Foreclosed homes for the homeless

“The question is: Is this going to be done out of desperation or with direction?”

Will part of “the direction” include ensuring that the properties are kept in good order and not abused?

What Joe says. I hope Mr. Rameau works well with his attorneys. He’ll need to to defend himself for the burglary charges and the civil lawsuit he’s going to face from the banks, as buyers know quite well that at least some of the homeless are homeless for a reason.

Pete – I don’t remember the good Samaritan stealing anyone else’s property to care for the man on the road. Instead, when he left the man at the inn he paid for the room and to have someone tend to the injured man.

I have no problem with this guy’s desire to help these people. It would be better if we all had a healthy does of that impulse. That said there are ways to go about this. He could have called the local banks and asked them to work with him to set up such a program. He could have attempted to raise funds to make some sort of a modest rent payment.

I don’t think anyone is objecting to motive but means matter. The “how” is important. If we ignore the means then, there is nothing stopping me from taking all of your money and giving it to someone I decide needs it more than you.

Geez. Moving in the homeless into other people’s property.

What about the people who’ve been foreclosed upon? Presumably, they’re homeless now, too. No sympathy for them?

Not everyone who’s lost their home in this downturn is a feckless loser, who overmortgaged on way too much house. Some have been struggling in states where jobs dried up several years ago, and couldn’t sell their homes because the housing market had tanked long before the rest of the nation’s did.

Well, wait a minute. If these people are so responsible, can they afford to pay any rent to the property owners (the banks, at this point, I guess)? Are they planning to pay for heat and water and electricity? If they are really going to “take care of the places”, it might be in the banks’ interest to reach some kind of agreement with these people, as the properties might need caretakers. But shouldn’t the banks (on behalf of their shareholders) have some say about whom they get to “take care of the places”? And aren’t the banks’ shareholders “people”…with some rights in deciding what happens to their property?

All we’re saying, Pete, is this sounds good idealisticly, but the issues involved in actually doing it are not so simple.

Pete – enough with the baseless accusations and overly dramatic statements about the “good Republicans” and the “typical American Christian response.” Hyperbole is not argument. There are obvious and serious problems with what this man is doing – despite his good intentions.

Pete @ 11: You seem to be awfully generous with other people’s resources. Your rationalization that companies aren’t really “people” is great, except who do you think owns the shares? A lot of hurting people who have lost almost all of their equity, and don’t need to lose anymore. Funny thing — Christ is really careful throughout the gospels not to take other people’s property without their permission. He certainly encouraged people to fulfill their obligations to the government, and to share their own resources with the poor, but I don’t recall any teachings about robbing Peter to give to Paul.

Whom would you suggest be responsible for the inevitable damages to these properties by those whom this noble fellow moves in, without owners’ permission?

Why don’t you start by moving some of these folks into your own home, rather than so graciously offering the homes of others?

Patrick, what figures are you using? A $300,000 home at 6% interest will be almost $650,000. At 7% it will be almost $720,000. Not until the rate is 10+% will it be up to a million dollars. You’ve got some funky standards if our current ~6% interest rate is usurious!

Don’t forget, that’s over the course of 30 years. The length of time makes a difference. What if it were 100 years? The borrower would be paying less than 0.01% interest for 100 years to pay a million dollars. That’s the same final numbers – $300K and $1M, but surely a 0.01% interest rate isn’t horribly usurious! The length of time makes the difference.

Don’t take just the raw numbers when dealing with interest issues. A bank could give a loan for a house for $300,000 and require it be paid back in 1 year for $400,000 so the people get a house for only an extra $100,000 instead of an extra $400K over 30 years! Yay! Errr, not. That’s 33% interest – much worse than a little 6% rate.

If you want to deal with absolute numbers, then don’t ignore the length of time.

(sorry – I like math and sometimes go overboard)

On to the original topic – has anyone SEEN what low-rent renters do to a house?!?!? Go on a beneficence trip with your church delivering Christmas/Thanksgiving dinners to poor families. Go babysit for families who are jobless living in low-income housing. With 100% consistency, the domiciles have always been trashed. (and the sample size in my experience is significant, not just a single anecdotal happening) The owning banks will have to pump tens of thousands of dollars into repairing each one of those houses before it can be resold. And what happens when a home buyer comes to take a look at the house and finds it filled with people?

There are a LOT of much better ways to help with homeless housing issues that don’t involve stealing from banks and corporations. There are lots of examples out there – groups that are using empty houses with owners’ permission for low rent to house people and guaranteeing repairs will be made.

I like the motive of the guy – helping the homeless. The method, theft, is all wrong!

Sounds like news from a third-world country; not surprising because by every other sign we seem headed that way

Well, his methods may be questionable, but he got people to notice the problem.

Now, what are we going to do about it? Sit around and cluck our tongues? Disparage his methods? What are our methods? Have we any? I suspect not.

The houses were empty and were going to stay that way for some time. And the longer they stayed empty, the more difficult it would be to get someone to buy them. Now they have families living in them and (according to the article) taking care of them with the help of the organization that put them in the houses.

Perhaps the banks should consider paying these folks a stipend for taking care of their property.