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.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Username on Tuesday August 23 2016, @12:54PM
If you squat on a property for 15 years you can claim it as your own.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 23 2016, @01:01PM
However, if you squat for anything remotely approaching 15 years, you really ought to be checking with a doctor about your condition!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @01:06PM
Doctor finds nothing wrong. Social worker visits home, discovers all your ceilings are too low.
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Tuesday August 23 2016, @01:45PM
In Brazil it's only 5 years.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:22PM
Every state in the USA is different and has a raft of different requirements and different time intervals.
I checked and where I live they cut down on title fraud BS by giving adverse possession in 10 years if you have a deed. So when I eventually sell, having lived in my house for 16 years, they need research the title no further than me... my having a deed and having been here over 10 years is "good enough proof". Technically as per the above having paid prop tax for seven years is adequate even without the deed. So even if ten owners ago someone stole it from someone else, it doesn't matter anymore. Squatter laws are kind of a "statute of limitations" for registered property ownership. No need to research the legality of the land sale in 1854, just track backwards until someone paid prop tax for seven consecutive years and previous to that doesn't legally matter anymore. At least in this state.
Sometimes this comes up in boundary fence disputes, sometimes the law is different for boundary fences.
Whats happening here is different, once the great recession started rolling banks often wouldn't take possession of a house they figured they couldn't sell for a profit before adverse possession kicks in, because often enough they can't secure a house against the former owner. So the mortgage servicer forecloses, the people in the house get kicked out by the sheriff, they come back and start squatting the house, once they regain legal residency its a race against time to sell off the house before they need another eviction and/or lose the property entirely to squatters. They're better off letting the people live in the house without paying for a couple years before firing off the foreclosure rather than beginning squatter wars.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @04:04PM
They're better off letting the people live in the house without paying for a couple years before firing off the foreclosure rather than beginning squatter wars.
How will that help them further divide us into the ownership class and the wage slave class? Renters are good wage slaves. People building equity threaten to become part of the ownership class themselves.
Crash the economy. Foreclose. Throw the squatters out. Get property management companies to take over the property. Rent it back out to the people who were previously living there. Mission accomplished.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Tuesday August 23 2016, @04:22PM
I disagree, renters are terrible wage slaves, renters don't have a particular tie to the area, so if they aren't being treated well, they don't have to worry about selling their place when they move. They might wind up losing their deposit and a couple months rent, but that's about it.
A home owner that wants to move across country is lucky to lose that much if they have to move abruptly. Especially during economic crises when the housing market is down.
One of the reasons why it's good to be a young unmarried man is that you've got a ton of options if you're willing and able to relocate for better opportunities.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by julian on Tuesday August 23 2016, @04:52PM
Renting means you're a slave to the whims of the credit rating agencies and your rental history. You can easily find yourself homeless if you have bad history, or worse, no credit/rent history at all. Even if you can prove you have the money they often won't even consider your application.
The two credit rating agencies, private corporations, have immense power over millions of people. It's a sinister and regressive system designed to extract wealth from the poor and the desperate and funnel it to the ownership class. This didn't even have to be deliberate; it naturally emerges from individual entities pursuing their self-interest without consumer protections. Diffusion of responsibility, and guilt, allows normally ethical people to participate in this inhuman and inhumane system. No evil cabal of Illuminati necessary. It's all run by otherwise normal people, like you and me.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday August 23 2016, @07:01PM
Renting means you're a slave to the whims of the credit rating agencies and your rental history.
Whims? First off, your "rental history" is generally self-made. In most cases, if you pay on time, don't have raucous parties that get the police called, and leave the place in roughly as good condition as when you found it, it's really doubtful a landlord will give you anything less than a stellar recommendation if contacted.
And while the exact formula for credit scores is a secret, the components that make it up are clearly stated. Pay bills on time -- that's the biggest one. Have a history of paying off loans. Apply for some credit cards, and use them once in a while, but keep low balances. Try to keep most of the accounts for a long time (i.e., don't close and open new credit accounts). Don't apply for new credit on a regular basis.
That's about it. Is it annoying for some people to have a loan and make payments on it for a while? Sure. But there are lots of ways of doing that -- heck, a few years ago I took out an auto loan just because the interest rate was so low. I've invested the extra money instead and have made a lot more on it than I've lost in a small amount of interest. And I know some people are freaked out by the very concept of credit cards, but you don't need to do much with them. Just use them once in a while to keep them active.
These little steps may be annoying, but they're actually convenient options for most people. I don't actually have to think at all about maintaining my credit, and my score has been above 800 for many years.
You can easily find yourself homeless if you have bad history, or worse, no credit/rent history at all.
What's your alternative? I agree that there are bad things about credit ratings -- in particular, errors can show up with surprising frequency and they can be a pain to remove. But you don't seem to be concerned about stuff like that -- you just hate the whole concept.
But what's the alternative? Years ago, the way this worked was -- people tended to live in small towns, and everybody knew each other. You'd go down to the local bank and talk to "Bill," who probably knew your dad from the club or whatever. Bill introduced you to the loan officer, and they gave you a loan. You want an apartment? You go talk to "Sam," whose wife was on a church committee with your aunt. He introduces you to a landlord and vouches for your good behavior at church camp 10 years ago.
That's the way people used to evaluate credit and rental history. If you live in a town for a while and get to know people, you'll likely still be able to do stuff like that. But absent information like that, just how are apartment owners supposed to trust that you're not going to be a "tenant from hell" or skip town without paying rent or whatever?
Even if you can prove you have the money they often won't even consider your application.
Some won't. But I've seen a LOT of apartment complexes which have policies like, "Demonstrated income equal to X times the rent amount OR verified bank account balance with minimum of Y."
The system has flaws. But what's your alternative method for a landlord to evaluate some young person who walks in and has no references, no history of making regular payments to anyone ever, has no local ties, and just wants to rent his space?
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday August 23 2016, @09:46PM
First off, it's generally illegal to discriminate against certain classes of people. Secondly, renters rarely care about who's renting their units as long as they pay on time, don't damage the unit and don't disturb the other tennants.
The credit score and rental history are of your own making. Barring a situation where there's been rental documents that were confused, you're not likely to have to worry about that. What's more, if you don't have the credit score to rent an apartment, then how do you propose buying a house?
Whenever I've looked at rentals, there's multiple ways of qualifying. One of them is to make more than a certain amount of money and the other is to have a certain amount of money in the bank. But, as I've already stated, landlords care primarily about being paid for their units. Just make sure you're a good tennant and keep in contact when the lease is up for renewal and you probably won't have much to worry about.
(Score: 2) by jmoschner on Wednesday August 24 2016, @12:44AM
Most Landlords don't care about anything but collecting their rent check. If there is damage, they will bill the occupants or take it out of their deposit. If there is noise, they don't care. Most just want their money can could care less about the people living there as there are always people looking for a new place to live.
Place that take Section 8 are usually the worst. They know they are getting a steady paycheck from those tenants (thanks to the government) and jack up the price for everyone else to maintain that check. The Section 8 residents can do just about anything short of burning the place down and the landlords don't care.
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Tuesday August 23 2016, @01:03PM
I recall reading about communities in PA that were seizing abandon homes through eminent domain, and reselling them to locals who promised to live in the home and fix it up. The program was done in conjunction with banks who gave the new owners mortgage rates they might not have otherwise qualified for, backed in part by the municipality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @01:04PM
Be Rich
Don't Be Poor
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:07PM
So I can just take someone else's property if I deem that they aren't using it right?
Do people understand that the only reason we have any temporary glimpses of decent society today is because of individual property rights?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:14PM
What part of "abandoned" is unclear to you? Is it the part where you're envious of other people who are claiming abandoned property and you're not getting any of it? How greedy of an asshole are you exactly?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by julian on Tuesday August 23 2016, @04:15PM
And your property rights come with property responsibilities. It's a two-way social contract. You can't allow your property to become a hazard to others. You can't just abandon your property to decay, illicit use, and eventual collapse.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday August 23 2016, @04:59PM
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.
(Score: 2) by Snow on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:00PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:32AM
Why doesn't that same legal concept extend to "abandonware"?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @02:10PM
Because "intellectual property" is more property than real property. Thats why nothing will ever enter the public domain, abandonware or not, for as long as we live.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @07:54PM
Do people understand that the only reason we have any straight roads today is because of Parliamentary enclosure?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:25PM
Where are the hipster startups buying property for cheap and promising a a new utopia of basic income for all residents backed by herds of unicorn investment?
Oh right. Detroit isn't anywhere near the Gay Area. Hipsters don't even know Detroit exists.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:56PM
Overton_window.soviet-style_mass_expropriation_of_private_property.open()
Or maybe you like camelcase better?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by jmoschner on Wednesday August 24 2016, @12:50AM
Good Neighbor make good neighborhoods. Whether they be home owners, renters, or squatters. If the people have a vested interest in the home and the neighborhood they are going to take action see it maintained or improved.