10 ms·

Curious that the neighbors would rather have an unmaintained and abandoned property sit vacant and all of the potential associated problems with that rather tha

by trotsky 15y ago

Curious that the neighbors would rather have an unmaintained and abandoned property sit vacant and all of the potential associated problems with that rather than occupied by someone who presumably has an interest in keeping it up.

njharman 15y ago
Not by "someone", but by "someone not like them". That is someone of the wrong socio-economic level.
tptacek 15y ago
The neighbors would prefer that the market for houses clears, preferably at a favorable price but in any case at some price, so that the people residing in their neighborhood have a safe enough claim in the property to invest in it. By locking up a property in pointless litigation, this person has taken one house in the neighborhood and made it illiquid. The squatter is extremely unlikely to prevail in the long run. The incentives are not set up for them to, say, plant trees or properly rebuild roofs. In fact, the incentives are the opposite: the rational squatter does the bare minimum required to claim continuous actual possession, while investing in some other property where maintenance and improvements promise an actual return on investment. The incentive structure for squatting almost begs for meth labs. Adverse possession isn't the state's way of making sure houses are put to good use.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  It's already illiquid - the current mortgaged owner has fled without putting the house on the market. If it were a case of just a few houses, as in the normal economy, I'd agree with you, but there are a whole shitload of houses in similar situations in the United States right now. This squatter is a better neighbor than a crack house. (Unless he decides to diversify.) If the neighbors really want a say in it, they're free to pony up the money, track down the owner, and fight their own court battle to buy the place and then rent or sell to somebody they'd rather see there. It would probably be pretty cheap, actually, even with legal fees. But people always find it easier to say "You can't do that" than to say "We can do that."
  - icebraining 15y ago
    But if the owner didn't pay, the mortgage company - and by extension, whoever got the rights to that debt - can foreclose on the house and sell it, no? I assume whatever company know owns that mortgage wants to recover their losses by selling it ASAP.
    - hmottestad 15y ago
      You're assuming the assets are contained by one owner. Most likely though the asset is shared by a number of financial institutions and will be attempted to be split by selling the house, but none of the new asset owners are willing to finance the split of an asset that may not show returns (like if the house is sold for very little money, or not sold at all). This is also assuming that the company went bankrupt by being worth less than their total loans. It may have been a case of the company simply loosing income and being unable to pay their financiers, even when the loans were worth less than the total value of the company. In such a case I don't know what happens to the "left overs", but I assume that they would belong to the shareholders.
    - Vivtek 15y ago
      Maybe. If they still have the paperwork. And if they can sell it. I mean, I got my house for $8K, of which the bank got $4K, on an outstanding mortgage of something like $56K. And there are lots of vacant houses - the city actually demolished one last winter that was owned by Deutsche Bank because they hadn't even responded to letters from the city. And that's for the mortgage holders that are still in business. This one isn't. Presumably someone holds their assets - but my guess is they're in even more frightful a mess.
forgottenpaswrd 15y ago
"Curious that the neighbors would rather have an unmaintained and abandoned property sit vacant and all of the potential associated problems with that rather than occupied by someone who presumably has an interest in keeping it up." It is not curious, it is obvious: First they hate to have a neighbor that is not used to buy things like they do. Maybe they consider this action stealing somebody else property, as it is in fact. People don't like thieves as neighbors that claim property of what "you don't use", I met a guy that stole bicycles and motorbikes as "nobody uses them"(when they did not use it for periods of 20 or 30 days, witch made it easier to rob). In Spain and Romania, gypsies use to enter your property and steal everything they can if there is not somebody watching. E.g they steal the copper for the power grid from public railroads at night, in south crops they steal the copper from transformers that make electrovalves work. In Spain something like 20 people die every month stealing copper(electrocuted). They have someone from a different socio economic status too. If the home is free,then they want to have the opportunity to buy it at free market. They will have family members or friends that are in need to. Those people think that if they respect the rules, everybody has to respect it too, because if they don't there is not reason they have to work, they can steal or kill for getting what they need too.(maybe even better).

by trotsky 15y ago

njharman 15y ago

Not by "someone", but by "someone not like them". That is someone of the wrong socio-economic level.

tptacek 15y ago

The neighbors would prefer that the market for houses clears, preferably at a favorable price but in any case at some price, so that the people residing in their neighborhood have a safe enough claim in the property to invest in it. By locking up a property in pointless litigation, this person has taken one house in the neighborhood and made it illiquid. The squatter is extremely unlikely to prevail in the long run. The incentives are not set up for them to, say, plant trees or properly rebuild roofs. In fact, the incentives are the opposite: the rational squatter does the bare minimum required to claim continuous actual possession, while investing in some other property where maintenance and improvements promise an actual return on investment. The incentive structure for squatting almost begs for meth labs. Adverse possession isn't the state's way of making sure houses are put to good use.

Vivtek 15y ago
It's already illiquid - the current mortgaged owner has fled without putting the house on the market. If it were a case of just a few houses, as in the normal economy, I'd agree with you, but there are a whole shitload of houses in similar situations in the United States right now. This squatter is a better neighbor than a crack house. (Unless he decides to diversify.) If the neighbors really want a say in it, they're free to pony up the money, track down the owner, and fight their own court battle to buy the place and then rent or sell to somebody they'd rather see there. It would probably be pretty cheap, actually, even with legal fees. But people always find it easier to say "You can't do that" than to say "We can do that."
- icebraining 15y ago
  But if the owner didn't pay, the mortgage company - and by extension, whoever got the rights to that debt - can foreclose on the house and sell it, no? I assume whatever company know owns that mortgage wants to recover their losses by selling it ASAP.
  - hmottestad 15y ago
    You're assuming the assets are contained by one owner. Most likely though the asset is shared by a number of financial institutions and will be attempted to be split by selling the house, but none of the new asset owners are willing to finance the split of an asset that may not show returns (like if the house is sold for very little money, or not sold at all). This is also assuming that the company went bankrupt by being worth less than their total loans. It may have been a case of the company simply loosing income and being unable to pay their financiers, even when the loans were worth less than the total value of the company. In such a case I don't know what happens to the "left overs", but I assume that they would belong to the shareholders.
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    Maybe. If they still have the paperwork. And if they can sell it. I mean, I got my house for $8K, of which the bank got $4K, on an outstanding mortgage of something like $56K. And there are lots of vacant houses - the city actually demolished one last winter that was owned by Deutsche Bank because they hadn't even responded to letters from the city. And that's for the mortgage holders that are still in business. This one isn't. Presumably someone holds their assets - but my guess is they're in even more frightful a mess.

forgottenpaswrd 15y ago

"Curious that the neighbors would rather have an unmaintained and abandoned property sit vacant and all of the potential associated problems with that rather than occupied by someone who presumably has an interest in keeping it up." It is not curious, it is obvious: First they hate to have a neighbor that is not used to buy things like they do. Maybe they consider this action stealing somebody else property, as it is in fact. People don't like thieves as neighbors that claim property of what "you don't use", I met a guy that stole bicycles and motorbikes as "nobody uses them"(when they did not use it for periods of 20 or 30 days, witch made it easier to rob). In Spain and Romania, gypsies use to enter your property and steal everything they can if there is not somebody watching. E.g they steal the copper for the power grid from public railroads at night, in south crops they steal the copper from transformers that make electrovalves work. In Spain something like 20 people die every month stealing copper(electrocuted). They have someone from a different socio economic status too. If the home is free,then they want to have the opportunity to buy it at free market. They will have family members or friends that are in need to. Those people think that if they respect the rules, everybody has to respect it too, because if they don't there is not reason they have to work, they can steal or kill for getting what they need too.(maybe even better).