wow. they didn't cut the internet?

So which smelly hippie are you? I gotta have sympathy for the person who's losing their house, but you gotta make your payments or the bank takes it back. If everybody did what you're doing nobody would own a house since banks would never lend the money. You try squirreling enough to buy a house in cash.

Much as I don't agree ideologically with what you're doing, I have to give you some respect for carrying out your beliefs rather than being an armchair activist.

They didnt cut the internet because there's a shitload of people camping outside. but hey the eviction date is tommorow (well its 2 am, today) so they still might try.

um, I'm the smelly hippie working the camera. if you watch any of the vids (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/keith-sadler-foreclosure-resistance-live) I'm wearing a black fedora and black tank top.
It's a fundamental question of what our society views as the purpose of a house. Are they to shelter people, or for corporations to make money?
foreclosures dont just happen to lazy or stupid people. they happen to everyone. if you are an american, its statistically impossible for you not to know someone going through foreclosure.

armchair activism and anarchism dont really fit well together. unless you're from seattle I guess. (no one gets that joke huh)

What part of toledo? I live on cherry street. from all over toledo though, and delta.

"It's a fundamental question of what our society views as the purpose of a house. Are they to shelter people, or for corporations to make money?"

That's a stupid way to frame the argument. No one thinks the inherent purpose of a house is to make the banks money. Broadly speaking, a house is for somebody to live in. For the guy who moves in that's the purpose. But for the bank the house is a way to make money.

Banks aren't really in the business of owning homes, they're in the business of making money and making loans. They lend the money so that John Johnson can buy his house for a couple hundred thousand dollars or whatever it is, and then make money over the thirty years or so he pays it back with interest. If Mr. Johnson gets too far behind in his payments then the bank takes the house away. That really, really sucks and it's a tragedy when it happens, but blaming the concept of how banks lend their money is foolish and depressingly naive. If the banks weren't making money then there would be no reason to invest in a house, so there would be no real estate market and society would collapse with cats and dogs living together.

You've got the same ass-backwards mindset as these idiots in Greece protesting how the government won't be giving them two months extra pay every year and have unmarried daughters be allowed to inherit their parents public pensions when they die, among other unsustainable (your favorite word) practices.

Ok, I may not agree with his statement, but saying society would collapse is a bit much. There are societies that aren't as money based as we are that worked fine. They are rare since money is around, but they do exist.

"It's a fundamental question of what our society views as the purpose of a house. Are they to shelter people, or for corporations to make money?"


Erm... both? For the builder, its to make money, for the banker, it provides a demand for capital, for the buyer, it is to live in. The bank would far rather if everyone would pay back the money, you know? They'd also have liked it had things like the Communities Reinvestment Act allowed them to make sensible loans at their own discretion.

However, I can tell you one thing, the home isn't there for banks to make a loss.

I'm with Chrispminis. Respect to Sicarus for standing up and being counted, and actually taking action to support his views.

Let us know what happens, Sic!

"I have to give you some respect for carrying out your beliefs rather than being an armchair activist. "

Suicide bombers, white supremacists and forcable female circumcisers the world over are breathing a little easier this morning.

If you buy a home you can't afford, you move to one you can. Its that easy. "Housing is a right". Yes, AFFORDABLE housing is a right perhaps.

(Actually, i would disagree that housing is a 'right' in any case. But if you do believe it is a right, I would think you would have to specify living within ones means).

It is amusing to rail against the Communities Reinvestment Act . It did not cause the huge problems you are making it out to have caused. The banks did that all on their own, when money got too cheap and they could package loans into CDO's at what they thought was no risk. Though, conservatives will always rail against the Communities Reinvestment Act, because, they would rather we had completely unregulated markets, where people could be racist(what the CRA tried to fix) and the companies didn't have to worry about oversight on things like oil wells.

Of course, the railing against the CRA is also flawed, because it only affected small community banks, when the big banks are the ones doing most of the loans and business in America. Don't let the facts get in the way!

You know what else is amusing, Canada didn't have the problems in banking we did, and they are very regulated...Georgia had more problems than Texas in HELOCs because Texas regulated it...unregulated markets aren't best, as much as some people wish they were. Wishes don't make reality.

http://glasscityjungle.com/wordpress/2010/05/sadler-joined-by-supporters-to-resist-home-foreclosure-eviction-scheduled-for-tomorrow/

"Per the Lucas Co Clerk docket, this is case #CI-200906742, and it was filed in September of 2009. That means this guy has been living there for almost a year (as it takes some time from failure to pay to first file) without paying a mortgage payment. The docket also shows that he made no attempt to file for extensions with the court or apply for modification, instructions for which are given at the time he receives the complaint."

The problem isn't the "greedy banks" or the "lazy poor people," the problem is the existence of this dichotomy. When we act in opposition to others, we create the problems that reinforce that dichotomy and create more dichotomies in the name of destroying the so-called bad guys (and since both sides of the dichotomy do this, everyone becomes a bad guy).

Only by giving up hatred of what we see as the bad guys and removing ourselves from the dichotomy can we hope to solve the problems from which we suffer, since you can only suffer from a problem if you decide that thing is indeed a problem.

@SteevoKun:
And may the force be with you as well...

I actually think that the problem is, there is no punishment for a corporation acting badly. If the corporation is controlled by the executives and the board, then what punishment is given to the corporation is almost never passed to them. So, they are responsible, but insulated from punishment. We need to fix that somehow, but it will be difficult. This encourages more risk, and in some ways illegal action, to get more money. If the corporation is caught, it is punished with a fine, but the executive has still gotten his money. The worst the exec can have happen, is to be let go, but they will always be picked up someplace else.

@ibnvictus - your post is way too long - No-one questions that the purpose of building houses is to provide shelter for people - people do however propose the mechanism for supplying houses to the people be by a system of banks funding individuals - if this system breaks down (the repayments aren't made) the banks can't fund any other houses.

It is furtur housing which is put in jeapordy if the bank doesn't get and sell the house to make back it's loan.

@DBJ: "Suicide bombers, white supremacists and forcable female circumcisers the world over are breathing a little easier this morning." - you're right to deplore these things; i hope you are no just sitting back in your armchair a talking about them but instead acting on your beliefs. :p

OK as to the solution - there are empty houses in some US cities which are being bulldozed because it makes the cities easier to manage and safer to live in - if you are being evicted from a house then the bank is trying to make money by re-selling - It seems likley that in many cases this will not be possible - I don't approve of banks selling a house and then claiming you still owe them money because the house value went down (the bank lent to you on the strenght of the house as security on that loan, once you lose your house the bank should owe you back whatever part of the loan you had already paid off - les the expence involved in selling)

If it is not possible to sell the house (and it will just remain unoccupied after eviction) then the eviction is pointless - it does not make money back for the bank. I would prefer to live in a system where this didn't happen.

"I actually think that the problem is, there is no punishment for a corporation acting badly. "

That isn't the only problem. If the corporations were making risky loans, they should pay the price financial without a bailout. However, the actions of the bank to not relieve the homeowners from the need to be fiscally responsible. The homeowner is responsible for their own mess, regardless of whether the banks are punished.

@DingleberryJones:
So, the corporations don't get a bailout, who pays? The execs? Naa, they get their money regardless. The stockholders pay. Let's say the company goes under, the executives still have their contacts and money, but the stockholders and employees take a bath.

As for the homeowners, as long as they didn't get a homeloan that was a 3 year 2% loan, 27 year 12% loan, they should be paying on it. If they don't, they should lose it.

Tantris,
I am not arguing one way or another whether the bank should get a bailout. I'm just saying that based on your post, the problem isn't "there is no punishment for a corporation acting badly". The homeowner screwed up, regardless of what the bank did.

Ah, reading it again, you want the corp execs to pay a financial penalty, not the firm. I disagree with that. Having risky corporate rules isn't against the law, and if their contract/salary isn't tied to performance of the company, they shouldn't pay a price, unless they have done something illegal.

I didn't advocate that, I just said that there is currently no way to punish a corporation.

Well, you let them fail. If the corp was risky but not illegal, why would you expect them to be punished?

A homeowner isn't being 'punished' for violating a contract either. They aren't going to jail, they aren't being fined. They are being forced to repay the money they borrowed according to the contact they willingly signed.

"It's a fundamental question of what our society views as the purpose of a house. Are they to shelter people, or for corporations to make money?"

Bogus argument. Look at the trend in housing over the last fifty years. Most families used to be content with a house the size of a two-car garage. Now people think they need houses to fit their three big screen TV's in, 2 1/2 baths, blah blah blah. the problem isn't "the purpose of a house" or the fact that a bank gave you a loan for gobs and gobs of money - the problem is basic greed.

If I lose my house - which is possible as I'm in Michigan and unemployed - I will move my family in with my parents until we get back on our feet. I'm not going to be a dumbass an break the law out of protest. Somebody SIGNED A LEGAL DOCUMENT and was more than willing to use the bank's money for their own personal benefit at a rate of interest they AGREED to when purchasing a house. Now that things haven't gone their way they cry foul?

GROW UP. Take a look at history and see how people used to live. Hell, take a look around the MAJORITY of the world and quick whining and bitching about how tough we have it here. Yeah, our economy is not what it used to be, but neither are our expectations. How many people cut the cable/Sat dish, scale back on the number of cell phones in the family, sell a couple of the EXTRA TV's they have, do with a little less before they start crying foul and sticking their hand out and crying about some "right" or another.

You don't have a "right" to housing. Rights are things that come from within - speech (comes from within me), pursuit of happiness (comes from actions that start within me), religion (an internal belief). Housing? No...not a right. Your "right" to housing implies that somebody ELSE has to provide it, give of themself for you. It can not be a right, because it imposes on others. Same with health care.

I have no respect for someone who willfully violates the law in such a manner. Ultimately, you know you will lose the fight...and to make matters worse, you are just incurring more expenses (cops, courts, etc) that will filter down to everyone around you through taxes. Real noble....

"I'm not going to be a dumbass an break the law out of protest." and "GROW UP. Take a look at history and see how people used to live." - actually laws usually change due to people pushing for them to change - non-violent protest like this one agaisnt the eviction is a fairly mature responce to what these people see as an injustice in society.

"You don't have a "right" to housing." - that is your opinion on what rights people 'should' have; you are not the one ultimate authority on what an individual's right should be - we have no single authority in a democracy - it is supposed to be about the will of the people, and these people are clearly (and peacefully) demonstrating their will.

- but when it comes to rights, (and you may disagree with what is in this document) the Universal Declaration of human rights (article 25, subsection 1) states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

@Dingle - If housing is not a right, where are people to live?

@Jamie,
If I just say, I'm a healthy 25 year old male, and I am not going to work ever. Now give me a house, give me food and give me free health care. I have rights to all those things. I have a problem with that.

I have a problem with that too, Dingle.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.