By: Daniel Nardini
One thing that has been happening in the last few years are homeless people going into abandoned homes and occupying them. When I say abandoned homes, I am referring to those homes that the banks have foreclosed on and now these properties lie neglected. In all major cities across the United States, this phenomenon is becoming more common. In a growing number of cases the homeless themselves were actually homeowners who were thrown out of their own houses after the banks foreclosed on them. It is a sad irony that there are so many, many houses with no occupants and too many homeless people it makes for a staggering contradiction. This contradiction has caused a number of civil and homeless associations to actually encourage homeless people to go into abandon homes and “occupy” them. In other words go and stay in a home that is not theirs and not pay for anything.
As well meaning as this seems, this is really not a good idea. These closed up homes are not the property of those who “occupy” them. These are private properties that were taken away from people who could not afford to pay the mortgages. I do not by any stretch of the imagination justify what many of the major commercial banks have done—many of these banks never gave their mortgage clients a chance to modify their mortgages nor a chance to try and pay as best they could. I know of one case personally where the bank would not give a guy a chance even though he was still working and making all of his payments on time. He wanted a lower mortgage so that he could keep paying it off. However, the banks said “no.” No, I have little or no love for banks. If I could put my money somewhere else I would. At the same time, as much as I do not like it, I have to agree that all those properties that the banks own are theirs. No one, and not even homeless people, have a right to occupy properties that are not theirs. Because if people can occupy bank-owned properties then what is to stop them from breaking into homes owned by private owners and living in them when the private owners are not there temporarily?
When you come down to it, staying in a bank-owned property is still breaking and entering, and I am horrified that any organization can and does encourage homeless people to go in and stay in a property that is not theirs. But I am not without sympathy. While I myself have never been homeless, I came close a few times and I knew someone who was. Is it not possible for civil and homeless organizations to be able to work with banks to maybe get homeless families into abandoned bank-owned properties in return for those families to pay some reasonable mortgages? If a homeless family will pay something in mortgage, help to fix up the place, and do the best they can to rehabilitate part of the neighborhood, is this not a better solution for all parties interested? Would it not work better to occupy the land legally? I have no idea if banks will go for this, but in my view it is a realistic approach to a very widespread problem. It may not be a perfect solution, but it is better for both sides to try something like this and maybe something that satisfies the needs of the homeless and the demands of the banks. It just makes no sense to have row after row of derelict homes while so many homeless people stand beside these homes trying to seek shelter.
Occupy the Land or Not Occupy the Land?
By: Daniel Nardini
One thing that has been happening in the last few years are homeless people going into abandoned homes and occupying them. When I say abandoned homes, I am referring to those homes that the banks have foreclosed on and now these properties lie neglected. In all major cities across the United States, this phenomenon is becoming more common. In a growing number of cases the homeless themselves were actually homeowners who were thrown out of their own houses after the banks foreclosed on them. It is a sad irony that there are so many, many houses with no occupants and too many homeless people it makes for a staggering contradiction. This contradiction has caused a number of civil and homeless associations to actually encourage homeless people to go into abandon homes and “occupy” them. In other words go and stay in a home that is not theirs and not pay for anything.
As well meaning as this seems, this is really not a good idea. These closed up homes are not the property of those who “occupy” them. These are private properties that were taken away from people who could not afford to pay the mortgages. I do not by any stretch of the imagination justify what many of the major commercial banks have done—many of these banks never gave their mortgage clients a chance to modify their mortgages nor a chance to try and pay as best they could. I know of one case personally where the bank would not give a guy a chance even though he was still working and making all of his payments on time. He wanted a lower mortgage so that he could keep paying it off. However, the banks said “no.” No, I have little or no love for banks. If I could put my money somewhere else I would. At the same time, as much as I do not like it, I have to agree that all those properties that the banks own are theirs. No one, and not even homeless people, have a right to occupy properties that are not theirs. Because if people can occupy bank-owned properties then what is to stop them from breaking into homes owned by private owners and living in them when the private owners are not there temporarily?
When you come down to it, staying in a bank-owned property is still breaking and entering, and I am horrified that any organization can and does encourage homeless people to go in and stay in a property that is not theirs. But I am not without sympathy. While I myself have never been homeless, I came close a few times and I knew someone who was. Is it not possible for civil and homeless organizations to be able to work with banks to maybe get homeless families into abandoned bank-owned properties in return for those families to pay some reasonable mortgages? If a homeless family will pay something in mortgage, help to fix up the place, and do the best they can to rehabilitate part of the neighborhood, is this not a better solution for all parties interested? Would it not work better to occupy the land legally? I have no idea if banks will go for this, but in my view it is a realistic approach to a very widespread problem. It may not be a perfect solution, but it is better for both sides to try something like this and maybe something that satisfies the needs of the homeless and the demands of the banks. It just makes no sense to have row after row of derelict homes while so many homeless people stand beside these homes trying to seek shelter.