10 NYC Homeless Activists Arrested at Encampment Democracy Now 7/27/09

[balantz]

Run time: 00:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlrzG0_53-E   Posted on YouTube: July 27, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: July 28, 2009 By DU Member: balantz Views on DU: 722

 
10 NYC Homeless Activists Arrested at Encampment

Ten homeless activists were arrested in New York last week after the organization Picture the Homeless occupied a vacant lot in Harlem owned by JPMorgan Chase to protest against a shortage of affordable housing in the city. Rev. Frank Morales: "We're no longer believing in the Bloomberg administration five-year plan to end homelessness. Its been an abject failure. So were saying we are going seize the vacant land. Were going to seize the vacant apartments. Were going to take them in the interests of the people who need the housing."

[imdjh]

1. Homeless is a broad category. I wonder how it breaks down financially.

If we were to divide the homeless into categories:

• Those who are beyond rehabilitation

• Those who can be rehabilitated

• Those who are homeless part time and/or the working homeless

• Those who actually live in homeless accommodation (like shelters and vouchers)

• Squatters (by default, political or social movement)

• Homeless by choice (People who don't actually have to be homeless but who would rather be homeless in NY than not homeless in Ohio)

I wonder how much a person in each of these categories costs government, and how much some of these folks cost private property owners. Then e could get a real grasp of some cost effective solutions.

A militant priest beating his chest about violating property rights, even those of unpopular corporations, and perhaps aspiring to some kind of Squatters Rights thing like they have in the Netherlands (which will never fly here) wouldn't appear to be making a lot of sense unless he's figuring that militancy will lead to negotion and creation of social service systems not currently in place.

[grahamhgreen]

2. Selfishness is not a virtue. Abandoned buildings should be given to the homeless after 2 years.

[imdjh]

3. It would be interesting to see what squatters rights actually look like in Dutch law.

Confiscating the property of others is theft. I don't know what you mean by "should be given". Who should give? The property owners? That would be their choice to do or not do.

But to find a workable solution which doesn't involve theft would be more difficult though probably not impossible.

No property owner is going to allow homeless people to occupy a building he is holding for future use or acquisition without being legally indemnified.
No insurance company is going to knowingly insure a property which isn't secure.
If the city is going to maintain the property, then it has to be as a gift to the homeless and not as an improvement to the landlord, otherwise he's going to have to declare it as income.
If the city is going to play landlord by proxy then it's going to have to assume the responsibility of maintaining the safety and security of the property.
No city is going to take that on (as long as taxpayers are still in control) without being indemnified.
Squatters will necessarily be stripped of all legal recourse relating to occupying the building.
That will probably go to court and be undone, at which point the squatters will be ejected and the building secured against trespass.

[grahamhgreen]

4. If you abandon a property, it is not theft. It is salvage. Like a boat abandoned on the ocean.

This helps to eliminate the implosion of a city and it's real estate values, like we see in Detroit.

If you own a property - sell it or rent it or improve it every 2 or 3 years! Simple. Otherwise, it is abandoned and should be allowed to be squatted.

Really in this country, since we have to pay property tax, you're only renting anyway....

I lived in New Zealand and they had a squatter law, this is how I was told it worked.

[imdjh]

5. There is very little in the way of abandoned property in most places.

The only property which would qualify as abandoned in the US, is property on which the taxes have not been paid, and which remains in the possession of the government because no one wanted to buy it at auction. There are also condemned properties, which are deemed not habitable and in which no one should be living.

If you own a property - sell it or rent it or improve it every 2 or 3 years! Simple. Otherwise, it is abandoned and should be allowed to be squatted.

A property that is deeded to an owner who pays taxes on it is not abandoned. He is also responsible for that property, and to allow unknown others to live in it without the owner's permission is not only theft, it exposes him to tremendous liability.

[grahamhgreen]

6. That's what the squatting laws are trying to address - we should not allow people to agregate large

property holdings without using them productively.

It is wrong, immoral, and unethical to have large tracks of empty houses when so many people are homelessness, IMHO.

The law would basically be something like, "If you own a property - sell it, or rent it, or improve it every 2 or 3 years! Simple. Otherwise, it is abandoned and should be allowed to be squatted." I believe that's how it is in NZ.

In another sense, because we must pay property taxes or have our property taken by the government, we are all just renting from "We the People", anyway.

So, instead of "We the People" giving our tax money to the banks who use it to sit on dead properties, we can just force the banks to give the properties back to 'We the People".