Homes With No People, People With No Homes

As much as I sympathize with these homeless people, breaking and entering and letting people into a house they'll get thrown out of the next day, isn't very promising either. Shelters and fixer uppers etc? So many homes supposedly gutted by whomever and these people might get charged for it?

What has Obama said about these people? Remember all of those Fema trailers no one is using either? The system doesn't work for the poor.

Bailout the homeless, not the banks that threw them out. (hates banks)

reply to post by aleon1018


I will agree with you on one part for sure. All this money being handed over to corporations and banks should have been given to the people instead. All the corporations and banks have done so far is to hand big checks over to the CEOs that were already living fat off the hog.

As for the rest of us, well we either work our fingers to the bone or we go hungry.


Raist

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

I'm for it.

If this depression lasts long enough, the people occupying the homes will own them legally If you squat on a piece of land or in a disused home for long enough, it's not difficult to acquire the rights to the property.

It is a sad commentary on the state of the United States of America when the economy is so bad that people will happily support breaking laws.

If the hungry eventually start breaking in to occupied homes to steal food from legal residents will you also be for that?

reply to post by aleon1018


Totally agree. All that billions could have helped the homeless and poor with properly allocations of the funds to programs for training, support and investment for more jobs.

Well the bank CEO's have got plenty of fire-money to burn this winter dont they, while the homeless are out in the cold trying to stay warm.



Cheers!!!!

There is a huge vacant house up the road from me, I tried to get my son and his GF to move in. I told them after exhausting all possible avenues to reach Country wide the for-closer on the house, it was impossible and the house was not even in their records to be considered for renting.

Meanwhile all the really great stuff was being systematically moved out, the new appliances , riding lawn mower etc etc etc. Even found an itemized list of the things they were going to sell from the property next...

So, I am all for it, my advice was to keep a separate bank account where you would put any amount in per month as rent. If you were ever asked to leave, tell them you are using squatters rights. I did my homework and had even managed to do some investigative work on getting more info than I should have. I told my son he could even pay the taxes and after 4 consecutive times he would own the house. C.W. would never receive the notice that taxes were due, and so it would continue to slip through the paperwork.

The only problem I see for the Florida case are
1. Lowlives taking advantage and destruction of property.
2. Liability issues, lawsuits if injured in home.
3. Fire and natural disaster insurance, 2 different cases with or without people in the home.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by antar]

I dont support this at all. My family has owned a few "rental" properties and some for sale. And there have been many times they sat empty for long periods of time. The houses were still owned by them. They still paid property tax on them. One of the houses was all tied up in an estate issue - and nobody was living in it because of that.

So, just because a house is empty doesnt mean that someone else has the right to squat there. Plus most squaters do NOT take care of the property. They trash it, leave crap everywhere, piss, etc in the toilets and just make the house disgusting. Many are drug users and leave their drugs and drug paraphanelia around. Show me one place where squaters live that is habitable after they are gone. It will be very hard to find.

Also, I seriously doubt the neighbors would want this. Would you? Would you want that empty house next to you filled with squaters who could be drug users, thieves, criminals or who knows what else? I doubt it.

It seems like people are OK with it, as long as it wouldnt infringe upon themselves.

I feel bad for people who have fallen on bad times, but im with RCWJ on this...many people are so used to the system helping them, they refuse to help themselves. And there is help out there but many others wont take it to help get on their feet. I have volunteered at shelters before. It may not be a 4star hotel, but it is SOMETHING and it is LEGAL. And it is better then nothing.

Fact is, these people are tresspassing and breaking the law. Seriously, how would you like it if someone decided to squat in your basement, your garage, backyard, shed or whatever? Are you willing to put these people up and help them? Are you willing to live next door to them? Will you help them? Do you have an extra room in your house? If so, maybe you should consider taking in a homeless person. If you are not willing to step up to the plate and help these people, then you shouldnt be expecting others to do it or you shouldnt support their criminal behavior: tresspasing on someone else's property.


[edit on 12/8/2008 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Good point if you’re not willing to take people in that are homeless you should not support them taking something that is not theirs.

Also I wonder how many of those who are for this would be willing to let criminals’ live next door to them? What might they do to your property, or even your family if given the chance? After all they need it or want it they should be able to take it right?

There is a house for rent just around the corner from me. I guess the homeless should be allowed to take over it if they please as well too. Heck might as well let them borrow your wife/girlfriend or son/daughter not much difference when taking things that do not belong to you. Let them set up a meth lab next door as well it will be healthy for the kids to be around, besides they need to earn a living somehow.


Raist

Or how about if you go on vacation for a week or 2. Does that mean it would be OK for a squater to move in while you are gone? After all, the house is sitting there empty. And well, they need a place to sleep, eat, piss and shower too.

I think bottom line is...those who feel this is ok to do, should maybe offer up their sofa or extra room to one of these homeless people...before supporting criminal behavior.

[edit on 12/8/2008 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Haha who can afford a week or two for vacation anywhere but at home?

But yeah I understand what you are saying. I would be angered to say the least if I came home and someone was living there and had trashed the place.

Raist

reply to post by WyrdeOne


i am ignorant of US law on this issue - but in the UK to gain title to a property in this manner requires adverse posession for a period of 12 years .

not always as easy as it sounds - and ask ny link also explains - new legislation can in some instances prevent any attempt to gain a property by AP

the whole forecloseure > resposession > eviction policy has NEVER made any sense to me at all

sure - if people default on thier morgage you cannot simply ` let them get away with it `

but why not foreclose - take the deed and rent back to the defaulter ? they must be able to afford to pay ` something ` , right ?

because during the last housing market collapse [ UK ] respssesions were epidemic - and with prices at an all time low - and negative equity rampant banks were struggling to sell them at all - nevermind recoup the debt

so these propertys stod vacant for months - and one of my mates had a contract with a major lender to do ` security fitting ` to the empty propertyies - steel shheting over the windows etc and a security shutter over the door with tamper proof locks etc - cost / typical house 600 quid

he was so busy at one point - i was burning the midnight oil to help him - by fabricating the panels to the sizes he left on a list overnight - easy money

the banks were throwing good money after bad - esp as they also had security firms visiting each property once / week to make sure it stayed secure

but i digress - if the property is foreclosed - then rented back to the defaulter - the bank still gets something - the family still has a house

and if they are put on a short leash of a 6 month tennancy - renewable @ the banks discression - then the bank can sell it once prices pick up

it makes sense to me - but no one else apparently

reply to post by Mystery_Lady


don't take this the wrong way, but this economic colapse has it's bright spots. The whole world is going to learn the lesson our grandparents were trying to teach us. Credit = bad things. Savings = good things. Only buy what to can afford to pay cash for. Don't live above your means. To hell with the Jones.

I am one of the masses that charged up credit cards and bought new cars, but now I am making a change. Sure it is out of need, but a change none the less. It's time to buckle down and eat leftovers. Save whenever possible. And always help out your neighbor, we need to get back to the morales and lifestyle of the 50s. And always be positive. Good things happen to people who smile.

People with no homes.
Homes without people.
Fat cats with more money and control than they know what to do with.

What is wrong with this picture?

Quote by rcwj75:

they say they have nothing and no means to get anything..YET..they usually have a new pack of cigaretts, some drugs, or a bottle of alcohol...MONEY WELL SPENT!!

If I was homeless and was able to feed myself, I think in my destitution I'd find myself walking into the 'likka sto'. If intoxication is your only mental relief, so be it. Drugs and alcohol are a basic human right, from some people's perspective. But use them as a reprive, not a debilitating habit. Beside's, I have a home, I do D&A, and if I was homeless, I'd still do D&A.

and

I agree about money and people. It is funny how people complain about money and needing more or how hard times are but they continue to spend on going to see movies and sports.

Are people supposed to give up living? How much are they spending?
I am struggling now, but that does not mean that I don't treat myself to a fast food meal once in awhile or something.
People that are not struggling judge others for buying 'entertainment' well, so what, are they supposed to wallow in self pity and go hide where poor folks are supposed to go?
People need to have something fun to do once in awhile.
GeeZ!

reply to post by Toadmund


I am not struggling to the point some claim to be but I am not well off either. But I am smart enough to keep my money to spend on important things like real food, paying housing and heating bills, and put fuel in my car. Maybe because I was born and grew up poor that I understand that there is a limit to what we should chose to do with the money we have on hand. Why is it people always think you have to spend more money to entertain yourself or have fun?

I can entertain myself just fine I don’t need to spend $13 dollars on a two hour movie that is garbage; I do not need to spend $7 on a McDonald’s meal that will have me hungry again in less than an hour. I can watch TV at home for as long as I choose if I want to. I can spend $7 on food that will feed me for days not one meal. Again it is about priorities and where they stand. When I see and hear people complaining about how hard it is to feed their family and put fuel in their car to get to work because they have no money, and then they turn around and talk about the game they just bought, went to see, or the movie they just went to see, yes something is wrong. They could have spent that money on real food to feed their family, put fuel in their cars to get to work, or just put it in savings for later.

This feeling of needing instant gratification and sense of deserving needs to be looked at closely. A person’s priories and choices are what cause a lot of their own problems. This is not an all time guarantee but it is more often than not. From the look of the spending on sports and movies people are not just doing it every once in a while but several times a month. This is money that could be going to help them live better not being spent on instant gratification. You know the give a man a fish or teach a man a fish philosophy sort of thinking. Either one can spend that extra cash on their payments and get rid of them sooner so they can have money to play with or they can waste it and fall behind on things. Oh wait many people have already fallen behind on things, oh well I am sure they had fun doing so.

The money you spent on fast food could have fed you for days and not one meal. Think about that next time you feel the need for fast food. I do not recall the last time I ate fast food; I have not spent money on movies or sporting events in about 5-6 years. I even stopped smoking about 3 years ago. I wonder why my quality of life has improved when I am actually making less money?

Raist

[edit on 9-12-2008 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 9-12-2008 by WyrdeOne]

Originally posted by Toadmund
Are people supposed to give up living? How much are they spending?
I am struggling now, but that does not mean that I don't treat myself to a fast food meal once in awhile or something.
People that are not struggling judge others for buying 'entertainment' well, so what, are they supposed to wallow in self pity and go hide where poor folks are supposed to go?
People need to have something fun to do once in awhile.
GeeZ!

I never said the whole sports and movies thing..not sure who you quoted there...my point is this. People who DO NOT have the money to spend won't go buy a tshirt at walmart for $5...they want the abercrombie tshirt for $60. Not because they need it but they want others to view them as successful or cool. They won't go to applebees or olive garden on a date or for dinner..noooo thats to trashy..they instead go to the local yokal place that carges $50 per plate and $10 per glass of wine..and why...because its ALL about status in the US now...not about happiness...if you can spend a ton your considered SOMETHING...if you shop at walmart or eat mcdonalds your just a redneck or loser....so IMO social status and material objects help put MANY people in these situations.

reply to post by WyrdeOne


Apparently you missed the point of the post. The point was they are still stealing; they are taking what does not belong to them. They might even be taking over homes that are owned by people who rent the home but it is temporarily abandoned. It might be a family home that someone goes to on vacation that has been in the family for generations.

The point of the post was that they are thieves and they are not far from taking homes that are already filled with families. Your comment about being able to retain or keep the property is where the guns thing came from. How long will it be before someone says hey they are doing that so why can I not go in an “evict” those people because they have a home and property I want. What they are doing is no better than what the government and the banks have done all along to people. As for the story I gave you it was an example of how you must sleep and if someone wants to take your home than they have a pretty good chance of doing so. The story was to convey the fact that if we allow this we will soon be allowing the might is right issue of people taking from others whatever they chose.

When a society allows crime in one area it is not long before we rationalize crime in another area. That is what my post had to do with the current thread. Your original post seems to point that you are for such actions as taking over a home that does not belong to them. If I misread that please forgive my reading comprehension. If I read it correctly though understand that what they are doing is a crime and rationalizing crime will only gain us more crime that will become worse.

Raist

reply to post by Raist


I'm as pro property rights as they come but I had to smile at this article as it clearly states that the man is matching up only forclosed properties (meaning bank owned) with homeless people. It clearly states that the city doesn't plan to curb the practice and even insinuates that there may be legal help for people who encounter legal trouble for squatting.

It's not as if the guy is injuring a real-life owner. I think he's just having a laugh because the government is actually injuring us real life people by bailing out corporations while he bails out actual humans.

I am all for this for one reason and one reason only...

No government, power or authority has the right to sell you what they do not own.

Every Human on Earth is entitled to land to live on, a place to build a roof and grow produce.
And no one on Earth should be entitled to control that right and dictate to others that they must pay them for this.

It's like paying someone for air.

Regardless of the social structures and financial systems we have in place to support your argument of "But it's illegal!" not one person on this planet has the right to claim sole ownership of all the land and limit its use to those who offer payment to them.

This is probably one of the most messed up and warped aspects of our society.

If the people move into an abandoned property and trash the place, then the nieghbors will want the police to kick them out, but if squatters move in, take care of the place, use the address to find a job, and start offering to pay taxes and what rent they can afford, people should encourage it.

You can always throw out extremes at all levels, squatters now taking over occupied homes, and criminals invading the neighborhood, but if there are things done within reason, there is no reason why such things can not work.

In fact, I think cities should charge banks extra taxes for homes sitting empty to encourage lowering of rentals or other deals to keep people off the streeet with a level of hope. Certainly there could be a solution here.