailBakunin

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

thats all well and good, if we weren't in the current economic dire straights, with a large portion of the problem being at the feet of the Banking industry.

Liar loans, predatory lending etc...

Sure Ill give you a house you can't afford, with no stated income, with a payment that increases annually.

It is 50/50, the lender for lending, and the homeowner for accepting.

Except when this 50/50 burden comes down to it, the homeowner is the one that suffers, meanwhile the bank will just turn around and churn the house out to someone else.
All the while taking government bail outs to save their asses from the stupid mistakes they made...
Meanwhile the homeowner is homeless.

The end result is angry people, angry people do not act rationally.

I am not excusing the behavior, I said I understand it.

Was the home owner homeless before they bought the house? Back in the early 2000 all these people were renting when Barney Frank and co pushed banks into providing anyone who wanted a house a house ... Prior to that only people who could afford house could get a loan.. AND most of these houses were bought well AFTER 2000 and so had little or no principle in them.

SO what is the family out of? I'm missing the point here, they would have had to pay rent in either case if they didn't get a house loan they could never afford in the first place. How is it that losing their house puts them on the street and not back into renting once again.

The point is most of these foreclosures should never been given a loan in the first place, and many lived free for a year or more and then trashed the house on exiting. I can't see the bank making anything off of this other than what basically comes down to rent money, but they can't sell the house again because they would lose their ass in the sell, so it sits....kind of like stocks as in you don't lose money until you sell.

Try and buy a house today...not very easy since you need to once again really qualify for it, and I'm not totally sure who is the victim here...

what it really puts in perspective is not the loan sharks or the real estate agents or companies or the sharpie-readied delinquents... it brings us to question the economic system in place... and it begs for a change.

I agree. Unfortunately, Obama hired the people involved in this banking scandal to be on his staff: Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Mary Shapiro, Rahm Emanuel and many others. Nothing will happen unless he gets rid of these people.

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 03:32 PM by littled16

We bought our home years before the whole housing "bubble" hit, but we got it dirt cheap because the previous owners were foreclosed on and had ripped out every permanent fixture in the house out of anger. If not for the previous owners doing that we could not have afforded our home.

We were able to move in for 5% down plus $500 closing cost with a 21 year note of under $400 per month at a high- but fixed- interest. We were able to pay the house off in less than 11 years, which knocked off a LOT of what we'd have paid in interest, and we own our home free and clear! It just took time and work and we fixed things up as we could afford it. Nothing fancy but it's all ours!

If it weren't for the previous owners vandalizing the place we never could have afforded a house this big with such a huge yard. I'm grateful to them! Maybe these "Sharpie Parties" will give other people the opportunity to own their own home too!

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 03:47 PM by texasgirl

Originally posted by littled16
We bought our home years before the whole housing "bubble" hit, but we got it dirt cheap because the previous owners were foreclosed on and had ripped out every permanent fixture in the house out of anger. If not for the previous owners doing that we could not have afforded our home.

We were able to move in for 5% down plus $500 closing cost with a 21 year note of under $400 per month at a high- but fixed- interest. We were able to pay the house off in less than 11 years, which knocked off a LOT of what we'd have paid in interest, and we own our home free and clear! It just took time and work and we fixed things up as we could afford it. Nothing fancy but it's all ours!

If it weren't for the previous owners vandalizing the place we never could have afforded a house this big with such a huge yard. I'm grateful to them! Maybe these "Sharpie Parties" will give other people the opportunity to own their own home too!

Homes may be much cheaper now but it's alot harder to qualify for a loan and come up with a 20% down payment.

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 04:43 PM by 46ACE

Its been said several times above it is "irresponsible, juvenile and degenerate".Did you not "sign" (enter a contract) for a mortgage ?
So the economy went "tango uniform" and you lost your job; and now can't make the payments on your overpriced undervalued home? So lets show them how mad I am by destroying stuff

(they shouldn't have trusted me)
; Great!
My kids grew out of that stage around age 7.

Are we not men ?
We are "DEVO"??????????
(Sadly we seem to have become a nation of bratty 16 year old children)

I always get a kick out of the "operation repo"and "lizard lick recovery" scripts where the registered owner puts a bowling ball through the windshield of thevehicle as it is being "reposessed....

Hey "Einstien" you still owe the full principle on the loan ; whatever the bank loses in an auction YOU have to makeup.You might not want to use the razor knife on the seats there; "dumbazz.."

edit on 19-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2012 by 46ACE because: structure.

edit on 19-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 04:48 PM by eleven44

reply to post by jude11

HA!
I had a bunch of good friends who lived in Savannah, GA in a house that ended up being foreclosed on. They had less than a month of notice to get out. (This was about 5 years ago.)
So, what'd they do? They threw a spray paint party the night before they left for the exact same reason!
Why let the bank just get away with it that easily?
I think it's a good way of non-violent retaliation.

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 04:55 PM by 46ACE

Originally posted by eleven44
reply to post by jude11

HA!
I had a bunch of good friends who lived in Savannah, GA in a house that ended up being foreclosed on. They had less than a month of notice to get out. (This was about 5 years ago.)
So, what'd they do? They threw a spray paint party the night before they left for the exact same reason!
Why let the bank just get away with it that easily?
I think it's a good way of non-violent retaliation.

So destruction of private property is "non-violence"?

Somebody owns that house.
Lately its probably theU.S.taxpayers through freddie mac and fannie mae.

What did the bank get away with exactly? Trusting them with a "loan"?

edit on 19-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 05:23 PM by jude11

Originally posted by eleven44
reply to post by jude11

HA!
I had a bunch of good friends who lived in Savannah, GA in a house that ended up being foreclosed on. They had less than a month of notice to get out. (This was about 5 years ago.)
So, what'd they do? They threw a spray paint party the night before they left for the exact same reason!
Why let the bank just get away with it that easily?
I think it's a good way of non-violent retaliation.

I agree.

It's non violent and that's what so many people are preaching these days. Non violent demonstrations, Non violent resistance etc.

And what becomes of it? Violence from the LEO at a very easy pace towards the Non violent parties. So what is getting any message across that people are not taking it anymore?

What should people do? Sit in a circle holding hands, linking arms and singing songs? Sorry, doesn't work. That is just making it easier for the ones with batons, tazers, cuffs and guns.

So now people are choosing a different way to be seen and heard...Non violently. And what surfaces? RESPECT THE PROPERTY!!! Really?

Gotta respect the law. Gotta respect the property. And what respect is given back? None whatsoever.

I'd say that not enough is being done and it's only a short time before violence hits the American streets in a big way. And then those that were against the sharpie parties will wishing for the good old days of Non violence...with paint.

Peace

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 05:27 PM by 46ACE

Originally posted by Jetman44
I feel that if a bank is going to forclose on any type of property( home, business or property), they should be required by law to have insurance on said property. We have to have insurance to protect the property, so should they.... my .02

Probably not a bad idea but:I can see a new bill being passed("Mortgage industry"LOBBYISTs anyone?) and new closing fees being added("passed down"to the future buyer):
brokers fees;points;title insurance; "foreclosure damage insurance"..

Great; I want to pay extra closing costs for the past acts of bratty juveniles.
Hey your Corvette is insured ( I.m mad I can't afford a corvette!
Surely its o.k.for me to come over and razor YOUR upholstery and key the paint.?

It IS "insured" after all?

edit on 19-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)