« St. George's Mosaic Demolished Checking In On The Crest »

April 10, 2009

Foreclosures Are Their Palaces

Michael Stoops, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, said about a dozen advocacy groups around the country were actively moving homeless people into vacant homes — some working in secret, others, like Take Back the Land, operating openly. In addition to squatting, some advocacy groups have organized civil disobedience actions in which borrowers or renters refuse to leave homes after foreclosure. The groups say that they have sometimes received support from neighbors and that beleaguered police departments have not aggressively gone after squatters. — The New York Times




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:37 AM | Comments (26)
Categories: Foreclosure

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9232

Comments

Oy. That's all we need.

Return of the Squatters.

Posted by: northsloperenter at April 10, 2009 11:21 AM

Oh my god!

Posted by: mopar at April 10, 2009 11:21 AM

Seriously - how scary is this?

Posted by: gemini10 at April 10, 2009 11:41 AM

The slideshow that accompanies the article is absolutely heartbreaking.

Posted by: I_haz_TWO_toilets at April 10, 2009 11:43 AM

assholes

Posted by: wine lover at April 10, 2009 11:44 AM

This is the beginning of the collapse of the Mutant Asset Bubble...

The What (The What brings boxes of Skittles to the organizers)

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at April 10, 2009 11:51 AM

Wow.

All I can say is: We need more economic parity in this country (more jobs and better paying ones, that is -- in other words, more exports and manufacturing -- and bring back the usury laws) and we must have health care.

Also, these organizations should film the whole thing and put it online where people can watch it, comment on it, and connect. Seriously. It would be like a reality tv show that's really real. It would bring attention to their cause.

Meanwhile, if anyone should happen to buy one of these houses, what a potentially devastating financial situation for them.


Posted by: mopar at April 10, 2009 11:55 AM

Squatting is illegal, and certainly could cause a problem for potential buyers, BUT, in the real world, it may well be better to have these houses occupied, rather than empty. The article points out that homeowners on these blocks generally support the squatters.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at April 10, 2009 11:59 AM

"Squatting is illegal"

No it's not!!!

Adverse possession

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

"In common law, adverse possession is the process by which title to another's real property is acquired without compensation, by holding the property in a manner that conflicts with the true owner's rights for a specified period of time. Circumstances of the adverse possession determine the type of title acquired by the disseisor (the one who obtains the title as a result of the adverse possession action), which may be fee simple title, mineral rights, or other interest in real property."

Use it or lose it! If the American tax slave is bailing out the Assheads who made the loans in the first plane then the people should take these properties and live in them, Period!!!

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at April 10, 2009 12:07 PM

"Squatting is illegal, and certainly could cause a problem for potential buyers, BUT, in the real world, it may well be better to have these houses occupied, rather than empty."

Maybe... maybe in the suburbs it's better to have these places occupied. Not in the city though.

Were you in NYC in the early/mid 90s? Do you remember the squatters wars going on in the east village?

Alphabet City was one of the worst neighborhoods in Manhattan. East 13th street was a god awful mess.

Posted by: northsloperenter at April 10, 2009 12:15 PM

"Were you in NYC in the early/mid 90s? Do you remember the squatters wars going on in the east village?"

Sure do! Koch waged war with those squatters and they became Asshats later on.

"Alphabet City was one of the worst neighborhoods in Manhattan. East 13th street was a god awful mess."

Yeah I agree!

"Maybe... maybe in the suburbs it's better to have these places occupied. Not in the city though."

Very soon no one will be able to afford their house/condos. They will stop making payments and just squat. It's happing right now in some of the best neighborhoods in this city.

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at April 10, 2009 12:25 PM


"Were you in NYC in the early/mid 90s? Do you remember the squatters wars going on in the east village?"

Yep...there was a huge battle around that time in Tompkins Square Park, as I recall...anarchists vs. gentifyers. It was a big deal back then.

Posted by: East New York at April 10, 2009 12:26 PM

Maybe America will finally have its squatter movement- around 35 years after Europe.
In the 70' & 80's there was a real movement in European cities to occupy buildings. Basically what happened is that banks would let the buildings to rot-with the hopes of selling when the market picked up. The problem was that most of the cities had a major housing crisis-i.e lack of affordable housing. The squatters took over the buildings, later even gaining rights which are still on the books today.

Those laws are very helpful because banks know they can not leave a house empty otherwise a squatter could come and immediately gain rights of occupancy. Instead the banks try to really work with the owners before foreclosing. Once a property is foreclosed then, the bank must hire someone to live in the property-usually for free. I actually did this for a bank one summer in Amsterdam- it was great & I only had to pay the utilities.
Perhaps, coming soon to America!

Posted by: 7andfive at April 10, 2009 12:28 PM

"Yep...there was a huge battle around that time in Tompkins Square Park, as I recall...anarchists vs. gentifyers. It was a big deal back then."

Oh yeah!!! That's right! The archists vs. gentifyers was fight to see who would squat on Ave B!!! ROTFLMMFAO!!! Those was the good ole days and I wonder if they could make a comeback!!!

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at April 10, 2009 12:31 PM

that is awesome. i SO want to squat at the finger building on 4th avenue above cattyshack!! it's actually pretty hard to get into that building tho now probably that three units appear occupied.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at April 10, 2009 12:40 PM

what a mess. it's absolutely defies common sense, and economic sense, to have *this* be the result. so working people and children get kicked out, houses get looted and destroyed and families torn apart, and then the houses are taken over by people who aren't paying anyway? making any ultimate resale that much more difficult? isn't there *anybody* in charge at these banks anymore?

Posted by: i disagree at April 10, 2009 1:36 PM


"Were you in NYC in the early/mid 90s? Do you remember the squatters wars going on in the east village?"

Some of those squats turned into successful co-ops, as I recall it. And 13th street was totally fun.

Don't get me wrong, I really despised the anarchist squatter types, but they weren't the only kind.

Cheer up, good folk! We could soon have our own local versions of "Rent" playing out at every stalled construction site in the land!

Posted by: Heather at April 10, 2009 2:24 PM

Maybe television news will set up cameras outside these squatters' houses and cover it 24/7. Then Obama would be forced to fly in to remedy the situation, as Bush should have done for Katrina.

Posted by: mopar at April 10, 2009 3:18 PM

Glad that Queen Omega has access to brownstoner.

Posted by: eh at April 10, 2009 3:45 PM

"And 13th street was totally fun."

I had a friend who lived there who had to run the gauntlet of drug dealers, runners, and junkies every night to get home.

Not my idea of fun. Maybe if you are visiting and want to brag about the tough parts of the city you were in. Not much fun to live there though.

Posted by: northsloperenter at April 10, 2009 3:58 PM

At the time, Northslope, I thought they were picturesque. Now I'd be annoyed. However, Mona's was the only bar (aside from Sophie's and the Holiday) that my 20-year old self could afford. When we were flush we'd go to Joe's. It was a simple time.

Posted by: Heather at April 10, 2009 4:21 PM

I use to dream of being able to afford the Holiday!

.

.

.

.

Only kidding. Even I could afford the Holiday back then.

Although I once took somewhere there who ordered Vermouth, and I thought they were going to 86 me.

Posted by: northsloperenter at April 10, 2009 5:44 PM

"Use it or lose it! If the American tax slave is bailing out the Assheads who made the loans in the first plane then the people should take these properties and live in them, Period!!!"

QOTMFD

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at April 10, 2009 10:05 PM

Really?

Most of the former squats that bought their buildings from the city are still full of anarchists. Anarchy is not actually a synonym for "strung out heroin addicts run amok." It is a fairly demanding and rigorous political philosophy that calls on all of us to take responsibility for governance instead of ceding power to a few.

I did live in the East Village in the 90s. It was a mess. The cops were pretty fucking out of control. There were junkies everywhere. "Squatters" writ large were not the problem though. The problem was drug gangs and poverty and the fact that after turning its back on the poor for decades the city couldn't figure out how to reign in the hold that the dealers had on the area. Especially not with the state the local precincts were in.

I really don't get why the banks should get a bailout but people who burned through their life savings trying to reign in a subprime mortgage are supposed to rot in the streets.

Why should any city allow property to be warehoused?

How does that serve the rest of the city?

Posted by: serpentor at April 11, 2009 8:31 PM

"Anarchy is . . . a fairly demanding and rigorous political philosophy that calls on all of us to take responsibility for governance instead of ceding power to a few."

I lol'd. Hard.

That sounds like libertarianism, btw.

I'm pretty sure anarchy means I get to kill you and steal your stuff unless you kill me first or we team up to kill someone else. Or possibly we'll just enslave them, but then you are getting into that whole government thing again...

Posted by: northsloperenter at April 12, 2009 1:32 PM

For better or for worse, anarchy means lots and lots of meetings and consensus process. Libertarianism means I get to kill you and steal your stuff as long as I'm discrete about it.

Posted by: serpentor at April 12, 2009 10:26 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions