Timely, considering the recent discussion on squatters in Palmer Park. I know a lot of people are trying really hard to hold on to "law and order", but I think we may have already lost it. If people are going to break the law, this might be an okay way to do it.
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...ters-moving-in
Good move to step off of that other thread dealing with one specific case.
The larger issue has nothing to do with any one house. It's much more important. It's obvious that there are too many homes without families and too many families without homes. Any honest Google Maps sample will show that. That's the issue that's been so quietly avoided because "free market supply-demand" promised to resolve such problems yet embarrassingly has not balanced supply and demand. It's embarrassing to the parasitic saboteurs in power.
It used to be that a house served two purposes and served both well: as both a home for a family and as a source of profit for a bank. As push came to shove in this bizarre economy, one of these purposes was destined to became primary and the other secondary. The result was revealing. It's no surprise that lobbiest-armed bank profit became the primary purpose of a house's existence. It's also no surprise that the bank's investments dwindled to nothing as the houses decayed due to lack of the stewardship of an occupying family.
The only sane purpose of a house is to provide a family a home.
Banks squatting on the investment value of houses, depriving otherwise homeless families of homes, is what led to the burned-out hulks of Detroit. Banks continue to create this no-win situation and deserve no sympathy for continuing to reap what they sew. They're crapping on all of us and the sooner we hold them accountable the better.
One our neighbors in Detroit lost their house when the mother died. There was no utility, lights, gas, water, etc. but they lived there. The house was never repaired, it declined terribly. So who is going to pay the utilities? the water? Who will be responsible for the repairs? That costs money!Quote:
Originally Posted by socks_mahoney
In general this option of reclaiming property is already happening, this is just formalizing it? I can see DTE instituting more utility 'turn on' beuracracy and fees behind this... and FIA generating a whole new gamut of renter/ residence ownership verification forms before they vend any utility payments, etc. The city water department will not turn water on unless the previous bill is paid in full etc...
Most of these homes have plumbing and wiring stripped quickly so it'd be hard to turn anything on - a light bulb or a faucet with out a great deal of commitment to restore property. We have the harsh winter months and if heat is not restored with working furnaces are we talking the 'kerosene' and space heater option and the fires that sometimes result? Who's going to monitor code violations? Things done on the low-low breed other problems.
My gut feelings is that there will be problems not in clear view now. Are these properties going to be re-registered with the city? How you do that without a deed? And other paperwork... I know this is suppose to focus on homes lost due to foreclosure, but who is going to verify status of said abandoned home... where it the infrastructor to do this? This could get really messy...
Especially for those who claim a house where the original home owner was evicted. I could see some friction or in some case persons coming back to their 'foreclosed' home or wanting to, and you have a 'new' resident. Or an absentee landlord returning to reclaim the property once repairs [[free to him now) have been made, to evict the new tenants? Lots of fun in the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago48
Well, gee; my family has a cottage, I guess we're all just insane Up North.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
And many, many people I know own houses as investment properties. I guess they're all wacky folks, and we'd be better off without those crazy things known as "investments" and "rentals".
And, yeah, if grandma is selling her home, and not happy with the present offers, I think she has no right to sit on the property. We should all just come with pitchforks and torches, and throw her out, right?
There are clearly two sides to this issue and, depending on the situation, both can be right. It really comes down to the neighborhood and what they think about it. In the case of a devastated neighborhood I can see where neighbors fed up with banks foreclosing properties, boarding them up and not maintaining them or having no realistic means of selling them would welcome such take overs. In others where only a few empty properties exist, neighbors would have an opposites view.
We faced this in my Highland Park neighborhood where squatters moved into a nice house acting as if they owned it. The neighbors didn't like it and they were gone. We had similar situations where houses were broken into, taken over then rented out. As these were large arts and crafts houses the renters were unable to maintain them, let alone keep the heat on. As we learned later with one of them they resorted to burning storm window frames and other wooden items in the fire place. The pipe froze and burst and when they left the house was severely damaged. Fortunately a new neighbor bought it and restored it. For our part we made a point to keep lawns mowed on empty houses to give a drive by appearance of their being maintained.
The real problem is the failure of government at all levels to face the housing needs of the public. They say, particularly these days, let the free market take care of it and the results are predictable. I might not agree with everything the people in the video say, but a lot of it resonates.
This is exactly it. It's obvious that the free market is not working correctly right now. That may because of temporary volatility in both the capital markets or the housing markets...or both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
At the same time, the solution is not militancy or taking others' possessions by force.
This will likely take coordination between governmental bodies and private investors. With housing prices as low as they are, the city could just foreclose on delinquent homes and rent them at super low rents, in theory. The problem is that the city can't be counted on to manage a 5-man basketball team, let alone 20,000 homes with 20,000 renters.
On the flipside, as a private investor, even with $5,000 homes, they need some assurances that the risks of investing the necessary up-front capital needed to bring many of these homes to livable conditions won't be totally lost with the risks of managing property and renting it to segments of the population that are inundated with mental illness, violence, and crime.
I mean, even if you were to give me the property for free, renting to this segment of the population is essentially social work....and poorly paid social work at that.
So this is the conundrum, and this is how it needs to be discussed to get anywhere. The purist extremes on both sides of the free-market and che guevara ideologies are not going to produce any workable solutions.
Why haven't the "banks are bad, housing should be free, welfare is a right" crowd taken advantage of the numerous programs available to non-profits to legally buy foreclosed homes for $1? Marie Thorton, of Welfare, Inc., says they'll fix up the squat homes and get utilities on legally. So why squat a house when the banks/Fannie/Freddie/HUD are willing give away houses to valid non-profits? Perhaps because they like to stir the pot and poke a stick in the banks eye rather than work together with the financial institutions.
Banks don't really want to own any more Detroit real estate. Not only have they lost whatever they loaned initially, they often have to write a check to pay back taxes and water bills not paid by the homeowner. Accordingly, banks are discharging the mortgages on some Detroit homes so that they never have to take them back. The owners never have to worry about losing their house. If they don't want it any more they can give it to anyone that will take it. But rather than work with those folks the welfare rights types are more concerned with fighting the banks than providing housing.
Yep, good point. It will seem all so easy for them to further throw up their hands, then get all legalistic if it becomes un-hinged where they must step in. Which is never a good time when it happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell