Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday August 23 2016, @12:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the helping-wiht-the-upkeep dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Squatters who illegally occupy vacant homes or buildings are not always contributing to apathy or social disorder, says a new University of Michigan study that will be presented at the 111th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA).

It can actually be a good situation for a neighborhood to have these individuals move into abandoned homes, lessening the chance of them becoming sites for drug users or burned by arsonists, the study indicates.

In urban communities nationwide, such as Detroit, which are experiencing population decline, homes have been abandoned by owners or left unattended by private investors who often purchase them in bundles of tens, hundreds, or even thousands.

"While attempts to revitalize a city rely on private ownership to induce responsible care for property, that isn't always an option," said study author Claire Herbert, a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she earned a PhD in sociology.

That's where squatters come in.

Herbert, who will be an assistant professor at Drexel University in the fall, interviewed more than 60 people, including squatters, city authorities, and residents between 2013-2015, while also gathering ethnographic data on illegal property use from various sources, such as community meetings and squatted areas across Detroit.

Surprisingly, many of the residents in the study welcome squatters to keep abandoned homes occupied. Squatting, however, was not considered acceptable to residents if the home was still occupied or if the legal owner was maintaining and overseeing the property.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday August 23 2016, @04:59PM

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday August 23 2016, @04:59PM (#392212) Journal

    I wish squatters would move in to the foreclosed home in my neighborhood. The yard has gone to seed and there are saplings growing on the roof.

    It seems the bank can't stand the thought of someone being behind on their mortgage but they're fine with letting the property decay until the cleanup and demolition costs exceed the property value. Pure unvarnished spite.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by Snow on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:00PM

    by Snow (1601) on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:00PM (#392263) Journal

    How long did it take for the saplings to start growing on the roof?

    I mean, my roof tree control is exactly zero, and I don't have a roof tree problem. Does the house have a sod roof?

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday August 23 2016, @10:07PM

      by sjames (2882) on Tuesday August 23 2016, @10:07PM (#392338) Journal

      It has rain gutters in a tree filled neighborhood and pines (which we have plenty of) grow fast, so about 3 years.

      I suppose with all the years of accumulated leaves composting on the roof, it does have a pretty fertile sod layer by now.

      Since I actually blow the leaves off of my roof once in a while, I don't have a problem with saplings either.

      • (Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:31PM

        by scruffybeard (533) on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:31PM (#392649)

        I have seen this happen many times in just one season in well clogged gutter. Interestingly, in most cases the gutters had guards on them that should have prevented this. I'll never put those on my house.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 23 2016, @10:35PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 23 2016, @10:35PM (#392352) Journal

    It seems the bank can't stand the thought of someone being behind on their mortgage but they're fine with letting the property decay until the cleanup and demolition costs exceed the property value. Pure unvarnished spite.

    No, it's more "too big to fail" IMHO. The bank and bank regulators pretend the home is full value and that gets counted as part of the bank's reserve. In turn, the home doesn't get sold and depress local real estate prices.

    I think building all this real estate in the middle of last decade and then letting it rot this decade is unforgivable especially since it's going to create further problems down the road. But there is a motive beyond spite for this.

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday August 24 2016, @08:30AM

      by sjames (2882) on Wednesday August 24 2016, @08:30AM (#392517) Journal

      The spite part is that they don't even attempt to actually maintain the value. If they just want to play pretend, why not let the former owners stay there in exchange for mowing the lawn, or just pretend the mortgage is still viable, at least until market conditions might allow them to actually sell the house (or the borrower becomes able to pay again)?

      There's a zillion ways they could pretend to keep the value on the books, but they choose the most harmful one.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 24 2016, @02:27PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 24 2016, @02:27PM (#392576) Journal

        The spite part is that they don't even attempt to actually maintain the value. If they just want to play pretend, why not let the former owners stay there in exchange for mowing the lawn, or just pretend the mortgage is still viable, at least until market conditions might allow them to actually sell the house (or the borrower becomes able to pay again)?

        That is a good point. I think there's three effects here. First, we've already spoken of the squatter laws. There might be a risk of losing the property. Second, having someone live in the property may move it to a different category that can't be used as I suggest - maybe rental property is treated differently. I certainly don't know. There's also the cynical possibility that they're doing that to restrict supply even further.

        Third, this behavior seems to indicate that the banks never actually expect the property to become viable at some point in the future. Thus, any maintenance becomes a pure cost. That's what really bugs me about this situation. Good property is getting destroyed by complete neglect. Banks aren't in the habit of throwing money away. There has to be a way this leads, if not to profit, then to lower losses than if they did something with the property.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday August 24 2016, @07:01PM

          by sjames (2882) on Wednesday August 24 2016, @07:01PM (#392728) Journal

          The thing is, emptying the house is what opens them up to squatters, especially when they neglect to care for it themselves.Renters cannot gain possession through squatter laws. Generally, active rental properties are valued greater than empty and decaying ones. No matter how badly the real estate market crumbles, a livable home on a maintained lot will be worth more than a pile of rubble.

          There may be some obscure business angle there, but since they're already committing fraud by keeping the property on the books at pre-crash values, it's indistinguishable from spite from the outside.