A story about a squatter in an upscale neighborhood

[Richard]

Well one thing is certain... we're not supposed to actually "plan" any illegal activities on this forum. That's a no-no to the Forum rules. But what would happen if some neighborhood hooligans were to flatten the tires on his creeps car when it was parked in that house's driveway. Would that slow or stop his escape before the police got there?

Or maybe wrap a chain around the axel and
a tree , it looks like it works in the movies.

[socks_mahoney]

glad to know who have the good hearts and who have the no-hearts on the forum.

FYI, Det_Ard, I have let homeless people sleep on my couch many many times, but that's not a solution. People need their own place.

Also, why should I house them when there are plenty of vacant homes for them? There are 24 homes for every homeless people in the United States. The writing is on the wall.

sorry to be so insistent. just a little upset at the board. anyhow, still would be interested to hear what OP saw when he put a ladder up on the house to look in the none-blackout windows??

[Bham1982]

And to you Mr Birmingham1982: the cause of homelessness is irrelevant.

Wait a sec, you seek to "cure" homelessness, but you're unconcerned with the causes of homelessness?

How do you seek to solve a problem for which you don't have the most basic understanding?

Detroit has tens of thousands of homes than can be purchased for a pittiance. If homelessness is somehow caused by a mismatch between financial means and housing affordability, then Detroit would be a housing nirvana.

Who cares that the banks "gave the loan on the home". In reality, we THE PEOPLE, gave the loan on the home. The trillions of dollars [[yes trillions, TARP was only the beginning) that we gave the bank more than made up for losses they may incur.

You do realize that TARP consisted solely of high interest loans, correct? No money was "given". And that the Treasury made money off TARP, correct?

And the banks don't "give the loan on the home". The bank owns the home, and credits you the funds, so that you can eventually own the home.

Housing is a human right. All power to the people!

If you believe it's a fundamental human right protected by the Constitution, then you should push for housing guarantees in the form of social/subsidized housing. It's obviously counterproductive towards your greater goals when you trespass and occupy others' property.

[p69rrh51]

glad to know who have the good hearts and who have the no-hearts on the forum.

FYI, Det_Ard, I have let homeless people sleep on my couch many many times, but that's not a solution. People need their own place.

Also, why should I house them when there are plenty of vacant homes for them? There are 24 homes for every homeless people in the United States. The writing is on the wall.

sorry to be so insistent. just a little upset at the board. anyhow, still would be interested to hear what OP saw when he put a ladder up on the house to look in the none-blackout windows??

You completely did not get Det_ard's comments. So why won't you use your resources together with your friends to help the homeless into decent housing? I bet you could find a few on here that would at least donate their time to repair one of the thousands of inexpensive homes in Detroit. Your hypocrisy is not playing on here. Put you money where our mouth is! I bet with some leg work you could find funding for a couple homes for deserving people here in the city. Let me know if you decide to actually do something I would lend my time to any project to renovate homes in the area.

[socks_mahoney]

There are many projects like that already underway. Such as the Occupy men in Golden Gate, the squatters in Brightmoor, and many other neighborhoods across the city.

The hypocrisy I see is OP, who is worried about the house being taken by vandals, but gets upset when a minister of all people takes it over [[even if by dubious means, many of the banks can't track down the paperwork that says they own the homes anymore either).

We're yet to hear anything except for "there are black bags over the windows" that the squatter has done to the home. Sounds like everything is kosher to me. OP? Anything?

[Bham1982]

You do have the right to housing but no where does it say you have the right to complementary housing.

Just based on the posted exerpt, it says nothing of the sort.

It says you have a right to a "standard of living" to provide for housing. But it implies nothing about housing itself as a right.

So, if taken literally, govt. should be in the business of redistribution of wealth in the form of public assistance or some other welfare mechanism. But it doesn't indicate anything about direct provision of housing.

[corktownyuppie]

But it doesn't indicate anything about direct provision of housing.

I'm gonna go even further on this, because I'm so angry. Even IF IT DID guarantee housing for all citizens, that's still a thousand steps away from guaranteed housing "of your own choosing".

I care about the homeless, too. If you call me heartless, then so be it. But I can't count the number of times I've bought or brought homeless food and sustenance. And I'm not talking about organized can drives or writing big checks for acknowledgment and ego.

I'm talking about how last night at 10pm I felt like having a chicken shwarma and the homeless guy outside of Bucharest asked me for $3 to buy a hot dog. I told him I had no cash, but that I'd be glad to buy him a chicken shwarma. He insisted that it have no lettuce [[lol) and we sat together and ate.

Even if you interpret the language to mean that he should be guaranteed a free place to live, that hardly means that he gets to walk into the neighborhood of his own choosing, pick an empty house, and then take it.

[corktownyuppie]

p.s. For as much bitching about how much bullshit it is that the banks own these homes, I think it's important to remember that the banks DON'T EVEN WANT THE HOMES. You know what they want? They want the $400,000 that they PAID TO THE OLD OWNER to be paid back to them by the borrower. They don't want the f-ing house. They just want their 400k back.

There's a lot of people to blame for the clusterfuck we're in. But to just assume that banks are evil and blah blah blah is totally misguided. Don't forget that at the end of the day that $400,000 that they lent to the buyer isn't even the bank's money. It's the depositor's money. Who are the depositors? You. Me. Everyone. Haven't you seen "It's a Wonderful Life."?

So you want people to just take houses that don't belong to them? Then I'll let you be in first in line for the accounts that banks to freeze because they don't have enough money on hand to withdraw what's in your account. Where did the money go? Oh, talk to the guys in Palmer Woods squatting in the house that the banks can't sell to get your money back. Maybe instead of writing checks from your account to pay your grocery bill, you can pay your Grocer with time-shares of one of the bedrooms.

[Det_ard]

glad to know who have the good hearts and who have the no-hearts on the forum.

FYI, Det_Ard, I have let homeless people sleep on my couch many many times, but that's not a solution. People need their own place.

Also, why should I house them when there are plenty of vacant homes for them? There are 24 homes for every homeless people in the United States. The writing is on the wall.

Why should you house them? Because you are a self-proclaimed "good heart", because you have argued that it is their HUMAN RIGHT, because if they're not in your bed then they're on the street and you are violating their HUMAN RIGHTS. Right?

Besides, some homeless need more than a place to sleep, they need help in getting their life together. You could do that for them, but you'd rather put them in some tenuously justified temporary squat. I advocate contributing to COTS but that doesn't satisfiy your urge to stick it to the man, does it?

Are you paying for their utilities? Do they even have [[legal) utilities in the vacant homes you have them stay in? I hope you're not subjecting them to living without proper utilities. Or are the utilities just like banks, and you won't recognize their right to be paid for their services either?

What about property taxes on those vacant homes. Surely you're not screwing the city out of that badly needed revenue. And the DWSD is getting paid, right? You're not just advocating freeloading as a sustainable solution, are you?

[p69rrh51]

[QUOTE=socks_mahoney;318867]There are many projects like that already underway. Such as the Occupy men in Golden Gate, the squatters in Brightmoor, and many other neighborhoods across the city.

The hypocrisy I see is OP, who is worried about the house being taken by vandals, but gets upset when a minister of all people takes it over [[even if by dubious means, many of the banks can't track down the paperwork that says they own the homes anymore either).

We're yet to hear anything except for "there are black bags over the windows" that the squatter has done to the home. Sounds like everything is kosher to me. OP? Anything?[/QUOTE

So illegal activity is ok with you? That makes you the poster child for what is wrong with the city. The lawlessness will keep the in the position its in until the city stops coddling the lawbreakers and actually applies the law.
Whats also interesting is you talk about the good projects going on around the city but do not talk about actually lending a hand! Again you hypocrisy knows no bounds!

[socks_mahoney]

p.s. For as much bitching about how much bullshit it is that the banks own these homes, I think it's important to remember that the banks DON'T EVEN WANT THE HOMES. You know what they want? They want the $400,000 that they PAID TO THE OLD OWNER to be paid back to them by the borrower. They don't want the f-ing house. They just want their 400k back.

Didn't mean anything personally. Just so you know, if you don't already, the banks get that $400,000 back when they foreclose. The taxpayer foots the bill. That's why they are foreclosing so much instead of working with homeowners. If they adjust the principal for the homeowner they only get what the new mortgage note is for; if they foreclose they get the full amount on the mortgage note paid from the coffers of the federal government.

Pretty messed up that our government policies provide an incentive for the banks to foreclose rather than a deterrence, because as I think we can all agree, foreclosure is the worst of all options [[for the banks included, except for that nice handout)

maybe the homeless don't "deserve" the nice house in palmer woods [[or maybe they do? maybe their lives has been hard and they deserve something nice to live in), but this isn't about one house. This is about a regime of thought that allows there to be empty houses and homeless people and no one seems to be able to get over their capitalist mind washing to say "gee, lets house these people in all these empty homes".

[SWMAP]

I don't get it: you say the banks get the $400,000 "back when they foreclose."
Back from who?

[corktownyuppie]

Didn't mean anything personally. Just so you know, if you don't already, the banks get that $400,000 back when they foreclose. The taxpayer foots the bill. That's why they are foreclosing so much instead of working with homeowners. If they adjust the principal for the homeowner they only get what the new mortgage note is for; if they foreclose they get the full amount on the mortgage note paid from the coffers of the federal government.

Pretty messed up that our government policies provide an incentive for the banks to foreclose rather than a deterrence, because as I think we can all agree, foreclosure is the worst of all options [[for the banks included, except for that nice handout)

maybe the homeless don't "deserve" the nice house in palmer woods [[or maybe they do? maybe their lives has been hard and they deserve something nice to live in), but this isn't about one house. This is about a regime of thought that allows there to be empty houses and homeless people and no one seems to be able to get over their capitalist mind washing to say "gee, lets house these people in all these empty homes".

Capitalism isn't what gets in the way. I'm certainly a capitalist and I think that thought all the time. Homelessness is a complex social problem with high correlations to mental illness and addictive behavior.

Or to put it simply, "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for life. Unless, of course, he has a problem overcoming impulsive emotions and throws his fishing rod into the river in a moment of overwhelming anger."

And trust me. The banks don't get the $400k back when they foreclose. The federal government does not step in and cover any difference.

But yes, your point is legitimate, and banks need to realize that getting $200k back on a $400k loan does not help them, and it brings all the comps down for everyone else, driving more people into foreclosure. Some banks are starting to get this, as I believe at least one major financial institution IS choosing to foreclose, but then renting back to the original owner so he can stay in the house.

I am all for pressuring banks to negotiate with borrowers in a way that maximizes both the banks needs, the owners needs, and stabilizes property values for the societal need.

That's still a far cry from letting someone take over a house with no law and order.

Some of the conservatives on the board will likely disagree with me on this, but I think society has an obligation to pursue progressive outcomes. But only using conservative means.

That vet who's had a hard life? Let the city foreclose on a blighted property, sign the deed over to the vet, and provide classes to teach them how to redevelop it. City eliminates another crackhouse, a vet gets a house, and a neighborhood stays one step closer to being intact.

I'm all in favor of helping the needy. I'm just saying that there are ways to do it with good consequences. There are ways to do it with terrible consequences. Which ones are which might be a question to debate, but just letting people violate the rights and wants of others willy-nilly is not a real solution.

[socks_mahoney]

SWAMP, they get it from the US Treasury. I only recently found out about this too, but is has been going on since the bailout began.

Basically if a home is foreclosed on the taxpayer pays the balance on the mortgage note. So lets say there is a house with a $400,000 mortgage note. The owner has paid $100,000 but is unable to pay the rest of the mortgage [[underwater, unemployment, health crisis, whatever). So the bank forecloses on the home and sells it for say $30,000. That leaves the bank in the red for $270,000. The bank then receives $270,000 from the federal government to make up for the losses it incurred.

The problem isn't the banks receiving this money, the problem is that they ONLY receive it if they foreclose. By government policy the incentive is to foreclose. This scenario really needs some serious adjustments. I'm not opposed to the banks receiving a payment to balance the books. God knows we need good balance sheets. No desire to repeat 2008 here. But perhaps instead the banks could reduce the principal on the mortgage note, instead of kicking the family to the curb, giving us another empty house and another homeless family.

Goes to show the problem isn't just the banks, its the government too. The 99%ers are only narrating half the story.

[corktownyuppie]

SWAMP, they get it from the US Treasury. I only recently found out about this too, but is has been going on since the bailout began.

Basically if a home is foreclosed on the taxpayer pays the balance on the mortgage note. So lets say there is a house with a $400,000 mortgage note. The owner has paid $100,000 but is unable to pay the rest of the mortgage [[underwater, unemployment, health crisis, whatever). So the bank forecloses on the home and sells it for say $30,000. That leaves the bank in the red for $270,000. The bank then receives $270,000 from the federal government to make up for the losses it incurred.

Not trying to be a hater...but I'm in banking with both portfolioed loans as well as collateralized debt obligations. I've never seen a loan been made whole by the government. Can you cite this somewhere?

[socks_mahoney]

See City of Cleveland Vs Deutche Bank Trust Company, Bank of America, AmeriQuest Mortgage Co. et all. Filed 1/16/08. If you DM your contact info I can send you a pdf copy of the case.

Its also gone over in detail in the movie "Inside Job" which I think you can view online for free.

[corktownyuppie]

See City of Cleveland Vs Deutche Bank Trust Company, Bank of America, AmeriQuest Mortgage Co. et all. Filed 1/16/08. If you DM your contact info I can send you a pdf copy of the case.

Its also gone over in detail in the movie "Inside Job" which I think you can view online for free.

OK. I will engage both with an open mind, as yes -- even in the financial industry myself -- I've seen much which has infuriated me.

Basically if a home is foreclosed on the taxpayer pays the balance on the mortgage note. So lets say there is a house with a $400,000 mortgage note. The owner has paid $100,000 but is unable to pay the rest of the mortgage [[underwater, unemployment, health crisis, whatever). So the bank forecloses on the home and sells it for say $30,000. That leaves the bank in the red for $270,000. The bank then receives $270,000 from the federal government to make up for the losses it incurred.

While this scenario may have taken place in individual cases or instances, it's worth emphasis that this is not the norm. I'd even go so far as to say that it is a rare occurrence.

My solution [[which I read somewhere but can't remember) was for the banks to write down the loans down to a new appraisal value. But in this scenario, the banks would retain ownership rights to all the appreciation above that value. So, for instance, a house sells for $400k and drops to $175k. Bank writes down the mortgage from 400k down to 175k and reduces your monthly mortgage payment accordingly. But bank retains the rights to having all 400k [[plus interest) come back to them once the home appreciates and the home is sold. So you're "equity" is locked in at 175k, with no interest.

It's not perfect, but better than the situation we're in.

[Downtown Lady]

We're yet to hear anything except for "there are black bags over the windows" that the squatter has done to the home. Sounds like everything is kosher to me. OP? Anything?

OP answered that 78 posts ago, when you first asked:

Umm no he has caused damage to the house, there are piles of debris everywhere and he is not maintaining the house or property at all. There are major issues with the exterior woodwork and the lawn has yet to be mowed this year. He also has an extensive criminal background with convictions for armed robery. Not exactly the kind of person you want living nextdoor to you.

Socks_mahoney, your views on helping people and fighting unfair practices by the banks may have some merit, but you are losing support by connecting those views with your support of this felon. You need to separate the two issues. Wanting to help the homeless and fight injustice does not mean that criminals can just help themselves to whatever they want. There is no way you can justify what this man is doing.

[Downtown Lady]

SWAMP, they get it from the US Treasury. I only recently found out about this too, but is has been going on since the bailout began.

Basically if a home is foreclosed on the taxpayer pays the balance on the mortgage note. So lets say there is a house with a $400,000 mortgage note. The owner has paid $100,000 but is unable to pay the rest of the mortgage [[underwater, unemployment, health crisis, whatever). So the bank forecloses on the home and sells it for say $30,000. That leaves the bank in the red for $270,000. The bank then receives $270,000 from the federal government to make up for the losses it incurred.

The problem isn't the banks receiving this money, the problem is that they ONLY receive it if they foreclose. By government policy the incentive is to foreclose. This scenario really needs some serious adjustments. I'm not opposed to the banks receiving a payment to balance the books. God knows we need good balance sheets. No desire to repeat 2008 here. But perhaps instead the banks could reduce the principal on the mortgage note, instead of kicking the family to the curb, giving us another empty house and another homeless family.

Goes to show the problem isn't just the banks, its the government too. The 99%ers are only narrating half the story.

There is no way this is true. Care to provide where you found this information? I support the 99%ers, but please understand that spreading false information will not help them!

[Bagley]

I guess that those of us who can't get over the immorality of stealing--even from greedy banks--also can't suspend our logic and pretend that we would sit idly by and remain neighbors to squatters. Detroit saw a few years back, when high winds nearly destroyed a neighborhood that the sort of laissez-faire home-ownership we see in many areas leads to hazardous environments. Even if he is not tearing the home apart, his neighbors must pay a higher cost when services must first be spread thinner and then cut altogether and when his unmaintained walls and trees begin to fall.

Sure, no one is directly hurt by this. Until a child touches one of the nails being used to steal electricity or the lawful homeowners leave the area. Then when every house is being squatted and there are no taxpayers left what rights should the remaining folks have? There's no money to put out the fires or police the crime and there will be no utility company to steal utilities from. Should all of the squatters then have the right to move on and kill the next adjacent city?

There are many projects like that already underway. Such as the Occupy men in Golden Gate, the squatters in Brightmoor, and many other neighborhoods across the city.

The hypocrisy I see is OP, who is worried about the house being taken by vandals, but gets upset when a minister of all people takes it over [[even if by dubious means, many of the banks can't track down the paperwork that says they own the homes anymore either).

We're yet to hear anything except for "there are black bags over the windows" that the squatter has done to the home. Sounds like everything is kosher to me. OP? Anything?

[ragnarok1981]

Ok all this back and forth arguing over home prices and whether we should give homes to the homeless is completely off topic and not at all what I wrote this for.
The fact is that a guy who wasn't homeless decided he would file forged documents to give himself title to a home that he had nothing to do with. That was the first crime. Then he broke into said house and set himself up as a new home owner, crime two. He had all the utilities going so that was theft, crime three. Now as if that was not enough he went and did the same at another house in just a few doors down that was for sale. He also did it with several other homes in Wayne county. So we are not talking about someone needing a roof over their head, we are talking about a major criminal. Oh and he was on probation for an altercation with a cop and is now an absconder.
This is all bad enough but both the bank, the realtors, and the law enforcement officials really dropped the ball and let this continue for months even when they knew he had no claim to these homes and had broken the law. So in essence we the rightful home owners get screwed from both ends because he gets to commit the crimes and no one seems to care enough to stop him, or at the very least they let him carry on for months until they are ready to get him. It would have been easy to confirm that he had no business being there and the cops could have thrown his ass out, but instead they do nothing.

[Detroitgayhistoryguy]

I agree Ragnarok1981, he is not living in the house? So, technically he is not a squatter. He obviously is trying to pull some kind of mortgage fraud scam or collect rent money from some poor sap and walk away. Either way, this guy is a crook. If he is not there at night, I say super glue the locks every time he leaves. What is he going to do? call the police? Do it at night when nobody can see you. This is not a homeless squatter, this is a crook!

[socks_mahoney]

DowntownLady: see my above post about City of Cleveland Vs. Deutche Bank, BofA, et al. and the award winning movie "Inside Job".

I should have caveated that statement with the fact that this isn't true for ALL home loans, just the "toxic" subprime or ARM loans [[which may be the most common in Detroit).

In any case if the guy isn't living in the home then I suppose we have no reason to support him. I stand by everything else I said in general, not in specific to this one house. I just get a little riled up by the pairing of "upscale neighborhood" and the "damn the squatters" attitude. It feels like classism to me. Despite OP saying he didn't want to come off as elitist, he still did. / :

[Wheels]

SQUATTERS are just what the term implies. They are just crapping on the rest of society!

[Pam]

I just get a little riled up by the pairing of "upscale neighborhood" and the "damn the squatters" attitude. It feels like classism to me. Despite OP saying he didn't want to come off as elitist, he still did. /

If he is talking about Palmer Woods, it's not just "upscale" it's a historic, achitecturally significant area. You are ok with squatters ruining some of the treasures of Detroit? I'm not and I could never afford to live there myself.

Do some reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_...toric_District