Hey, there! Log in / Register
Chained activists fail to stop eviction of Roxbury woman
By adamg on Fri, 09/05/2008 - 1:48pm
Open Media Boston reports on an attempt to keep a resident of a foreclosed condo at 76 Perrin St. from being evicted.
Some 50 activists from City Life/Vida Urbana showed up, and six chained themselves to the front and rear entrances, but Boston Police cut the chains, arrested four of the six and then stood guard as a moving company got rid of the woman's belongings. She says she had offered to pay rent to current owner Bank of America, but the bank said no.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Banks are parasitical organizations
I hope Bank of America goes belly up, and nobody comes to its aid. It would serve them right for all the compassion they showed that woman and others like her.
Condo vs. House, Countrywide vs. Bank Of America?
http://www.mediaisland.org/en/another-successful-e...
Either there are two Paula Taylors, the press got "condo" vs "house" wrong (and the bank names wrong), the loan was handed over from Countrywide to BoA, or she's got multiple properties under two different banks.
If this is the same property, she's a horses' ass for not making backup plans housing-wise, "just in case." Funny to see all these groups come out, but none of 'em apparently gives a shit enough about her, to rent her a room, or help her find an apartment. Are they fighting for the forest, and not seeing the trees?
CW = BoA
Countrywide has been acquired by BoA. They were acquired after going belly up due to stupid lending practices, such as selling large mortgages to homeless people.
Why all the martyrdom?
For idiots who bought things they can't afford. No sympaty here.
Eviction versus Foreclosure
Many people who are being evicted are not the ones who took out the mortgages - they are the tenants. The banks foreclose and sometimes even do illegal things like pretend that leases don't matter, that they don't have to pay for heat or water, etc.
This happened to a coworker of mine. Fortunately, she had been making a large salary for a long time and plunked down a 35% down payment for a house of her own.
Not everyone in her sort of eviction situation can pull off that nifty trick.
RTFA
She was not a tenant- she was the owner of the condo. The business about "rent" was because she offered to the bank to pay them rent until the found someone to buy the property.
The bank rightly said no. They can't show the property to sell it, they're not set up as a corporation to rent property to individuals, and you'd be a fucking moron to buy a property like that, because there's an excellent chance they'd turn into a squatter. Nevermind that the condo association might prohibit renting the property.
Thanks for making me RTFA
Since I misread it initially - I thought this was the case of a tenant in a foreclosed condo, not the owner (the "rent" part got me).
I did RTFA
Anon-a-mouse asked why we should care about "idiots who bought things they can't afford". I thought it was appropriate to point out that not all people embroiled in such situations are people who took loans that they could not pay.
This particular person's case may have been about foreclosure, but not all foreclosure evictions are about the "idiot" who took out the mortgage.
I feel for renters in those cases...
They are innocent bystanders and the banks are jerks in those cases. In this case, the woman made a poor decision and folks want to run to her aid. To me, that's silly.
Banks are evil, right ? Right until you need a loan or whatever. Without these evil banks, our society would cease to function. In this case B of A (who I loathe personally from dealing with their CS before) was in the right. She was foreclosed upon. Learn from your mistake, rent a new place (since she admittedly can afford some sort of rent) and move on. Rebuild your credit. Take a lesson from life. Life is hard. People have to deal with tough situations all the time.
riiiight
...and everything is either black or white.
Both sides had plenty of ignorance and greed.
Boston police should not assist with foreclosures or evictions
The city council should consider passing a bill prohibiting the city from spending any money to assist in a foreclosure eviction. The people elect the city government; the banks don't.
Criminal trespass?
If the eviction has proceeded to completion and the owner/renter is found to be evicted, then isn't it criminal trespass for them to remain in the property? Wouldn't that require police intervention to remove the person and their items from the premise?
nope
google it...there's a discussion on masscops I ran across (I forget why) about a similar topic, though the initial question was for a different situation.
Regardless, it's gotta be demeaning for cops to have to
help BofA do its dirty work. Have fun paying property taxes on all your new acquisitions, you pigs. The city should expedite the lien process for vacant, bank-owned properties, or else use eminent domain if the properties stay vacant and become a nuisance.
If I throw a nickel on the
If I throw a nickel on the counter and walk out of the store with a can of coke, the store clerk will ask the police to stop me. There's nothing demeaning about it. The woman didn't buy the condo with "her" money - she used a loan, which she can't keep up the payments on. Grown-ups know that it takes years for you to pay down capital on a mortgage. Grow-ups don't whine about big bad banks.
Most grown-ups have morals and a sense of decency
The grown-ups I know don't just sit on their asses earning interest on other people's money and enlisting muscle to throw little old ladies out in the street. It's a filthy business, and only a corporate hack lawyer or a complete sucker would defend the banks in their exploitation of those who actually work for a living.
Seriously
You have a warped sense of reality. Are you a communist? Are people not allowed to provide a service and profit from it? Banks provide a service. A service with a lot of risk and overhead. High risk can result in a high reward. They are not a bunch of big bad men with cigars kicking their feet up and counting your money. They are losing money in this situation and it is their right to do whatever is within the law to minimize thier losses. Grown-ups I know don't whine about other people making a living by providing a service. Its attitudes like yours that are sinking this country. If banks didn't make money, where is their incentive to loan hundreds of thousands of dollars out to people so that they can own a home?
What service?
They don't actually do anything except hold money and lend it out at interest. What do they actually add to the economy? What do they produce? What do they create? There used to be a word for what banks do: usury. It was considered an immoral occupation. In my opinion, it still is immoral.
You are an idiot
Dan, I'm sorry, but without access to cheap capital (that means affordable loans), the economy goes back to the 1800's at BEST.
The following things, just as an example, all require the affordability of capital:
- buying a house
- getting a college loan
- starting a business that won't make money for X amount of time after the first day
- buying a car (less vital here)
- doing any sort of construction or physical improvement as an investment
Now, when you DON'T have access to capital at affordable rates, what happens is that these things do NOT get done on a wide scale, and can only be paid for by those who are rich.
Whereas, the modern western financial system gives all of us regular joes incentives to invest in ourselves, our buildings, start our own businesses, etc, by making it possible.
A man who hates banks must hate the hopes of his fellow men.
A man who loves deadbeats, who buy 100% down houses with no intention of paying, hates his fellow hardworking man.
Period.
Amen Amen Amen
Thanks for saving me the time.
Dan, you need a clue here. Modern economics are clearly not your forte.
Without banks, we would be a third-world society. Banks are required to finance everything. Without banks you would not have:
toilet paper
beer
computers
cheez-its
cars
bicycles
Barack Obama's campaign (I'm sure he's your hero)
just to name a few random things (basically you can just pick anything in the world). There is nothing, absolutely no product or service in the world that does not require financing from a bank.
Same to you, Marc.
Keep sucking on it.
In other words
You now realize your childish uneducated POV is wrong.
At least you are mature enough to admit it.
What do they create?
More money for me. BoA paid me $600 last year in CD interest. I earned half a grand doing nothing. I have no problems with them.
my $.02
I got a loan to help pay for college. No loan, no college.
I got a job to pay pack the loan,(feed and shelter myself).
I got a loan to buy a house. No loan, no house.
Capital is an asset like any other. Why should someone let you borrow it without any benefit to them when they can loan it to someone for a fee?
I will say that markets do not correct for deceptive business practices or equitable access principles. We need laws and penalties to require those practices.
What we need
is more houses and condos.
If every single person and family could get their own place, this wouldn't be a problem.
i hope
you're joking
Wait a minute, anon-a-mouse.
What's wrong with building more affordable housing for people who need it? Sticking people in human warehouses that pass for shelters indefintely is really not the way to go. Heaven knows how many units of affordable housing could be constructed if it wasn't for our exhorbitantly high military budget, and our own Big Dig, which is way overbudget, overschedule, with a terrific amount of graft, to boot. It's clear that the homeless are a low, low priority on the totem pole here in the Bay State and nationwide.
Whats wrong?
So we are going to build a bunch of houses and give them away to folks that have no jobs or money? Thats a GREAT idea. I'm sure they won't turn into slums or anything...
I see plenty wrong with your outlook, anon-a-mouse.
First of all, people are people, and nobody, whoever they may be, or what their positions in life are, deserve to be permanently stuck in human warehouses that pass for shelters or to live out on the streets their whole life.
Secondly, the majority of people who're losing their homes to foreclosure are not greedy people who got in over their heads and bit off more than they could chew, so to speak. Although there are such people, they're merely the tip of the iceberg here. The majority of people who've ended up losing their homes to foreclosure and being evicted from their homes are ordinary, run of the mill working people who, for years have worked to support themselves and/or their families, put food on their table, a roof over their heads, and to pay their mortgage or rent. Loss of jobs, or extreme hikes in rents, or mortgage/interest rates made it impossible for many of these people to pay.
Not this woman
Hi independentminded,
I sympathize with your ideas, but the woman in question is not such a person. As explained in comments below, she took out a 100% mortgage and almost immediately ceased making payments.
People are people, sure. This particular person is a crook as far as I'm concerned. And she got a bunch of other people to stage a big demonstration to prevent her eviction. And SHE is who we are talking about.
Now whether she is the exception or the rule is a matter of statistics, not speculation. But it doesn't help your case to defend people like her.
Also
Do you have a retirement investment plan? Because if you do, theres a strong likelihood that you are part owner of the big bad bank.
Why sympathy?
The public record shows she took out loans for 100% of the purchase price in August 2006. By mid-2007 she had stopped paying and the lender made its first move toward foreclosure in October 2007.
And why wouldn't you have the police involved? It's a potentially-violent situation. You had at least forty people screaming and making a spectacle out of it. Have you seen any of the videos?
It's sort of like when they protest Scientology, you know, Ron?
Usually they have a constable there, but maybe that's only when they serve the eviction notice.
Another media circus that does nothing to help anyone.
Amen
As far as I am concerned the bank was nice enough to risk their money to buy her a house she doesnt deserve. Its their right to boot her behind out.
Amen Amen
I just can't understand how people can see Bank of America as being in the wrong here.
Under what premise should she not be obligated to move out, and legitimately rent a place, so that the bank can stop BLEEDING money on these mortgages and hopefully unload them to real buyers, and thus avoid more bank failures possibly destroying the FDIC and along with it our entire consumer savings economy.