Massive property tax increase. Owner-occupants are exempted from that tax.
As soon as a bank initiates foreclosure proceedings, they owe the full, non-exempt tax rate. That stick gives them a strong incentive to work with their borrower.
That article also talks about a lot of the properties being tear downs. It’s easy to say that a homeless person would find just about anything a step up, but realistically it has to be habitable, salable, maintainable. No one would want the liability of a below standard house, nor the PR hit of giving a junk house
I’ve been homeless. Give me a shit house I can call mine and let me work to improve it. Let me put money into replacing the pipes and removing the mold instead of into rent. With the prices landlords are charging these days, it would be easy.
That’s what I was thinking, too. The article says 116 houses per homeless person in Detroit. Has this person ever been to Detroit? Vacant houses there aren’t even safe to look at.
I’m from a rural area in New York, and it’s similar. My brother considered house flipping because some were so cheap you could do it by credit card. However they tended to be abandoned for years, not really salvageable, plus the population was dwindling so not much hope for a sale, ever
the easy way to solve this is TO GIVE THE DAMNED HOUSES AWAY instead of retaining ownership of property that could house people. don’t want to be landlords? give it the fuck away
if so, they don’t seem to be used successfully that I see; really the only squatters I’ve encountered were the pack of meth heads who moved into a neighbors house while they were working overseas. claimed they had a lease, even. And even they were gone in under a week.
Squatters shouldn’t have rights wtf. That’s not their property, lol it’s like lemme me just steal some shit from the store, they’re not using it.
There was a case study about how bizarre squatter rights existed in NY if the owner was away for 30 days and there so many cases of primary residence people going on extended vacation, and coming back and then they become homeless because some asshole just decided to move in until the court finally reviews these frivelous cases.
There are major things wrong with housing, but squatter rights are effectively allowing you to steal from others. They should look into limiting hoarding and lvt which has been shown to be more effective in places like Singapore.
Squatters shouldn’t have rights wtf. That’s not their property, lol it’s like lemme me just steal some shit from the store, they’re not using it.
If the owners don’t figure that someone moved in on the order of years then clearly they don’t care either. Thus the squatters have a right to claim the property.
As other two have said. The carrying costs for banks is just too low to incentivize liquidity in housing supply. Put them on the market and watch home prices and rent fall
This article claims a lot of these are foreclosures and banks don’t want to be landlords
Massive property tax increase. Owner-occupants are exempted from that tax.
As soon as a bank initiates foreclosure proceedings, they owe the full, non-exempt tax rate. That stick gives them a strong incentive to work with their borrower.
That article also talks about a lot of the properties being tear downs. It’s easy to say that a homeless person would find just about anything a step up, but realistically it has to be habitable, salable, maintainable. No one would want the liability of a below standard house, nor the PR hit of giving a junk house
I’ve been homeless. Give me a shit house I can call mine and let me work to improve it. Let me put money into replacing the pipes and removing the mold instead of into rent. With the prices landlords are charging these days, it would be easy.
That’s what I was thinking, too. The article says 116 houses per homeless person in Detroit. Has this person ever been to Detroit? Vacant houses there aren’t even safe to look at.
I’m from a rural area in New York, and it’s similar. My brother considered house flipping because some were so cheap you could do it by credit card. However they tended to be abandoned for years, not really salvageable, plus the population was dwindling so not much hope for a sale, ever
the easy way to solve this is TO GIVE THE DAMNED HOUSES AWAY instead of retaining ownership of property that could house people. don’t want to be landlords? give it the fuck away
Corollary: this is also why we have squatters rights.
throughout the US?
if so, they don’t seem to be used successfully that I see; really the only squatters I’ve encountered were the pack of meth heads who moved into a neighbors house while they were working overseas. claimed they had a lease, even. And even they were gone in under a week.
just curious, thanks.
Well The US is a patchwork of laws, so mileage may vary.
Still, perhaps we need to strengthen them. They are in the spirit of “this is who actually lives and contributes here”
Squatters shouldn’t have rights wtf. That’s not their property, lol it’s like lemme me just steal some shit from the store, they’re not using it.
There was a case study about how bizarre squatter rights existed in NY if the owner was away for 30 days and there so many cases of primary residence people going on extended vacation, and coming back and then they become homeless because some asshole just decided to move in until the court finally reviews these frivelous cases.
There are major things wrong with housing, but squatter rights are effectively allowing you to steal from others. They should look into limiting hoarding and lvt which has been shown to be more effective in places like Singapore.
If the owners don’t figure that someone moved in on the order of years then clearly they don’t care either. Thus the squatters have a right to claim the property.
As other two have said. The carrying costs for banks is just too low to incentivize liquidity in housing supply. Put them on the market and watch home prices and rent fall