A story about a squatter in an upscale neighborhood

Before I go into details I just want to protect the innocent by not giving the name of the neighborhood in question, lets just say it is around 7 mile and Woodward.

Our neighborhood has been hit by foreclosures just like every other community in Detroit, although maybe not as much as some. There is a home that we knew was going to be foreclosed on and we kept a close eye on it to make sure it did not slip through the cracks and end up being destroyed by neglect. So last October we were happy when word got out that the house was purchased and someone had moved in, but our excitement was short lived. Questions immediately started arising because we noticed that the home had never actually gone on the market. The new "home owner" was named Clarence Boykin Jr., and had apparently claimed to be related to the nextdoor neighbor whos name was also Boykin. The neighbors said they had no idea who this guy was so we grew concerned. I called the realtor and found out the house had not been sold and they had no idea who this guy was.

Soon we noticed that Boykin placed heavy black plastic over all the windows to prevent anyone from seeing what was going on inside the house. I began to investigate the land records on the home and soon discovered that this guy had filed a false land contract on the home giving himself title from the previous owner who I had been in contact with and had no idea that this happened. The previous owner had walked away from the home because after years of trying to sell it he gave up and said let the banks have it. When I looked more into the land records I saw that Mr. Boykin was filing fake land contracts for a bunch of houses so I immediately alerted the authorities to the situation in the hope that they would get him out right away. That was November, and it is now May and he is still there.

A few months ago I was keeping tabs on another vacant home in the neighborhood and it suddenly went off the market and low and behold Mr. Boykin had filed another fake land contract. So that made two houses that he had essentially stolen from the banks. In addition to the land contracts, he filed a bizarre document with the wayne county land records office stating that the homes he was occupying were actually in Highland Park and not in Detroit, so therefor the Detroit authorities had no jurisdiction over him. This just added to the idiocy of the situation and drew out the length of time this was taking to get him out.

Finally after months of begging the cops, the prosecutors, anyone in authority in the county and city to do something, we found a police officer who cared and was willing to aid us in this fight. And I want to clarify that this is a fight because we have seen how a person can destroy a house and we did not want to see that happen again and it was highly likely that this was happening. So finally it is now like 8 months of having this criminal occupying a home in our neighborhood and he has yet to be evicted, yet to be arrested. We can only hope that this happens soon before he can damage the home any further. I know those who read this will be asking where the owner of the home was in all this. Well as I stated he chose to walk away, but the banks still chose to let the redemption period run out and that was until March and we could not get them to speed things up even with the former owner telling them what the situation was. The home has in essence become an innocent victim to the miles of red tape in our current crazy system of economics and the way our government is slow to take action over anything.

There are a few reasons why I chose to share this story with all of you. The first is to alert the greater community to the threat that this individual represents because he has done this all over Wayne county, and I would bet he did it in other counties as well. I also wanted to share my concern over the foreclosure reporting websites such as realtytrac.com. It is my belief that Mr. Boykin was targeting homes based on websites such as this to file these fake land contracts because he probably figured he could get away with it since the foreclosure mess was such a mess and homes get lost in all the paperwork all the time. Lastly I wanted to write this because I have been frustrated at the lack of interest from law enforcement when we begged for help. When we would call the police we were lucky if they would ever show up, and often times those who took our calls would yell at us as if we were wasting their time. This whole thing has been aggrivating to an extreme because we all know if you let something like this happen in your neighborhood, it is like a cancer that can spread and kill your neighborhood. I know that there are people who might criticize this account because the neighborhood is upscale, but we fight hard for our right to have a good place to live and this fight has been one of the worst, [[except maybe the infamous Romney house).

Please see this article in today's Detroit News for an idea of who/what is willing to tackle financial and property scams like the one you describe:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...xt|FRONTPAGE|p

Ragnarok, there are lots of lawyers living in your neighborhood. One of them should be able to cobble together a nuisance lawsuit on behalf of immediate neighbors and the neighborhood association naming Mr. Boykin and the bank as defendants. Once the court orders the bank to take control of the property it owns and secure it from squatters, the bank will act. In fact, the bank will probably get off the dime as soon as it gets served with the lawsuit. It shouldn't be necessary to go to those lengths, but what choice do you have? Get some of those neighborhood lawyers to step up and provide some pro bono time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragnarok1981

Before I go into details I just want to protect the innocent by not giving the name of the neighborhood in question, lets just say it is around 7 mile and Woodward.

Our neighborhood has been hit by foreclosures just like every other community in Detroit, although maybe not as much as some. There is a home that we knew was going to be foreclosed on and we kept a close eye on it to make sure it did not slip through the cracks and end up being destroyed by neglect. So last October we were happy when word got out that the house was purchased and someone had moved in, but our excitement was short lived. Questions immediately started arising because we noticed that the home had never actually gone on the market. The new "home owner" was named Clarence Boykin Jr., and had apparently claimed to be related to the nextdoor neighbor whos name was also Boykin. The neighbors said they had no idea who this guy was so we grew concerned. I called the realtor and found out the house had not been sold and they had no idea who this guy was.

Soon we noticed that Boykin placed heavy black plastic over all the windows to prevent anyone from seeing what was going on inside the house. I began to investigate the land records on the home and soon discovered that this guy had filed a false land contract on the home giving himself title from the previous owner who I had been in contact with and had no idea that this happened. The previous owner had walked away from the home because after years of trying to sell it he gave up and said let the banks have it. When I looked more into the land records I saw that Mr. Boykin was filing fake land contracts for a bunch of houses so I immediately alerted the authorities to the situation in the hope that they would get him out right away. That was November, and it is now May and he is still there.

A few months ago I was keeping tabs on another vacant home in the neighborhood and it suddenly went off the market and low and behold Mr. Boykin had filed another fake land contract. So that made two houses that he had essentially stolen from the banks. In addition to the land contracts, he filed a bizarre document with the wayne county land records office stating that the homes he was occupying were actually in Highland Park and not in Detroit, so therefor the Detroit authorities had no jurisdiction over him. This just added to the idiocy of the situation and drew out the length of time this was taking to get him out.

Finally after months of begging the cops, the prosecutors, anyone in authority in the county and city to do something, we found a police officer who cared and was willing to aid us in this fight. And I want to clarify that this is a fight because we have seen how a person can destroy a house and we did not want to see that happen again and it was highly likely that this was happening. So finally it is now like 8 months of having this criminal occupying a home in our neighborhood and he has yet to be evicted, yet to be arrested. We can only hope that this happens soon before he can damage the home any further. I know those who read this will be asking where the owner of the home was in all this. Well as I stated he chose to walk away, but the banks still chose to let the redemption period run out and that was until March and we could not get them to speed things up even with the former owner telling them what the situation was. The home has in essence become an innocent victim to the miles of red tape in our current crazy system of economics and the way our government is slow to take action over anything.

There are a few reasons why I chose to share this story with all of you. The first is to alert the greater community to the threat that this individual represents because he has done this all over Wayne county, and I would bet he did it in other counties as well. I also wanted to share my concern over the foreclosure reporting websites such as realtytrac.com. It is my belief that Mr. Boykin was targeting homes based on websites such as this to file these fake land contracts because he probably figured he could get away with it since the foreclosure mess was such a mess and homes get lost in all the paperwork all the time. Lastly I wanted to write this because I have been frustrated at the lack of interest from law enforcement when we begged for help. When we would call the police we were lucky if they would ever show up, and often times those who took our calls would yell at us as if we were wasting their time. This whole thing has been aggrivating to an extreme because we all know if you let something like this happen in your neighborhood, it is like a cancer that can spread and kill your neighborhood. I know that there are people who might criticize this account because the neighborhood is upscale, but we fight hard for our right to have a good place to live and this fight has been one of the worst, [[except maybe the infamous Romney house).

---

Agree with both of the above. Andrew Arena and Co. will move on this fast. The other thing is that the police can't do anything because they are there to enforce the law but not to interpret the law, and this situation has moved from being a trespassing incident to a legal dispute. Cops won't touch that with a 10-foot pole.

Here's something else that you might consider while doing the above. At this current point in time, the legal owner is technically still your old neighbor, as the deed has not been transferred from his name. Have your neighbor enter in a contract to rent the property to you. Then both your old neighbor [[as the owner) and you [[as his tenant) should both call the police and report the person for trespassing. Then you should hire an off-duty cop to accompany you to have a locksmith change all the locks. You have just as much [[actually more) standing to do so than he does.

Two can play at his game. And you'll emerge victorious in the long run.

Because the new guy has filed a false document re title - he can be prosecuted - unsure by who but perhaps the Title company will want to maintain clear title lines and they should be contacted. You can ususally find the Title Company of last resort in the property records.

Our neighborhood lawyers have been hard at work on this and unfortunately the bank is a certain government run bank with a feminine name. They would lose to a snail in a race given how slow they have been to do anything about this. The other issue is that the squatter really likes to use the legal system and we have had to tread carefully in order to avoid frivolous lawsuits that would just be a waste of time and money.
We also considered asking the former owner to give us control of the property but then realized that we would then be responsible for back taxes and other issues that we did not want to get saddled with.
One thing that is almost laughable in this whole thing is that the squatter is a preacher, or at least claims to be one. He seems to forget a lot of that "though shalt not steal" and other moral codes from the bible.
The guy is clearly insane and what really amazes me is that you would think with all the vacant homes in this city, chosing one in a neighborhood like mine would probably be the last place you would pick because it would draw so much attention. Sadly this is not the first time this has happened either. Last year we had a soverign citizen squatter take over a house. That was a scary incident too because the guy was armed to the teeth and had no regard for anyone. Started building this huge privacy fence on the neighbors property and caused a lot of trouble before we got him out and arrested.

The other thing that really bugs me in all this mess is that the county does nothing to verify the documents being filed with them to ensure that they are not fraudulent. I very much doubt they even asked for id of both parties on any of the land contracts, and they would never have been questioned had we not stepped up and said hey this is bs.

email Charlie LeDuff, sounds like a good story for him. The attention might get results.

Wait a minute, Boykin, is this the preacher with the really, really, really tacky TV program?

He has a tv program? if he does I would love to see it cause he is a loon.
He filed all these documents stating that the house is in Highland park because it has a 48203 zip code. Granted a lot of the zip code lies in Highland Park, but the house is over a mile from the city limits, not to mention the 12th precinct is only a few blocks away. He seems to think that Detroit built a police station in Highland park or something. I just want to see his ass thrown in jail, and all the crap he moved into the house thrown into the garbage. Then I want to see the trial because I know it would be some good entertainment.

He has "New Beginning Ministries" which is tax-exempted.
He has been in court recently over Mortgage Electronic Registery but I'm not sure what it all means:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/mic...v15308/264823/

Google found this: http://www.tatepublishing.com/bookst...-1-60604-601-2

Ohmygosh! He's all mixed up with same people Ridgeabilly is with - the people who want moratorium NOW on mortgages. See thread on National Day of Protest in the recent postings.

Boykin has several cases in court right now and it looks like FANNIE MAE is suing him.

I'm sorry Ragnarock but I think you need to readjust your perception here. The owner of the house walked away after a fruitless attempt to sell it. Perhaps he was asking too much, chances are his mortgage was way more than the home is worth now. Can't blame the guy really. The banks though, could do no better. No one was buying the home at the price it was being offered.

Your neighbors, fearful of scrappers and vandals, watched the house closely. Now someone moves into the house and presumably will not be removing the pipes or the wiring as he is living there and you complain?

Just be happy the house is occupied by a god-fearing Christian and not drug dealers. So he put up black bags on the windows...maybe he is making improvements to the house and doesn't want criminal to see what is inside? Maybe he is growing some medical marijuana.

I fail to see how this man is hurting the neighborhood, other than maybe marginally damaging already decrepit housing values. Shit, if he wasn't there maybe someone may have gotten the copper already and the home [[and the ones around it) would really be worth next nothing. Many people in this city would be proud to have squatters like this man as a neighbor. Buck up. It could be much much worse. Be a good neighbor, bake some cookies and go and introduce yourself, you might even end up liking the guy.

So Socks is on the scam too! he is one of the organizers of the Moratorium Now effort.

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.
Also I would add that the previous owner walked away after renting the home for some time. He had not lived there for quite some time if at all. To say that we should be wellcoming the guy is insane, he is a criminal, it is not like he just moved in, he created all sorts of bogus paperwork giving himself title and I might add that said paperwork gave him title for very small amounts of money which would then hurt other residents home values.
If someone wants to take over a home that the banks dont want and there is no chance of it being sold, then go for it, lord knows the city needs people willing to move here, but that was not the case with this house. The guy just took over before the bank even got title to the house.

Sounds like a nice juicy story for Charlie LeDuff. I'll email it to him myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

I'm sorry Ragnarock but I think you need to readjust your perception here. The owner of the house walked away after a fruitless attempt to sell it. Perhaps he was asking too much, chances are his mortgage was way more than the home is worth now. Can't blame the guy really. The banks though, could do no better. No one was buying the home at the price it was being offered.

Your neighbors, fearful of scrappers and vandals, watched the house closely. Now someone moves into the house and presumably will not be removing the pipes or the wiring as he is living there and you complain?

Just be happy the house is occupied by a god-fearing Christian and not drug dealers. So he put up black bags on the windows...maybe he is making improvements to the house and doesn't want criminal to see what is inside? Maybe he is growing some medical marijuana.

I fail to see how this man is hurting the neighborhood, other than maybe marginally damaging already decrepit housing values. Shit, if he wasn't there maybe someone may have gotten the copper already and the home [[and the ones around it) would really be worth next nothing. Many people in this city would be proud to have squatters like this man as a neighbor. Buck up. It could be much much worse. Be a good neighbor, bake some cookies and go and introduce yourself, you might even end up liking the guy.

---

For someone who doesn't even know what is going on behind the black windows... you sure are pretty presumtuous...

Since this is a nicer neighbor hood, how do you know he's not stripping paneling, fixtures, fireplaces, et al?? You don't!

This guy probably knows that he doesn't have a legal way to stay in this residence long term [[except via stalling tactics)... so how can you assume that he will give it tender loving care? :confused: Last time I checked... squatters don't generally do that...

I say it again: Socks Mahoney, Ridgeabilly both know this guy because he is the Moratorium Now with them. You can see it if you look him up in Google.

Socks posting in his defense because they advocate what he is doing.

Also, can you see the electric and gas meters? Is the electric meter there? or is it jumped? Call DTE and tell them you've got a squatter, ask them if the bill is being paid on this address, if it is not being paid and is supposed to be currently turned off, then it is utility theft, they will come out and shut it off. Same thing with the water, check and see if the water should be on or not, if not, report it to the water dept as theft, they will also come out and shut it off.

WARNING: I had a squatter next door to me. Since I knew that the entire meter had been ripped off by the former foreclosed owner I was surprised when squatter had lights. Knowing not enough about meters, I went over to yard when squatter not home and observed two long nails in empty meter box, one on each side - and I was curious about those big nails, one going one way and the other facing the other way. Luckily I did not touch them. I later found out that is what a "jump" looks like and if I touched it I would be toast.

The things we have to learn to deal with the meltdown in Detroit!

Even if there is a meter, they still could be stealing. Call DTE's theft dept and tell them the story. This is very common among squatters, stealing utilities. It is also often your best chance to get rid of them. Keep reporting the theft and getting it turned off. Same with the water. No water or electric tends to make them move on.

I have a friend whose brother is a DTE theft investigator. He is told that many, many thousands of buildings in Detroit stealing power. It will, no doubt, be a long time before they get to any one house.

As well, the DTE people who go out to cut power off at the pole so thieves can't jump the meter again have to have DTE security accompany them and those people are armed because DTE employees shot at routinely.

Good info SWMAP, but still best to get the ball rolling if they are stealing power. A friend of mine had a foreclosure next to him and thieves stole the pipes and water was running in the basement, filling it up half way. We called the water dept and they showed up within 1 hour and shut it off. Work the water angle as well, it's really damn hard to live without water!

Some of us were curious as to what was going on so we propped a ladder up to peer in at a spot where the plastic was not covering. That is how I know what was going on inside. As for the utilities, they were cut off at the street because he would not allow them to come near the house.
There is a warrant out for his arrest, but the catch is that they have to catch him first, and the response time for the police is agonizingly slow despite being so close to the 12th precinct.

I also want to clarify what was said regarding the previous owner walking away. The reason he gave up was because he could not get anywhere near the amount he put into it. He probably bought the house for 400k and now he would be lucky to get a third of that.

Did you get a copy of the land contract he recorded?

I do not know a Mr Clarence Boykin. I do know that there are empty homes and homeless people so lets put two and two 2gether.

Why should the bank own the home? What did the bank do to deserve the home besides issue a likely racist subprime home loan.

I am willing to withhold judgement until I find out more about what is being done with the house. When you and your neighbors used a ladder to peer behind the plastic what did you see?

And for the record:

I am no member of Moratorium Now, but I support what they do. Bail out the people!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

... I do know that there are empty homes and homeless people so lets put two and two 2gether....

---

Hear, hear!

We keep hearing that our "free" market prevents such wasteful situations from ever occurring yet here it is and has been and continues to be shockingly widespread.

Insanity never helps anything. Yeah, putting the two together would have been the sane plan from the start.

I am all for matching up people who are homeless with homes, but lets be realistic and match them with a home that they could afford. The house I am talking about is a big home and you would need to have an income that is upper middle class to do all the repair work done and maintain the home. This is not a neighborhood that is sparsely populated with tons of vacant homes that need to be filled. What we are talking about here is stable upper class neighborhood that is one of the few remaining stable areas in the city.
I don't want to make this sound like a snobish eliteist argument because it is not. What those advocating for this guy are not taking into account is that this guy has committed multiple crimes; breaking and entering, filing fraudulant documents, theft, and a number of other crimes. This guy or another like him could easily alter the title on your home and cause you a world of trouble.

Also to answer a previous question, yes I have copies of all the fraud he has perpetrated.

I mean really people? Have you ever owned a home and had someone come into the neighborhood and trash a house? Maybe instead of feeling sorry for this loony tunes creep you should have compassion for the upstanding people who have put sweat and tears into this area and kept it a viable neighborhood in a struggling city.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...-hostage?act=2

Rag, please listen to this podcast,.act 2. similar scenario but in new orleans. Heard it a couple years back, but your story jogged my memory. Good luck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

I do know that there are empty homes and homeless people so lets put two and two 2gether.

---

Generally speaking, homeless people aren't homeless because of some financial obstacle that prevents access to shelter.

If homelessness were really caused by barriers to housing, Detroit would have virtually no homelessness. It's among the most affordable major cities on the planet; one in which housing ownership can be had for almost nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragnarok1981

Some of us were curious as to what was going on so we propped a ladder up to peer in at a spot where the plastic was not covering. That is how I know what was going on inside. As for the utilities, they were cut off at the street because he would not allow them to come near the house.
There is a warrant out for his arrest, but the catch is that they have to catch him first, and the response time for the police is agonizingly slow despite being so close to the 12th precinct.

I also want to clarify what was said regarding the previous owner walking away. The reason he gave up was because he could not get anywhere near the amount he put into it. He probably bought the house for 400k and now he would be lucky to get a third of that.

---

Something doesn't smell right about this, you say the previous owner paid 400,000.00 for a house in Detroit? Even when real estate was at it's zenith that was a lot of money, must be [[or have been) a helluva house for 400,000.00.

Of course, maybe that previous owner bought that house with the intention of mortgaging to the hilt and then walking away with the money. Plenty of people did that, as far as I know, nobody went after them either. Kind of the perfect white collar crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Generally speaking, homeless people aren't homeless because of some financial obstacle that prevents access to shelter.

If homelessness were really caused by barriers to housing, Detroit would have virtually no homelessness. It's among the most affordable major cities on the planet; one in which housing ownership can be had for almost nothing.

---

Exactly - and even the best neighborhoods in Detroit would welcome anyone to buy a vacant property and take care of it on a very basic level.

There is a reason you know they're squatters - it's not like they go around telling people. They're generally very disruptive and engaged in any number of illegal, harmful, and dangerous activities. Let me put it this way: none of us would dream of ever squatting houses. This is not a matter of getting a roof over one's head, but of taking over an area. Much like a drug house or a chop shop - and they usually all go hand-in-hand. Mr. Squatter doesn't go off to his 9-5 each day. He often scraps the house he is in.

Here in East English Village we've dealt with squatters and the problem has mostly abated. As Detroitgay pointed out, utilities are absolutely the most effective way. Call the DTE theft line - 1-800-477-4747 and make sure you talk to a real person. As we all know, DTE loves money. They respond. Make sure you tell them it needs to be cut off at the pole. Water Department works too - call their general line.

However you're dealing with a very crafty squatter. Many of them have the utilities put in their name. Again, DTE loves money, and as long as they get it, they're fine.

So let's talk unconventional...

I have personally waged a guerrilla war against several squatters. It is dangerous business, but we live in a civilized neighborhood of good families and if we are to continue to be such a place then scrapping, drug-slinging squatters can't be allowed to set up shop. I wait till they're not "home" and drill out their locks and fill them with super glue. I send them threatening mail - making it look official [[I have been Bob Ficano at one point). I throw roofing nails all over the driveway while innocuously walking my dog. I take political yard signs and turn them inside out and make my own "NO TRESPASSING - IF YOU SEE ANYONE ON THIS PROPERTY CALL 911 IMMEDIATELY" signs for their front yards. Do it before you go to work - squatters don't wake up till 11am at the earliest. Speaking of 911, use it liberally. Things like "smoking weed" and "woman screaming" or "baby crying" will get the cops there, even in Detroit [[albeit eventually) - take creative liberties with it. Your taxes pay for it.

They get tired of it and move to a place where people don't care about their neighborhood. I refuse to let my neighborhood get bushwacked. To quote Howard Beale, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.

I had squatters on my block at one time. They're long gone. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

Why should the bank own the home? What did the bank do to deserve the home besides issue a likely racist subprime home loan.

---

1 - The bank should own the house because they paid for it. They paid the original owner, you agreed to pay them back, you don't pay them back, they get the house. It's not rocket science.

2 - Banks were being called racist for *not* issuing more subprime mortgages. There's YouTube video of Barney Frank yelling at bank execs to issue more subprime mortgages. Fannie May and Freddie Mac agreed to buy up any dodgy loans banks made to encourage this practice.

I love Poobert's campaign! When I had two girl squatters next door [[whose boyfriends jumped the meter and took over the garage to strip Hondas and threatened anyone who tried to drive through the alley) I did notice that they stayed up all night and slept late. They had a garden hose. Nightly I climbed out into their yard from my basement window and turned on the hose full blast, running it into the backyard they never mowed. In the morning I would turn it off. Finally the Water Department appeared and poured slag down the shut-off pipe. DTE also did turn them off at the pole finally. But the final straw for them was a raid by the Gang Squad. One night when about 10 gang-bangers were over, I drove to the Precinct [[ too risky calling 911 - those operators incompetent) with photos and copies of Facebook pages. I showed the Officer in Charge the proof of gang bragging and like a miracle the gang squad came and ticketed each one for being there. Garage raided, cars found. It was wonderful.

Ok first off at the height of the housing bubble 400k was a middle of the road price for some homes in my neighborhood.
Second there are all sorts of stupid tangents being interjected into this that have no place here. And yes I did say stupid because lets be realistic here, you would never suggest a good neighborhood be happy with having a squatter, someone who breaking the law I might add in multiple ways.
There was no racist subprime loans or any other illegal things going like that. This was just someone who bought a house during the housing boom and did not get out in time and lost the house in the process.
And Poobert I think I may just try your suggestion, although I am not going to say which I would do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragnarok1981

Ok first off at the height of the housing bubble 400k was a middle of the road price for some homes in my neighborhood.
Second there are all sorts of stupid tangents being interjected into this that have no place here. And yes I did say stupid because lets be realistic here, you would never suggest a good neighborhood be happy with having a squatter, someone who breaking the law I might add in multiple ways.
There was no racist subprime loans or any other illegal things going like that. This was just someone who bought a house during the housing boom and did not get out in time and lost the house in the process.
And Poobert I think I may just try your suggestion, although I am not going to say which I would do.

---

I hear 400,000.00 for a house in Detroit, my ears perk up, a red light goes off in my head and the cop in me gets a wake up call. Even if we're referring to Palmer Woods or Sherwood Forest that sounds a little on the steep side to me. Unless you're goofing around trying to walk off with a quarter mil or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

I do not know a Mr Clarence Boykin. I do know that there are empty homes and homeless people so lets put two and two 2gether.

Why should the bank own the home? What did the bank do to deserve the home besides issue a likely racist subprime home loan.

I am willing to withhold judgement until I find out more about what is being done with the house. When you and your neighbors used a ladder to peer behind the plastic what did you see?

And for the record:

I am no member of Moratorium Now, but I support what they do. Bail out the people!

---

The bank deserves the home because they loaned the old homeowner the money to purchase it. Did you really just ask that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by softailrider

I hear 400,000.00 for a house in Detroit, my ears perk up, a red light goes off in my head and the cop in me gets a wake up call. Even if we're referring to Palmer Woods or Sherwood Forest that sounds a little on the steep side to me. Unless you're goofing around trying to walk off with a quarter mil or so.

---

Time to do some research. The larger PW homes typically sold for $600K - $800K pre-crash. You weren't going to get a 6000 sqft Tudor in PW in good condition for $400K back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

I do not know a Mr Clarence Boykin. I do know that there are empty homes and homeless people so lets put two and two 2gether.

Why should the bank own the home? What did the bank do to deserve the home besides issue a likely racist subprime home loan.

---

There are around 500 homes for sale in Detroit today for under $5,000. More than 100 of those are under $2,000. Go ahead, bail out the people you care about. Buy them a house. Fix it up. Pay their utilities and taxes. Be the change you want to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

I'm sorry Ragnarock but I think you need to readjust your perception here. The owner of the house walked away after a fruitless attempt to sell it. Perhaps he was asking too much, chances are his mortgage was way more than the home is worth now. Can't blame the guy really. The banks though, could do no better. No one was buying the home at the price it was being offered.

Your neighbors, fearful of scrappers and vandals, watched the house closely. Now someone moves into the house and presumably will not be removing the pipes or the wiring as he is living there and you complain?

Just be happy the house is occupied by a god-fearing Christian and not drug dealers. So he put up black bags on the windows...maybe he is making improvements to the house and doesn't want criminal to see what is inside? Maybe he is growing some medical marijuana.

I fail to see how this man is hurting the neighborhood, other than maybe marginally damaging already decrepit housing values. Shit, if he wasn't there maybe someone may have gotten the copper already and the home [[and the ones around it) would really be worth next nothing. Many people in this city would be proud to have squatters like this man as a neighbor. Buck up. It could be much much worse. Be a good neighbor, bake some cookies and go and introduce yourself, you might even end up liking the guy.

---

This type of attitude can bring down a neighborhood real quick. What if everyone said, "Well he's a nice drug dealer." or "Well he only shot that man once not twice." How dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Det_ard

Time to do some research. The larger PW homes typically sold for $600K - $800K pre-crash. You weren't going to get a 6000 sqft Tudor in PW in good condition for $400K back then.

---

I would be very surprised if this were true, unless by "larger PW homes" you mean only the very largest [[the old Archodiocese mansion and the like). I doubt there were more than a tiny handful of non-fradulent transactions anywhere in Detroit city limits at that price level at the height of the boom.

Currently one can buy in PW for 100k, and in very nice neighboring areas [[UD and the like) for as little as 20k. The obvious catch is that the carrying costs are huge, so it makes no sense unless you have a solid income.

I looked up the price the house was bought for, back in 2003 it sold for 472,500. At that time that was a pretty normal house price. Just because it is Detroit does not mean there are not great homes here that could easily garner that kind of price. Hell if you took some of these homes and moved them to another major city you could easily ask for double or tripple that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I would be very surprised if this were true, unless by "larger PW homes" you mean only the very largest [[the old Archodiocese mansion and the like). I doubt there were more than a tiny handful of non-fradulent transactions anywhere in Detroit city limits at that price level at the height of the boom.

Currently one can buy in PW for 100k, and in very nice neighboring areas [[UD and the like) for as little as 20k. The obvious catch is that the carrying costs are huge, so it makes no sense unless you have a solid income.

---

Prepare to be very surprised, I guess. From '00 - '07, seven houses sold in the $500's and one was recorded at $725K. There were other sales where the sales price was not disclosed. They were selling for around $100/sqft. These weren't the Bishop/John Salley house.

In the last year 3 or 4 sold for over $300K. The 3 or 4 that sold for less than $100K were smaller, remuddled or in need of repairs, and not what most people think of as a Palmer Woods house [[none were Tudors or French architectural styles, for example).

Bham, In 2005 the house next to me in SW Detroit sold for $115,000 to the first person who looked it. It is a small frame house. It was in shiny copper penny condition but, by any standards, it was not covatable. It did have a new hi-efficiency furnace and central air. Kitchen and single bathroom cabinetry by Sears. All original oak trim and dated wallpaper, older carpeting throughout and a roof that was on its last legs. Three small bedrooms and a garage. I can see a much better, much grander house in a leafy neighborhood commanding $400,000 in those days.

I will say that the buyers next door did clearly get a no doc mortgage because he had no job at all and she cleaned airplanes at the airport. They lost the house in two years because they did not pay the mortgage, let alone the taxes that doubled as soon as they bought it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Det_ard

Prepare to be very surprised, I guess. From '00 - '07, seven houses sold in the $500's and one was recorded at $725K. There were other sales where the sales price was not disclosed. They were selling for around $100/sqft. These weren't the Bishop/John Salley house.

In the last year 3 or 4 sold for over $300K. The 3 or 4 that sold for less than $100K were smaller, remuddled or in need of repairs, and not what most people think of as a Palmer Woods house [[none were Tudors or French architectural styles, for example).

---

That's exactly my point. Even putting aside potential fraud, seven homes [[and at the absolute height of the bubble market) isn't remotely representative of the neighborhood.

There are probably a couple thousand homes in in Palmer/Sherwood/Green Acres/University. UD alone is huge.

I've looked at closing prices for a long time now. This is my favorite area architecturally in the region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWMAP

I can see a much better, much grander house in a leafy neighborhood commanding $400,000 in those days.

---

I totally agree. 400k was the going price for a nice PW home. But, others were saying the going price was in the 600-800k range, which sounds way out-of-line.

Bham, going price was $100/sqft. I shopped the homes back then seriously as I considered buying in that area. I didn't but it's still an outstanding area. Of course Sherwood Forest, University District and particularly Green Acres will be less expensive.

There were only 37 sales in eight years [[00-07) per the MLS. Public records has a few more during that time frame. Homes that were original and well-taken care of were selling for around $100/sqft. You can do the math.

19160 Woodston was one I seriously considered as it was in great shape. 5900 sqft, it sold in 2000 for $565K. That was not an aberration. That was market price twelve years ago, before the subprime/Alt-A/low-doc/no-doc bubble got going.

The really good homes rarely came on the market. It was frustrating to see the ones that did come up for sale, as most were either small, wrong style [[for me), or some drop-ceiling, shag carpet, gold mirrors over walnut paneling bastardization of a beautiful house. Those didn't go for $100/sqft, but the good ones did. I guess you would have had to be there to know.

So in this Detroit middle income ghettohood of Palmer Woods. Some "Judas Preacher" name Boykin has conned the real estate and banking system to purchased an once fancy home and squat. This would definitely cause the area to lose property values making the area an instant blight and folks moving out and not moving in. If the same kind of the event happens in the suburbs that squatter will be arrested and the property fixed up back the way it was so that middle income [[ not welfare folks) can move in.

Years ago some U.S. Congresswoman addressed the podium in the U.S. Capitol during the subprime mortage housing crisis of 2009. " My Fellow Americans, squat your homes, live there until your banks give in."

I don't know who you contacted in law enforcement, but did you try the Wayne County Sheriff's Deeds Investigation Unit? Their number is 224-5869.

I think I posted this on another thread, but it's relevant here, too.

Here's a story from This American Life about a guy in post-Katrina New Orleans pulling the same stunt. He taught himself some basic property law and used this knowledge to mess with people trying to buy the properties that he used to own [[and some he never owned) and were foreclosed on.

The police weren't interested until he forged a judge's signature on a restraining order.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/409/held-hostage?act=2

You guys have to be kidding about balking at $400,000. There are STILL homes in Detroit that would be $1 million to $2 million anywhere else selling for $200,000-700,000. Several years ago, those homes were selling in the $400,000 range on a pretty regular basis. Take a look at realtor.com and look at some of the amenities added to homes currently on the market in the $200,000-400,000 range and you will see recent signs of executive/upper-class owners right along-side the amenities from upper-class owners past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by softailrider

I hear 400,000.00 for a house in Detroit, my ears perk up, a red light goes off in my head and the cop in me gets a wake up call. Even if we're referring to Palmer Woods or Sherwood Forest that sounds a little on the steep side to me. Unless you're goofing around trying to walk off with a quarter mil or so.

---

Again, if you think that you could find a house with oak paneled libraries, Pewabic/marble foyers, marble-floored greenhouses, two kitchens, servants quarters, carriage houses, hand-painted ceilings, etc. for $100,000, good luck. These houses/neighborhoods were very solid up until the Kwame-era/error. The home that you mentioned had--last I checked-- around $36,000/year in taxes. Many of these homes had/have tax bills in the $11,000-17,000 range. Who can afford those tax bills but is looking for the $100,000 fixer-upper? Trust us, there are/were executives for whom $500,000 was a pittance to live in these unique and opulent homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagley

You guys have to be kidding about balking at $400,000. There are STILL homes in Detroit that would be $1 million to $2 million anywhere else selling for $200,000-700,000.

---

RE is obviously almost 100% location. There are Detroit properties that would go for 50x more if you put them in the Hamptons or Malibu, based on the land alone. Nobody disputes that Detroit has gorgeous homes; usually better than those of the suburbs.

But currently, in the City of Detroit, there are very few properties selling in that price range [[200k-700k). In fact, there are very few properties even asking in that price range.

A quick check on Trulia shows that for UD, Palmer Woods, Sherwood Forest, and Green Acres, well over 80% of properties have asking prices below 200k [[most well below 200k), and that's the best area of Detroit.

You are generalizing across neighborhoods where homes were built by the founders and inheritors of businesses and those where mid-level managers/professors lived. Even today I would argue that many homes in Indian Village, PW, Boston-Edison and Arden Park take one $250k+ income or two $120+ incomes [[and lots of love) to maintain [[of course the frugality of the homeowner, whether they bought or inherited, etc are factors). Also, these areas tend to be much more expensive at their cores. There are, of course, fringe/troubled properties but I assure you those are outliers. The prices that you are imagining were at the low end in the mid-1980's but imagine fifteen years of appreciation and wage increases, etc. The incomes of folks who live in these neighborhoods and mine [[LP) would probably surprise you too. Again, think of the families you know who can afford to pay $15,000-20,000 in property taxes and ask yourself if they are moving into a $100K fixer-upper.

Alternately, take your $100K fixer-upper, add a $35,000 + roof, a $30,000 kitchen, floor refinishing for 5,000-7,000 sq. ft., tuck-pointing for stone, $3,000-5,000 for tree removal... Oh, not to mention that your fixer-upper needs windows--and not just any windows. Price out replacements that are just below the quality of the originals and you're probably in the $800/per window. Upgrade the HVAC and you'll have to break out another $30K. You'd be $200K into just about any PW, Indian Village, Boston-Edison or Arden Park home before your housewarming. $300,000 to $400,000 and a call to the decorator beats becoming a general contractor--unless that's your goal.

Our neighborhood contacted the deed fraud unit, the cops, the county, you name it and nothing was happening, or at the very least nothing very fast and that is what is so troubling here. They know he is committing a crime but they don't act until they " have all their ducks in a row". Even once they have the arrest warrant they don't hunt him down, it is a matter of us alerting them when he shows and we have to pray that they get there before he runs. Yesterday I called 911 when I saw him there and before the cops came he started to leave. I tried blocking the driveway with my car and he almost rammed it so I moved and followed him but he went about 80mph down state fair and lost me. I almost feel like I have to call 911 and say there is a man with a gun shooting at people just to get their attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragnarok1981

Our neighborhood contacted the deed fraud unit, the cops, the county, you name it and nothing was happening, or at the very least nothing very fast and that is what is so troubling here. They know he is committing a crime but they don't act until they " have all their ducks in a row". Even once they have the arrest warrant they don't hunt him down, it is a matter of us alerting them when he shows and we have to pray that they get there before he runs. Yesterday I called 911 when I saw him there and before the cops came he started to leave. I tried blocking the driveway with my car and he almost rammed it so I moved and followed him but he went about 80mph down state fair and lost me. I almost feel like I have to call 911 and say there is a man with a gun shooting at people just to get their attention.

---

I wonder if the owner [[who is still legally the person who walked away, as foreclosure proceedings haven't been completed) can have his car towed for trespassing. Then when the guy goes to pickup the car from the impound lot...there's the police with the arrest warrant waiting for him...just thinking out loud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I wonder if the owner [[who is still legally the person who walked away, as foreclosure proceedings haven't been completed) can have his car towed for trespassing. Then when the guy goes to pickup the car from the impound lot...there's the police with the arrest warrant waiting for him...just thinking out loud.

---

Not a bad plan if the original owner was in the picture. He's not though. And to clear things up a little, the OP mentioned that the foreclosure redemption period expired in March. That means that the bank owns the property now. As I mentioned in an earlier post, by permitting a squatter to occupy the property and presumably create a host of code violations, the bank [[the owner) is causing a nuisance. They are liable for this in civil court.

I guess I'm not clear on this. So, the guy is not actually living in the house? You see no lights on what so ever? BTW, you can buy a water shut off tool at home depot and shut the water off yourself when he is gone.

How do you do that? I know how in my old SW Detroit neighborhood because the water shut off is on the sidewalk in front. But where in, say, Sherwood Forest?

It is always somewhere in the front yard, it is a round metal thingy. It comes off, then the long pipe tool goes down to shut the valve.

Here is a link to the home depot view of the tool I'm talking about.

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1...&storeId=10051

After you turn it off with the HD "key," you haveto pour cement slurry down the pipe because the average squatter will just turn it back on. The Water Department has the ability to get through the cement but average squatter does not. Tip from a gritty neighborhood!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Det_ard

There are around 500 homes for sale in Detroit today for under $5,000. More than 100 of those are under $2,000. Go ahead, bail out the people you care about. Buy them a house. Fix it up. Pay their utilities and taxes. Be the change you want to see.

---

That's a stupid response. I, individually, do not have the resources or power to do that. Not even a very wealthy person could do that in a sustainable way. What is instead required is concerted government action to provide for the HUMAN RIGHT of housing. If anyone doubts that housing is a human right I challenge you to survive one Detroit winter on the streets.

And to you Mr Birmingham1982: the cause of homelessness is irrelevant. Humans need to be housed, and the shelters are packed full. A recent development in the homeless housing realm has been the movement "housing first". Many members of our house-less brothers and sisters are yes, addicted to alcohol or drugs, but again I challenge you to imagine falling asleep on the streets without the aide of some whiskey or gin. Putting people in houses first, respecting their basic human rights so they can respect themselves, is primary. Then they can work on other problems.

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.

Get used to this DYESERS. Many real groups in Detroit are planning these types of movements for this summer. Homeless and empty homes. Put them together. Get off the keyboard.

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

That was a really scary showdown yesterday in the Guardian Building! I saw all the blight posters on the utility poles around town begging people to come. How many people showed up - about 50?

SWAMP: 50 people is not huge. We have had more. We have had less. But never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.

How many more homes must be destroyed? How many families made homeless? How many more billionaires wasting money on champagne?

If you all want to live under the tyranny of the banks, enjoy. I for one will be fighting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

SWAMP: 50 people is not huge. We have had more. We have had less. But never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.

How many more homes must be destroyed? How many families made homeless? How many more billionaires wasting money on champagne?

If you all want to live under the tyranny of the banks, enjoy. I for one will be fighting.

---

We may have to disagree about whether or not housing is a human right. but surely you don't believe that living in an upscale home appraising in the $100,000-$200,000 range is a human right, do you?

Because if so, maybe we should all stop paying rent and mortgages, too.

You know, it's easy to blame the banks in all this, and God knows I think there's plenty to blame them for. But you do realize that the real person who benefited from all of this wasn't the bank. It was the guy who sold the house and pocketed $400,000 in cash.

Fight the banks all you want. Next time I hire someone to replace my roof or re-do my plumbing, I won't pay him. I'll send him a thank you letter expressing my gratitude for continuing to help my human right to shelter continue to be fulfilled.

Housing is a human right by law. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the United States is a signatory reads...

Article 25.

• [[1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

live under the tyranny of the banks? not me,I chose to live under the tyranny of personal responsibility but after reading all of this I guess it is time now to cash out,bank the monies walk away from the bank and go squat,thus exercising my right to shelter.

But I guess that would have its hazards as the neighbors that are footing the bill for my rights might get a bit upset and hold, what is called in the military,a blanket party,and I really could not fault them for that as they would also be exercising their right for the pursuit of happiness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

Housing is a human right by law. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the United States is a signatory reads...

Article 25.

• [[1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

---

Article 30.

• Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

Housing is a human right by law.

---

True, it is a right, you have the right to purchase a home.

Lol, you guys are getting way off topic, I want to see
ragnarok1981 get rid of the scum bag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

That's a stupid response. I, individually, do not have the resources or power to do that. Not even a very wealthy person could do that in a sustainable way. What is instead required is concerted government action to provide for the HUMAN RIGHT of housing. If anyone doubts that housing is a human right I challenge you to survive one Detroit winter on the streets.

---

Actually you probably do have the resources to provide housing for a homeless person. Together with your 50 comrades you could certainly buy a few $1000 houses, put in some sweat equity and give a homeless person a home. Yet you choose not to. How heartless!

You appear to be quite generous, with other people's money, yet rather stingy with your own. Shame on you. The least you could do, individually, is start sleeping on the couch and let a homeless person sleep in your bed. After all, it's their HUMAN RIGHT, isn't it? Remember, the whole world is watching.

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?

http://www.defensedevices.com/caltrops.html


Just sayin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gistok

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.

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??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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??

---

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.

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:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

[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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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".

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragnarok1981

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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!

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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!

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. / :

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

Quote:

---

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