Anyone here have feelings about "squatting" in bank-foreclosed homes?

[Ken Burch]

This was recently discussed on a show I heard on NPR. The banks take back the homes that people had bought when they got the loans banks offered them on what turned out to be unrepayable terms. Now, the homes are often just sitting empty. People in some areas, either the former owners or people who would otherwise be homeless, have taken to "squatting", or (technically)illegally occupying these homes. My own feeling is, since those homes aren't going to be bought by anyone else for awhile(or ever)why SHOULD they just sit there empty? Seems to me we should be working to get police forces and county sheriffs to refuse to evict squatters from those homes or perhaps get the banks to allow them to be used for low-income housing in exchange for any further bailouts(if anymore bailout funds are to be given to those arrogant bastards).

What's the take OTHER DU'ers have on this?

Is it worth being anal about "property rights" in this situation, or should human need come first?

[Liberal_in_LA]

1. I heard the same story. Got the feeling the squatters protected the home from being vandalized.

I have no problem with it.

[DeepBlueC]

4. the occupancy IS often vandalism

No plumbing, no electricity ... one does not have control over the 'tenants' one gets so the occupancy is not necessarily protective, often quite the oppo. Read a story about it in The New Yorker. You can't control who squats so you can't protect the property from destructive or criminal squatters. And often those evicted move right back in after the sheriff has evicted them, changing the locks themselves and starting the long process all over again.

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. I see. Didn't look at it that way

[Ken Burch]

10. Perhaps, then, a kind of "squatting lease" could be devised.

It would allow the person to remain, but require them to avoid damaging the property and to maintain it as best they could(and obviously, to avoid being a drug dealer or something).

[dysfunctional press]

17. "no plumbing, no electricity..."

not necessarily- not all foreclosed homes are gutted by vandals, and it's often only a matter of a phone call or two to have the lights and water turned on.

[bobbolink]

98. Which wouldn't happen if there was housing for everyone, in the first place!

The ugliness of capitalism begets ugliness.

[vadawg]

2. good question, but were do the property rights end

can you squat in my second home, i think it opens up a can of worms.

[Ken Burch]

13. Perhaps some worm cans SHOULD be opened up.

I'd favor taking the second homes, for example, of the auto executives who insisted on mass layoffs, and on forcing people to take deep pay cuts that made it impossible to live where they had been living, and letting the victims of that insistence stay in them. If they DEMAND sacrifice from those below them, sacrifice should be expected of them as well.

[vadawg]

27. i got a problem when the government can force you to have people live with you

or in your property without your consent and with recompense, im pretty sure theres something written down somewhere about it.

[bobbolink]

99. Great illustration of JUSTICE!

"If they DEMAND sacrifice from those below them, sacrifice should be expected of them as well."

Extremely well put!

If we had 1/10th the spine of those Iranian students....!!

[ContinentalOp]

70. There are many ways to deal with that.

Rent out your second home. Allow friends to stay there. Stay there yourself a certain amount of time out of the year. The way I understand it, this is how the law works in the Netherlands. It doesn't mean that people's vacation homes get squatted, so much as it means that large buildings left empty by developers and real estate speculators can be put to a good public use.

[timeforpeace]

3. How you going to get police/sheriff to refuse to evict?

[Ken Burch]

11. There's the precedent of the Cook County Sheriff in Illinois refusing to evict people

You could work from that.

The case could be made to them that, by allowing these people to stay, you could keep them from going to a more criminal level simply to survive.

[Lance_Boyle]

48. That sheriff refused to evict renters when their landlords defaulted

this is very different.

One other issue to consider. Safety. Squatting is anarchy - when competition erupts, the most successfully violent wins.

[noamnety]

5. My daughter has a friend who was (is?) a squatter.

It was a college-aged girl living in an abandoned house. The woman who used to live there either was forced out or died, an elderly lady who was about the same size as the my daughter's friend. The girl ended up just wearing that woman's wardrobe, which was a kind of funny, I guess. More tweed suits than what you'd normally see on a 20 year old. :)

She managed to get utilities hooked back up somehow, too. I think she just called the companies, paid the deposit and had it switched on - they don't check titles on houses.

I don't see a downside to that. The houses get maintained, it's better for the neighborhood, it's less of a drain on local resources than having those people be homeless.

I think I remember California starting to nail banks for not keeping up the maintenance on homes they own. I love that. If a homeowner doesn't keep their lawn mowed, or there is peeling paint or broken windows, in a lot of areas they get ticketed or the city does the maintenance and bills them. There's no reason private citizens should be discriminated against in those actions, while corporations are allowed to break the same zoning laws without penalty.

[TexasObserver]

6. I'm not offended by squatters in foreclosed homes.

The truth is that default and foreclosure only result in the bank or mortgage company getting back legal title to the property. Possession of the property requires further steps, unless the debtor voluntarily leaves the property.

Some lenders are paying debtors to move out on schedule, provided they don't wreck the place on the way out. That's worth looking into for debtors who are facing foreclosure.

Banks may move quickly to obtain possession after foreclosure, but they may not. It costs them money to seize property and oust those in possession.

The problem with being a squatter is never knowing when someone might show up with an eviction notice or order.

[On the Road]

8. As Long as There's No Destruction of the Premises,

it may be no harm, no foul. But the squatter does have to leave when the property is resold. It may take awhile, but there are wholesale buyers out there.

[Ohio Joe]

9. To me... This is not even a question

Should a house that has been unreasonably foreclosed on sit empty or should someone go live there in violation of the banks rights? Ummmm.... Fuck yes people should move in without hesitation or concern for the fucking bank.

Just my humble opinion :D

[Ken Burch]

12. And thanks for sharing that opinion

Your position on this makes a great deal of sense.

[Occulus]

14. Especially when you consider that a bank cannot "enjoy" the property.

Is a bank going to hook up cable, wash the dishes, have a backyard BBQ, or mow the lawn?

HELL no. A bank will LET the property sit empty, and then complain to the city police when it gets vandalized. The someone will come in and reassess the property value, and bring down the value of the adjacent properties because the home is vandalized. This lowers property values across the board, and might even put some people underwater on their mortgages (which may even be held by the same bank that allowed the oroperty to sit empty and BE vandalized in the first place).

It's a vicious circle, and the entire financial industry (WHAT industry? What products do financial types actually produce to be consumed?) lies at its heart.

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. Who decides if a house has been "unreasonably " foreclosed?

What criteria do they use to make a determination?

[Ken Burch]

43. What we know about banking practices in this country since the repeal of Glass-Steagall

pretty much decided that for us.

BTW, you WOULD agree that repealing Glass-Steagall was a mistake, and Clinton's support for repeal was as well, wouldn't you? Glass-Steagall was one of the most important pieces of New Deal legislation. Since it fell, Mr. Potter has pretty much been kicking George Bailey's ass. These days, George would go ahead and jump off the bridge.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. Are you suggesting that there were no home foreclosures before the repeal of Glass-Steagall?

:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

52. No, but you'd have to admit there were far fewer

After what happened in September, how can you still DEFEND Glass-Steagall repeal? It shows that banks can't be trusted to be responsible without being heavily regulated.

[Freddie Stubbs]

85. I'm not defending the repeal of Glass-Steagall. But I'm also opposed to hare-brained schemes

like letting squatters live in foreclosed homes, as they would unnecessarily make mortgage lending less profitable, thus restricting home ownership opportunities.

[Ohio Joe]

49. We'll make it easy

I'll decide.

After much looking around at the state of things and the huge part of the blame that I have decided belongs at the feet of the banks, If a house is empty, a homeless person should move in.

There... that was not too hard.

I'm sorry but... fuck the banks... fuck'em hard... fuck their corporate person-hood and fuck their douchbaggery and greed.

People need to come first.

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. If you do that, there might not be many banks willing to loan money for home purchases in the future

How will people purchase homes if no one is willing to loan them money to do so?

[Ohio Joe]

55. I don't get it

How would people living in empty houses have any impact on a banks descion to loan others money?

Perhaps if banks were not so obsesed with trying to get blood from a stone and were willing to work with people so they could keep their houses and make payments, they would not be in so much trouble.

[Freddie Stubbs]

86. Bank loan money on collateral. With a mortgage, the home is usually the collateral

If some bum moves into the home and wrecks the place after foreclosure, the bank will be out of a lot of money. Therefore their motivation to lend money for home purchases is decreased.

[Ohio Joe]

92. Homeless does not equal bum

Homeless taking shelter does not make them Vandals. I am not advocating teen parties being held there but rather regular people taking shelter in an otherwise empty house.

[Freddie Stubbs]

93. Bums or not, people living in a home where they do not have a financial stake have a tendency to not

take care of the place.

[Ohio Joe]

95. Neither do banks when they let them sit empty

But I'm done with your non-sense. You've made clear you prefer the greed of banks to the actual lives of people. It is that way of thinking that got us in the mess we are in now, it will not help us get out.

[bobbolink]

101. Thank you for your assumption that all homeless people are "bums"

Can I say what I think of you?

[bobbolink]

100. I like the way you think. THANKS!

As a homeless person, you make me feel more valuable, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate that!

[Lance_Boyle]

51. What about homes that have been reasonably foreclosed on?

Foreclosure is only "unreasonable" if there was contract fraud involved in the mortgage - under pretty much every other circumstance you sign on the dotted line that the lender will foreclose if you stop making agreed-upon payments. And that's perfectly reasonable.

[Ken Burch]

56. predatory lending is, by definition, contract fraud

n/t.

[Lance_Boyle]

57. I don't believe that those two terms mean the same thing.

I'd be very interested in seeing any evidence you can present to support your claim.

If you signed a mortgage contract that spelled out the fact that your interest rate might adjust several years down the line, and then several years down the line your interest rate adjusts, you do not get to "unsign" that contract. You honor it or you breach it. If the latter, the lender forecloses. No fraud here. Nor predation, for that matter.

[Lance_Boyle]

53. doop x2

[JVS]

15. Why squat when you can set up a meth lab, rent or buy a nicer place with the money, and maybe even..

contaminate the house so badly that the bank has to spend large quantities of money cleaning up your mess? ;-)

[Ken Burch]

16. Allowing squatting would probably reduce the number of spaces AVAILABLE to set up meth labs

It's a slur to imply that most squatters would be involved in "tweaking".

And, in case you've somehow forgotten, at the moment our government and we, the taxpayers, are spending huge amounts of money cleaning up THE BANKING SYSTEM'S messes.

[JVS]

18. Squatters will be driven off by those who are capable of using the place more profitably.

Also don't confuse meth users with meth producers. I'm sure that there are people who already have plans for the houses that are foreclosed on.

[Ken Burch]

23. At the moment, and for the next several years, NO ONE is going to be using those homes "profitably"

Allowing free occupancy could be made a condition of the bailouts. After all, it's largely the banks' fault that those properties ended up in foreclosure.

[JVS]

24. The meth cookers have a more profitable plan, and they're not going to let regular people stand in..

their way.

[vadawg]

25. bingo, no matter what the squatters think, if theres a criminal element who want the property

for whatever reason a few squatters are not going to stop them...

[Ken Burch]

44. The issue there is to go after the meth industry, not to demonize squatters

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

62. Attacking squatters does nothing to stop meth cookers, then

You can't blame squatters for the meth industry. And it goes without saying that a zero-tolerance policy on squatting would not impact the meth industry in the slightest.

Nice strawman.

[JVS]

66. Nice strawman yourself. Why you view it on an attack on squatters to point out that...

the squatters who cook meth will profit more, is ridiculous. Go ahead and pick a fight, why don't ya?

[Ken Burch]

67. The straw man was to bring meth into this as a way to attack squatting

The implication was that squatting and meth production were inseparable. Making sure the houses are kept vacant won't stop meth cooking.

[JVS]

68. No. The statement was" why should someone be content to squat when they can produce drugs?"

But you've decided to become the great protector of all who dwell illegally and act like a twit about it. So be it.

On edit: you already have very few allies on this site, go ahead and distort the statements of people who actually agree with you once in a while though and see how that works out.

[Ken Burch]

71. As to why someone should be content to squat when they can produce drugs

The answer is that you can't assume a person is devoid of morality simply because that person is poor.

[JVS]

74. You're calling areas where there are drug problems devoid of morality! I'm disgusted by your...

assumption!

:grr:

[Ken Burch]

78. Not areas with drug problems. People who cook meth

There's a MASSIVE difference between the two statements.

I was defending poor people and squatters, not attacking depressed areas. And you know it.

[LanternWaste]

89. I imagine each and every..

I imagine each and every magnanimous program ever devised has been abused to one extent or another. Yet to me, that is not a reason in and of itself to prevent that program from being instituted.

[Zavulon]

19. I am absolutely against squatting.

We've got a lot of that going on in the DC area, and often the squatters treat these places like toilets - literally. Some of these houses have shit and piss everywhere, broken windows and so on. I don't happen to think that worrying about property rights is in any way being "anal," and I don't think that anyone has the right to break into a house that isn't theirs and damage it in any way. Going further, even if these squatters treat the place like gold, if they don't have permission to be there they should be evicted and convicted.

By the way, there is nothing "technical" about the illegality of squatters occupying these homes. This is no different than saying that a homeless bank robber "technically" made an "undocumented withdrawal." Squatting is illegal, and I think it should lead to punishment. Your "human needs" argument could be used to justify tons of crimes that I'm sure you wouldn't find acceptable, so I'm not willing to excuse this one.

[Ken Burch]

22. In the present situation, what good comes of putting property "rights" first?

We are living in times, after all, that echo Brecht's great question:

"But which is the greater crime? To rob a bank, or to own one?"

[Zavulon]

26. To rob a bank is the greater crime. Owning a bank is legal, robbig one isn't.

What good comes from focusing on property rights (note lack of quotation marks in my version) would be obvious )or a bit more clear) if you believed in them. You obviously don't, so no explanation from me will be of any use (or, presumably, interest) to you. I'll give it a shot, even though this is obviously going to be a waste of time for both of us.

Let's put it this way. If you (I use "you" in the general sense, not you personally) are needy and knock on my door to ask for help, I'll probably help you at that time (not daily or permanently, but I probably would there and then). If you break into my house thinking that you have the right to take whatever you want from me and that my rights to keep what I own are non-existent, you may very well get shot and if you do I won't feel very bad about it. If that seems repugnant to you, then my initial thought (we're too far apart on this issue to have a productive discussion about it) is probably correct.

If I ever get evicted from my home, would you mind if I just stormed into yours, ate your food, trashed your place and told you that my right to live in / on your property without your permission trumps your right to keep it the way you want? If so, I'd like your address - just in case. If your argument is that nobody is living in houses which are legally owned and therefore these squatters have some sort of right to ignore the legal ownership of them by others, I'll just move into a place in your house which you don't use as a bedroom - your basement, your attic, your living room - whatever I want.

If I own a bunch of houses that I want to eventually sell when the market rights itself or is righted by other means, I don't want people breaking in and making them harder to sell, period. I believe 100% in property rights. You don't, so we'll never see eye-to-eye.

[Mythsaje]

28. "To steal a loaf of bread when you are starving is still a crime."

Indeed it is.

But law and justice are two very different things.

[Zavulon]

30. So the bottom line is when and where do you draw the line on

what laws are acceptable to break under which circumstances. Rather than the impossible task of taking millions and millions of cases on a case-by-case basis, I'd prefer to see the law enforced.

Better still, where do you draw the line on comparative wealth and poverty? I assume that if John Doe is a millionaire and you're starving, you don't see much of a problem with the thought of stealing a loaf of bread out of his kitchen. However, if you're starving and have nothing but that loaf of bread, and I'm starving and steal it from you, is that okay - or, as you put it, "justice?" After all, my motivation is the same as yours was when you stole that loaf of bread from Mr. Doe.

The only "justice" I see in theft is if you steal something back from me after I've stolen it from you. Sorry, but I believe very strongly in property rights and don't think having things stolen from me by someone poorer is "justice," it's just theft, which I detest and cannot excuse. Same with these squatters and their crime.

[Mythsaje]

31. Some say capitalism is theft...n/t

[Ken Burch]

40. I think we could pretty strongly argue that the predatory lending practices of the banks

combined with the insistence of the upper class in the Western world, since the mid 70's, of refusing to allow wages to continue to rise, but forcing prices up anyway, and lending working people money at unrepayable rates and on near-criminal terms instead of increasing the wages they earn for the wealth they create, IS, in fact, a form of theft.

Thus, allowing people to stay in homes that they'd lived in and the banks then foreclosed on is, in the final analysis, a clear case of "stealing something back" from the banking/credit system after the system stole it from the people. If the wealthy hadn't insisted on stopping wage increases, the current situation wouldn't exist and working people would NOT be living each in mortal fear of being thrown out of their homes into the streets.

You might as well face it...the system loyal to US, my friend. Therefore, there's no reason for anyone who isn't a millionaire now to feel any loyalty to the system. We could easily cooperate with each other and create something better.

[Zavulon]

97. I don't argue that we could create something better, but

I don't think ignoring laws that are unpleasant or inconvenient is the way to go. I do not approve of your final analysis, and I never will. If I own houses and borrowers default on them, I wouldn't for a moment feel obligated to let them live there for free or even tolerate it. You may think breaking the law in such circumstances is acceptable, but I never will.

I honestly don't know if you're trying to change my mind, but if you are you should be advised that you have no chance of success. And remember, all of this started out by you merely asking my (and others') opinion(s).

[Ken Burch]

34. Isn't that quote about stealing bread something Inspector Javert said "Les Miserables"?

:eyes:

[Speck Tater]

20. Why not apply to the bank to become a resident caretaker for free rent?

Seems to me that's a win-win. Of course the banksters are a bunch of heartless greedy bastards that can't bring themselves to permit win-win. They would rather see the property become worthless through vandalism and neglect than to actually help anyone in need. Being human is not in their genes, it seems.

[SleeplessInAlabama]

29. This, in my opinion is the only acceptable way of

going about it without legal issues.

[redqueen]

38. Interesting. (nt)

[hunter]

39. Owners should be fined for leaving houses empty.

I think "resident caretakers" are a good idea. Fine the bank a $1000 a month for leaving a house empty, or let them find a full time resident caretaker.

We could even set it up to benefit low income senior citizens living on social security, for example. Maybe a guy who's wife is in the hospital for a few weeks could live nearby in a foreclosed home, or elderly parents living with their kids could have a little vacation they couldn't otherwise afford.

[Ken Burch]

47. Also, I think at the moment banks get tax breaks if the foreclosed properties depreciate

Therefore, the banks have AN INCENTIVE to let the houses sit empty and fall apart.

[surrealAmerican]

84. I doubt that we can go that far, but requiring caretakers ...

... resident or otherwise, seems like something a municipality could do. I like the idea of having a formal agreement with the bank, that keeps otherwise homeless people housed though.

[Ken Burch]

42. Well, I don't know if most banks, at this point, offer people the chance to do that.

If they did, then people SHOULD try to do that if they can.

[taught_me_patience]

21. It's trespassing and should not be tolerated. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

32. I've Read Of Some Being Bulldozed Now Due To Squatting

Without ownership there's no responsibility and many homes that ended up squatted in are vandalized and become health and public safety hazzards. There was a local newspaper article not long ago talking about how banks were starting to bulldoze homes they didn't think were worth maintaining or couldn't turn around quick. They'd rather hold onto empty land and hope when the economy turns around to make another fortune on the same parcel of land.

[greguganus]

33. A lot of those bulldozed homes are due to the fact that vandals have made them unsafe to live in.

The banks don't want to deal with lawsuits from squatters being injured in these houses. Why continue to do repairs on the houses when they will continue to be vandalized after repairs are made?

[hugo_from_TN]

35. I'm buying a bank foreclosed home.

Currently waiting for the close, but if any squatter were to take up resident I would call the sheriff's office.

[Ken Burch]

45. Good luck...but don't be surprised if, in a couple of years

YOU end up being one of the squatters. The current set-up is about trying to make as many people homeless as possible.
The financial system isn't on our side, my friend.

[Statistical]

37. Squatters tend to destroy the property

which reduces the chance they will every be sold without even more money to repair them.

[Ken Burch]

41. That's likely due to the fact that, as things stand now, squatters are in an illegal status

were "squatting contracts" to be created, letting them stay where they are in exchange for an agreement not to trash the place and to provide for upkeep if they are financially capable, this problem could be overcome.

[hugo_from_TN]

59. Umm, I believe that 'agreement' is called a lease.

[ContinentalOp]

46. We need squatting laws like the Netherlands has.

They should apply to empty lots in urban and suburban areas too so that ugly dirt lots can be turned into gardens and concrete lots can be used as free parking.

[PassingTimeHere]

60. And does the Netherlands have our court system?

Does the squatter get to sue the owner if he gets hurt on the property? We have a few acres of vacant farmland right now. If a homeless family sets up a living situation on my property, and one of their kids falls out of a tree (along the perimeter of the property), and breaks his neck , how many millions will I be sued for?

This subject is a lot more complicated that it would appear at first glance.

[ContinentalOp]

69. It's not really that complicated. This stuff could easily be dealt with.

For example, I would exempt any rural areas and restrict it to urban and suburban areas. And property owners would simply have to purchase liability insurance. If they can afford to own a property that sits around unused I'm sure they can afford liability insurance.

But at any rate it's a moot point since we will clearly never have any pro-squatting laws in the U.S. Americans worship too much at the altar of private property above any and all public interest.

[IdaBriggs]

58. My sister had to deal with a squatter.

My sister and her fiance bought a new home, and my sister couldn't afford to pay two mortgages, so she was renting out her home. (We are in Michigan; her mortgage was seriously upside down because that is just the way it is around here.)

Anyway, her tenants got into financial problems, and quit paying the rent. She had to go through the eviction process (because they didn't just NOT pay the rent and leave -- they stuck around and let *her* figure out how to cover the mortgage, because it wasn't like it was impacting them -- just *her* credit, and the property she had invested years into).

So, she goes through the eviction process, and on fairly good terms (owing her a couple of thousand dollars -- amazing how good natured people can be while they are ripping you off/destroying your life!) they move out.

Only they moved a "roommate" in before they moved out, and she decided to stay.

With no rental agreement (which says basic stuff, like "I agree I will not conduct illegal activities on the premises/will notify the landlord in the event of someone being injured, and oh by the way -- pay rent on a timely basis), she decided she could stay there. And, since my sister hadn't put "and occupants" on the eviction stuff (since the previous lease agreement said "no subletting to people not vetted by the landlord" she didn't think she had to, plus she had no idea this person was living there), the woman made plans to live there for (as she explained it) eight to ten months while she dragged my sister through hell.

The fact my sister was going to lose the property because there was no rental income coming in was really of no interest to this person; she claimed to make $1,000 a week, but felt no need to pay "normal" bills like rent, or utilities.

Seriously, why should she? Especially when she had someone *else* to worry about things like that?

My sister, by the way, was more than willing to rent the place to her (she wasn't trying to make a profit -- just cover the mortgage), and the woman filled out an application; however, everything that was put down was "unverifiable" -- her boss, for example, couldn't be contacted to verify employment (no pay stubs, either), blah, blah, blah. In normal times, my sister would have rejected her as a matter of course because she wasn't trustworthy, collectable, or frankly, honest, which are bad things when you are entrusting property into someone else's hands.

Anyway, one evening all of her stuff supposedly disappeared. (We think the folks being evicted took it, but have no proof. She claimed there were thousands of dollars worth of possessions, which came as a shock to the folks being evicted, who told us she'd been sleeping on their couch.) She accused my sister of "stealing" from her, and threatened to *SUE HER* for not making sure she had a safe place to stay!!! My sister changed the locks (at this point, no one knew *WHO* had copies of the keys, including the neighborhood teenagers), and agreed to give the squatter a key if she signed a standard rental agreement. The woman refused. In the meantime, a very scary man (who was also *really* nice, but had lots of tattoos, etc.) was moved into one of the other rooms in the place, and the squatter, who thought she was going to enjoy a three bedroom house while someone else footed the bills, decided to go leach off of someone else.

My sister did still go through the legal eviction process, and has a judgment against her, but everyone knows it won't be collected from; my sister is currently counting her blessings that the woman went away after "only" making life miserable for a few weeks. In the meantime, she lost nearly three months of rent/mortgage money, which financial blow she didn't deserve.

How do I feel about squatters? Hate 'em. Pay your own damn bills, just like the rest of us, and quit pretending you are "entitled" to something for free because you know how to game the system. And if I want to do charity work by supporting someone who can't (versus won't) pay their own living expenses (because heaven knows there are people out there who need it), I want to pick the folks I'm willing to support -- not just some low-life who decided that paying rent was an "optional" thing.

Want to hear some other sad stories? My husband and I are still recovering from having the Evil Queen Bitch From Hell moving into one of our rental properties. She is out now, but played me for a fool to the tune of $7,000 -- and she pretty much destroyed us financially. Does she care? Nope -- she's already moved onto the next sucker, and here is a shock: we weren't even the first!

If you want to do charity work, go for it. You have *no right* to impose your version of "charity" on anyone else.

[hugo_from_TN]

61. Very enlightening post.

It's very easy for people to feel sorry for the poor squatters when they don't have to put up with the leaches and cheats.

[scheming daemons]

65. Ken Burch, please read Ida's post..... your opinion on squatting will change

[noamnety]

82. It's an interesting post but

it doesn't address the issue raised in the OP, which was about squatting in bank-foreclosed homes, not homes that individuals own, or second homes, or rental properties that individuals own.

[ContinentalOp]

73. That doesn't have a whole lot to do with squatting the way it works in other countries though.

Which is why we could use some squatting laws. There's a large difference between putting an abandoned building to use that's been sitting empty for a decade, and the situation you describe.

[KansDem]

87. Sorry to hear about your sister's (and your) plight

I work in a public library. We have "do it yourself" books and forms for many different uses (contracts for all occasions, divorce, agreements, etc) including landlord/tenet agreements and contracts.

If you knew the number of people who come in looking for information on landlord rights, (maybe) you'd be surprised. Many of these folks inherited property, i.e., a house, and they decide to rent it out for a little extra income. However, they failed to look into what they can and can't do with regard to renters. And they overlook the large number of contracts they could have used to avoid these kinds of messes. These are generic and just need to be filled out...

When they come into the library and start with, "I inherited my mom's house when she died and decided to..." I know where they're going. Everytime. They rented it out without checking and they got some savvy renters who rake them over the coals.

DUers, if you inherit property and want to rent it out, GO TO THE PUBLIC LIBRARY AND INFORM YOURSELF OF WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO!!! Make use of the contracts--you need only copy or print them and fill them in with names, dates, agreements, conditions, rent, etc, and signatures. You will be protecting yourself!

(sorry for shouting but I've seen situations like this too many times...)

[IdaBriggs]

91. We have pretty solid rental agreements, which is good, because

Michigan is a "tenant's rights" states. My family is okay with this in general, and we obey the law to a ridiculous degree. (We are *NOT* slumlords; we are proud to be able to provide good quality affordable housing to folks who want a nice place to live in a decent neighborhood for a reasonable price.) This was the first time we'd dealt with a "squatter" issue -- and it was very enlightening. What I found particularly "enlightening" was the woman's attitude of entitlement. She truly believed there was nothing wrong with just staying at the property without paying a dime for eight to ten months, and gleefully informed my sister that was her intent. We dealt with the police three different times that week; most educational, but not in a good way. However, at a certain point, when dealing with crooks, you just get screwed. The agreement clearly stated "no sub-letting", but what do you do when someone gives someone a key without permission?

The big lesson was put "and occupants" which means the eviction process doesn't re-start when you find folks who *aren't* supposed to be living there -- and this was a new one on my family.

To be fair, *my* Evil Queen Bitch from Hell (patent pending on the name -- LOL!) was a good deal of my fault; she fed me a line of crap, and I fell for it. Its going to be a long time before I'm over that one -- which means in the future if someone explains they'll catch up on the rent with their income tax refund because they are dealing with a lung tumor, I'm probably going to put on my evil landlord face, and evict 'em anyway: "Sorry, but the last person who told me that bought herself a new car with the money, while her husband was losing a good portion of his lung, and they weren't sure he was going to survive the surgery; GET OUT!!!"

At a certain point, one has to accept responsibility for playing the fool. For some reason, I'm still hoping to hear about the karmic paybacks I'm convinced will be coming her way.

[slackmaster]

63. If you don't own it and don't have permission from the owner to be there

You shouldn't be there.

[Ken Burch]

64. millions of Native Americans would agree with that statement

but not for the reasons you meant.

[JVS]

72. I am against squatting, but I support government seizure of the property from the banks...

and the assignment of poor people to the houses in a manner similar to section 8 housing.

Squatting has no document trail and ultimately creates a very uncertain and potentially dangerous situation in which you have neighborhoods filled with people who come and go at a whim, nobody knows who they are, they cannot easily be held accountable for their actions in the area, and different squatters can get into competition for spaces that neither has a legal right to and thus the conflict has no legal mediation and becomes a matter of force.

[noamnety]

83. eminent domain

to benefit citizens instead of corporations. There's a concept. :)

[EFerrari]

75. I think these dwellings should be organized by their county

or parishes after there are so many in a neighborhood. Having them empty is unsafe and God knows people need the housing.

[JVS]

76. Agreed.

Local government organizing them also removes the potentials for problems that disorganized squatting can cause. Although I'm not sure whether the local or the state level would be the best to carry out the task.

[EFerrari]

79. The owners should have to pay for part of the admin costs.

Every county has a Dept of Health and Human Services, too. State level seems unmanageable to me. County is probably the closest to workable.

[LiberalAndProud]

77. Unfortunate consequences.

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2009/06/30/news/local/doc4a4a31cf34896914571516.txt?orss=1

As Blowers was speaking Tuesday at about 6 p.m., police were speaking to Milbourn. Prior to being questioned by police Tuesday, Milbourn told the Journal Star that he has been homeless for six or seven years, and that he had legally lived at 2025 R St. at one point.

“That was my house,” he said. “That don’t look like my house no more.”

Earlier Tuesday, officials said the fire Monday at 2025 R St. had been started by a discarded cigarette butt. The fire next door appeared suspicious as well.

Public safety officials are pushing for buildings on the block, slated to become the site of the headquarters of Assurity Life Insurance Co., to be demolished as soon as possible, Chief Fire Inspector Bill Moody said Tuesday.

[EFerrari]

80. That's a result of human habitation, not of squatting, though.

Plenty of fires where occupancy is nice and legal.

[LiberalAndProud]

81. Perhaps.

"three house fires over the past two days"

You could be right.

[harun]

88. House next door to me was up for sale

then it said sold but no one ever moved in. Been sitting there for about five months with no one ever having gone to it. Weeds are growing up quite a bit. Funny, I grow tomatoes and I see a tomato plant growing out of a crack in the driveway. If no one ever shows up and they get ripe I will grab them, better than letting them go to waste.

Anyway I know the inside of the place is actually nicer than my place. Don't know if a bank is sitting on it or an investor. I would rather someone stay in it to keep the lawn mowed and stuff. This topic brings up a lot of interesting questions and responses about these types of scenarios.

[LanternWaste]

90. I'm not opposed to the intent of the idea...

I'm not opposed to the intent of the idea. However, outside of the abstract and as a practical matter, I have little to no opinion being as I am too unaware as to the consequences.




"I met in the street a very poor young man... His hat was old, his coat worn, his cloak was out at the elbows, the water passed through his shoes -- and the stars through his soul" - Victor Hugo

[Arkansas Granny]

94. NOW on PBS covered this subject just a few weeks ago. It's was a very

interesting show. You can watch it on line.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/index.html

[snooper2]

96. who is paying the electric bill,

who is going to fix the hot water tank that started leaking
who is paying when a homeless tenant breaks a leg
who is paying to have the gas turned on

[KoKo]

102. We are on our own these days. If we squat, leave keys on counter or default our credit cards

...it's our only way to strike back at what has been done to us. Our tax dollars are bailing out the very folks who screwed most folks along with the Fed and the Bushies, Clinton back to Reagan.

Hell Yeah! Do what you have to do to survive.

Why not? The laws in America are now just for the very privileged and wealthy. The little person needs their break and it's not waiting for health care that's gonna' take care of it all.