Moms 4 houses about to be evicted

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Thanks for the idea. It's fire safety: a house left vacant is more likely to burn down by arson, to cover that I can charge a rate surcharge.

Dude thats literally a crime and not in the hands of the owner, thats like charging someone extra because theyre in a town theyre more likely to be murdered in.

No, because neighbours are put at risk by fire. It's an externality.

You'd probably find it easier to grasp: increased risk of fire means increased costs to provision fire brigades. The property doesn't need to actually burn down before the risk can be assessed, so an unusual decision by the owner which increases the risk, can be billed for.

[Satuga]

Then thats their money to spend, youre under no circumstance to tell others how to legally spend their money, and what to do with whatever they bought. Someone can buy an entire fucking town and let no one in and guess what, thats fine because its their money theyre wasting.

Well they couldn't buy the whole town. Towns have local government, who are going to want to know what you intend to do with that property where their ratepayers used to live. They're not going to want to be at the mercy of just one ratepayer. Keeping their jobs is reason enough to stop you.

Well first of all my point was a hyperbole, but secondly heres towns being bought by single individuals.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/youtuber-buys-michigan-town-renames-it-gay-hell-protest-trump-n1018561
https://nypost.com/2013/10/31/man-buys-smallest-town-in-us-for-900k-population-1/
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/ghost-town-sold-cerro-gordo/index.html
So yes people have done it before, mostly in ghost towns and small towns but still towns.

[The Lone Alliance]

Personal experience of squatting was, be good quiet neighbours so no-one reports you (or if possible, even suspects you're a squatter). But if they day comes that police evict you, try to negotiate a few days to move your stuff out, but whether or not, you're going to have to go. Come by a week later tho, you might be able to move right back in.
I lived with piped gas but no electricity for a few months. It was plush!

Yeah I remember my share of stories after the housing collapse of squatters moving into foreclosed homes and simply treating it like they had always owned the home.

The real owners did nothing because housing prices were so bad they couldn't even give away houses like that.

[Satuga]

They don't want to rent it or sell it then that's their problem, they don't need the house in that case.

And you don't need any of your technology, doesn't mean someone can just come up to you and take your phone because they're in a worse position than you, its your property not theirs. If you want to give out your property thats one thing, but no one should be allowed to just come up a claim it as their own.

[Heloin]

They don't want to rent it or sell it then that's their problem, they don't need the house in that case.

And you don't need any of your technology, doesn't mean someone can just come up to you and take your phone because they're in a worse position than you, its your property not theirs. If you want to give out your property thats one thing, but no one should be allowed to just come up a claim it as their own.

I'm using my phone, they're leaving a building vacant. The owners refuse to use the house in any of the many ways you can use a house then fuck them, they don't need it.

[Satuga]

Dude thats literally a crime and not in the hands of the owner, thats like charging someone extra because theyre in a town theyre more likely to be murdered in.

No, because neighbours are put at risk by fire. It's an externality.

You'd probably find it easier to grasp: increased risk of fire means increased costs to provision fire brigades. The property doesn't need to actually burn down before the risk can be assessed, so an unusual decision by the owner which increases the risk, can be billed for.

That's still retarded, not only because only approx 30,200 vacant houses out of 18.6 million get burned down a year but also because over half of these are arson cases in which responsibility does not fall on the owner but rather the criminal who lit the fire. This is a stupid thing to increase billing for, and I see no way how you could possibly justify it other than "They deserve it for leaving it vacant."

[Satuga]

And you don't need any of your technology, doesn't mean someone can just come up to you and take your phone because they're in a worse position than you, its your property not theirs. If you want to give out your property thats one thing, but no one should be allowed to just come up a claim it as their own.

I'm using my phone, they're leaving a building vacant. The owners refuse to use the house in any of the many ways you can use a house then fuck them, they don't need it.

I'm sure theres something in your home you havent used for a while, what about those? Would you let someone just come over and take anything they deem as "Not being used"? Your argument is flawed and empty because it all goes back to "They don't need it, therefore it doesn't matter if they pay for it." Do tell me what you plan to do when you give these squatters the home? Because I can tell you with absolute certainty that the squatters cannot afford to pay for property tax, or other taxes, and it'd be retarded to think the company would just keep paying for something that isn't theirs.

[Cannot think of a name]

Actually by buying up and holding property creating artificial scarcity it kind of is their fault. The legality of what their doing doesn't really change the fact that what they're doing is exasperating the crisis.

There was an idea that I think got torpedoed that would put a penalty on unused properties. I liked that idea.

Wouldn't property speculators knock more houses down, rather than paying the penalty?

It would still be unused.

[Heloin]

I'm using my phone, they're leaving a building vacant. The owners refuse to use the house in any of the many ways you can use a house then fuck them, they don't need it.

I'm sure theres something in your home you havent used for a while, what about those? Would you let someone just come over and take anything they deem as "Not being used"?

I'm unsure what you think my argument is but you clearly don't know. Someone owning a house and keeping it vacant is not comparable to someone having something in their house and not using it.

Your argument is flawed and empty because it all goes back to "They don't need it, therefore it doesn't matter if they pay for it."

That wasn't my point but you are right that I couldn't give a fuck about them spending money.

Do tell me what you plan to do when you give these squatters the home? Because I can tell you with absolute certainty that the squatters cannot afford to pay for property tax, or other taxes, and it'd be retarded to think the company would just keep paying for something that isn't theirs.

Unless you are under the impression that those squatting in this house were crack addicts who didn't have a dime to their name then affording the tax and utilities is pretty reasonable just about anywhere aside from say New York or San Francisco.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Wouldn't property speculators knock more houses down, rather than paying the penalty?

It would still be unused.

Right. I agree with the idea of a surcharge on rates for leaving houses empty. I'm just concerned the houses might be knocked down instead. Gonna need a vacant lot surcharge too.

[Heloin]

It would still be unused.

Right. I agree with the idea of a surcharge on rates for leaving houses empty. I'm just concerned the houses might be knocked down instead. Gonna need a vacant lot surcharge too.

Unnecessary demolition surcharge.

[Australian rePublic]

Wait what? Why they evicted? This OP is about 3 sentances of story (with no context) and the rest is just ranting

[Napkizemlja]

They're doing fuck all with it, take it from them.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the topic.

Same.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

However, there is legal precedent for them to occupy the houses after a certain period of time without getting caught, which they didn’t reach.

[Napkizemlja]

Right. I agree with the idea of a surcharge on rates for leaving houses empty. I'm just concerned the houses might be knocked down instead. Gonna need a vacant lot surcharge too.

Unnecessary demolition surcharge.

Now that's a power metal band name I can get behind.

[Cannot think of a name]

It would still be unused.

Right. I agree with the idea of a surcharge on rates for leaving houses empty. I'm just concerned the houses might be knocked down instead. Gonna need a vacant lot surcharge too.

Just base it on zoning. If their letting the property go fallow there isn't much concern for the building anyway.

[USS Monitor]

2 years is a really long time to leave the property vacant. Property owners have a right to their property, but I don't support any charges against the squatters.

If a property is vacant a couple months because you're looking for the right tenant or buyer, that's a legit thing. If you leave a property vacant part of the year because it's a seasonal home, that's a legit thing. If nobody is living at the property, but you are actively working on renovating it, that's a legit thing.

But if you leave a house just sitting there vacant for over a year in an area where people are desperate for housing, it's your own fault if you get squatters. Yes, it's still your property and you can evict the squatters, but you can't really blame them.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Wait what? Why they evicted? This OP is about 3 sentances of story (with no context) and the rest is just ranting

There's a link.

A group of homeless mothers who moved their families into a vacant house in West Oakland to protest the housing crisis now face an inevitable but disappointing ouster. A superior court judge ruled in favor of the company that owns the home and ordered a pending eviction on Friday.

The parents, collectively known as Moms 4 Housing, say they’re not surprised by the outcome but accuse owner Wedgewood Properties of profiteering at the expense of Oakland families and say that the housing market is rigged against working people.

Wedgewood spokesperson Sam Singer said, “Justice is served” after Judge Patrick R. McKinney’s ruling.

McKinney had previously put off eviction until after the mothers had their day in court. The Alameda County Sheriff’s Department has five days from the issuing of the order to serve the order.

Dominique Walker, 34, and Sameerah Karim, 41, moved into the house at 2928 Magnolia Street in November. Both women say they’ve been unable to find long-term housing even when working full-time, and say that the house has been vacant for years.

Attorneys representing the mothers argued that they have a legal right to remain in the home, citing both constitutional and international law. But the judge dismissed the claims, saying, “the court recognizes the importance of these issues but [...] they are outside the scope of this proceeding.”

The Oakland Community Land Trust, a housing nonprofit, offered to buy the house from Wedgewood on behalf of the occupying families and repeated the offer on Friday, evidently to no avail.

Wedgewood, meanwhile, made a variety of bids to remove the families while still saving face, including offering to pay for two months of shelter post-eviction through a local charity and tapping former Super Bowl champ James Washington of all people to petition them to leave of their own accord. (The company says they’ll employ Washington’s Shelter 37 nonprofit to rehab the home before selling it.)

After the judge’s order, Singer said on behalf of the company that Wedgewood sympathizes with the homeless families, but also called the ruling “correct legal, moral, and ethical” and the occupation “violent, dangerous, and unsuccessful.”

Leah Simon-Weisberg, Legal Director for the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), a tenants group assisting Moms 4 Housing, said via email that “the courts’ hands are tied because in this country property rights are valued over human rights” and suggested that California’s constitution should be amended to address the housing crisis.

Moms 4 Housing attracted support from a variety of public figures in and around Oakland, including elected officials like Oakland City Council President Rebecca Kaplan. As of Monday morning the city has not yet been removed them from the property.

[Deacarsia]

I do not support squatting, though housing prices are way too high in California. I blame government regulations and loose monetary policy.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I do not support squatting, though housing prices are way too high in California. I blame government regulations and loose monetary policy.

You're at least half right. The tax deduction for mortgages contributes too.

[Galloism]

I do not support squatting, though housing prices are way too high in California. I blame government regulations and loose monetary policy.

You're at least half right. The tax deduction for mortgages contributes too.

There’s actually a pretty solid economics argument that interest deductions should be disallowed or curtailed.

One of the positives of the TCJA, economically, was the business interest deduction limitation.

[The Liberated Territories]

I'm fine with squatting if:

1. the property has been long abandoned
or
2. its government 'property'

[Heloin]

Unnecessary demolition surcharge.

Now that's a power metal band name I can get behind.

When in the future my job as a ranger inevitably comes to an end I'll now know my true calling.

[Cetacea]

This is why Capital gains tax is good, it means property isnt being left idle for 2 years and the own is obliged to manage it.

That said, squatters need to bed evicted earlier

[New haven america]

Considering the amount of vacant homes around the Pacific Coast that are only being used for investments or for show...

Good for them for trying, I hope those mothers can find success in the future.