No...I'm not talking about the balancing act that creates buns of steel. I'm talking about housing.
That's right. I'm on some see-a-house, change-the-locks, move-yo-ass-in shit.
Is it stealing? Is it bum behavior?
Maybe.
But financially speaking it is no less reckless than dumping thousands of bucks a year into renting an apartment or house.
If you drive around the area I live in you, will see a good many houses in various states of disrepair. You will also see people pushing around shopping carts full of cans.
There is this pretty neat park near where I live. Every time I walk through it I notice that they have cleared more trees yet the mysterious and sparse piles of mattresses and blankets remain.
You mean to tell me that the same dudes that are mowing down trees care more for the homeless population than investors?
If you don't know what squatting is let me elaborate.
Squatting is when an individual or a group of individuals find a house or building that is either abandoned or in the process of foreclosure. Seeing as how the process of foreclosure takes a minute (and by a minute I mean years) said house could be uninhabited and therefore vulnerable to theft and vandalism.
Anyway said individual or group of individuals commandeer said house, turn on the utilities and rock out until the house is sold at auction or some other entity exacts ownership.
Some look at squatting as stealing but keep in mind the following things:
1. The homeowner who may or may not be actively trying to get their home back from the bank may be renting to said squatter who is therefore as far as they know (and in some courts) a tenant.
2. If the home has been sitting for a while uninhabited there could be major issues such as:
-Missing pipes.
-Compromised boilers,
-Mold.
-Wiring Issues.
-Infestations of various types of rodentia and/or Insects.
If the squatter is trying to live comfortably these issues must be addressed when they move in.
3. The whole time the squatter is squatting they must maintain water, lights, oil (in the winter definitely), gas ( if applicable), cable (not necessary but nice to have). Etc.
When you add up the costs; of changing the locks, repairing any compromised windows or doors, making repairs to make the house livable, cleaning, purchasing a stove and refrigerator (I ain't like the shit is going to be there waiting on you) and anything that goes wrong while living there, Can you really call it stealing?
No they are not paying rent to a landlord but they are taking on many of the responsibilities of the home owner.
Furthermore depending on when the house is commandeered the squatter may have saved the owner the cost of replacing pipes and other issues that arise from a house being uninhabited and therefore unsecured.
I'm no business genius, but If I were the bank and I owned all these homes that people couldn't pay for I'd be looking for practical low cost ways to maintain my properties until I could auction them off or sell them to an investor.
That being the case, wouldn't it make more since (since people are doing it anyway) to be less of a an asshole to those individuals who move in and care for your property as if it were their own? Not only are you cutting your own costs in the long run but you are also providing a public service to those in need.
There are quite a few families out there without homes. If they can somehow afford to pay utilities and maintain a home's systems, why not give them a chance?
I know. Here it comes:
"Well some of THESE PEOPLE don't want to leave after the house has been sold. They stay and force the new owner to go through the courts to expel them. How is THAT saving money?"
My answer to that is "Cash for Keys." Not all squatters are deadbeats, drug addicts, degenerates, prostitutes or the like. Some squatters are single mothers, fathers of multiple children, victims of domestic abuse. Some of THESE PEOPLE have lost their jobs due to downsizing. Some of them are artists who may not have enough stable income to maintain rent payments and utilities. Some squatters are hard working and money saving individuals who can't get ahead. Some of them have recently become disabled and are living on a fixed income way below the cost of living and can't even afford to move.
Maybe THESE PEOPLE should be assessed as individuals instead of thrown together as thieves or losers.
I remember hearing something in econ class about maximizing profit by tailoring the price of goods to an individual customer's income.
Yes it takes time. But yall seem to have no problem letting a house sit for years so that a bank can sell it. Why not give that time to someone who would use the chance to build up their own capital.
Selfish.
That's right. I'm on some see-a-house, change-the-locks, move-yo-ass-in shit.
Is it stealing? Is it bum behavior?
Maybe.
But financially speaking it is no less reckless than dumping thousands of bucks a year into renting an apartment or house.
If you drive around the area I live in you, will see a good many houses in various states of disrepair. You will also see people pushing around shopping carts full of cans.
There is this pretty neat park near where I live. Every time I walk through it I notice that they have cleared more trees yet the mysterious and sparse piles of mattresses and blankets remain.
You mean to tell me that the same dudes that are mowing down trees care more for the homeless population than investors?
If you don't know what squatting is let me elaborate.
Squatting is when an individual or a group of individuals find a house or building that is either abandoned or in the process of foreclosure. Seeing as how the process of foreclosure takes a minute (and by a minute I mean years) said house could be uninhabited and therefore vulnerable to theft and vandalism.
Anyway said individual or group of individuals commandeer said house, turn on the utilities and rock out until the house is sold at auction or some other entity exacts ownership.
Some look at squatting as stealing but keep in mind the following things:
1. The homeowner who may or may not be actively trying to get their home back from the bank may be renting to said squatter who is therefore as far as they know (and in some courts) a tenant.
2. If the home has been sitting for a while uninhabited there could be major issues such as:
-Missing pipes.
-Compromised boilers,
-Mold.
-Wiring Issues.
-Infestations of various types of rodentia and/or Insects.
If the squatter is trying to live comfortably these issues must be addressed when they move in.
3. The whole time the squatter is squatting they must maintain water, lights, oil (in the winter definitely), gas ( if applicable), cable (not necessary but nice to have). Etc.
When you add up the costs; of changing the locks, repairing any compromised windows or doors, making repairs to make the house livable, cleaning, purchasing a stove and refrigerator (I ain't like the shit is going to be there waiting on you) and anything that goes wrong while living there, Can you really call it stealing?
No they are not paying rent to a landlord but they are taking on many of the responsibilities of the home owner.
Furthermore depending on when the house is commandeered the squatter may have saved the owner the cost of replacing pipes and other issues that arise from a house being uninhabited and therefore unsecured.
I'm no business genius, but If I were the bank and I owned all these homes that people couldn't pay for I'd be looking for practical low cost ways to maintain my properties until I could auction them off or sell them to an investor.
That being the case, wouldn't it make more since (since people are doing it anyway) to be less of a an asshole to those individuals who move in and care for your property as if it were their own? Not only are you cutting your own costs in the long run but you are also providing a public service to those in need.
There are quite a few families out there without homes. If they can somehow afford to pay utilities and maintain a home's systems, why not give them a chance?
I know. Here it comes:
"Well some of THESE PEOPLE don't want to leave after the house has been sold. They stay and force the new owner to go through the courts to expel them. How is THAT saving money?"
My answer to that is "Cash for Keys." Not all squatters are deadbeats, drug addicts, degenerates, prostitutes or the like. Some squatters are single mothers, fathers of multiple children, victims of domestic abuse. Some of THESE PEOPLE have lost their jobs due to downsizing. Some of them are artists who may not have enough stable income to maintain rent payments and utilities. Some squatters are hard working and money saving individuals who can't get ahead. Some of them have recently become disabled and are living on a fixed income way below the cost of living and can't even afford to move.
Maybe THESE PEOPLE should be assessed as individuals instead of thrown together as thieves or losers.
I remember hearing something in econ class about maximizing profit by tailoring the price of goods to an individual customer's income.
Yes it takes time. But yall seem to have no problem letting a house sit for years so that a bank can sell it. Why not give that time to someone who would use the chance to build up their own capital.
Selfish.
Comments
Post a Comment