Now have to know how this can be done because of what happen in Oakland.
“It would be great if we could just identify all the abandoned properties in Oakland and house all the homeless people in them,” DeCaprio said. “And then the problem would be solved at that point at least the immediate problem of people being unhoused.”
If the state does not make it so hard or impossible to remove tenants, maybe the property owners would actually be open to that idea. It’s indeed such a waste to have empty homes while having people live on the street.
The problem is the real intention of such an idea is to get the homeless to occupy these houses forever. You won’t see any news article talk about this, but it’s there in plain sight with simple logic reasoning.
This reminds me of the other piece of news about those moms posted yesterday.
“Oakland City Councilmembers Rebecca Kaplan and Nikki Fortunato Bas were demanding that Wedgewood negotiate to sell or give the property to the women who have been living in the Magnolia Street house since Nov. 18.”
Why does it have to be “sell or give”? Why not convince the private company to rent to them? If this is not greedy I don’t know what is. It’s a little hard to imagine elected officials would have ideas like that. I think even Trump wouldn’t be this crazy.
“I want to thank Moms 4 Housing for taking that house and for demonstrating that nowhere, nowhere should there be a vacant house anywhere in California when we have the housing crisis that we have,” said Democratic Sen. Nancy Skinner of Berkeley. “And it was totally legitimate for those homeless moms to take over that house.”
California politicians are forsaking American roots? No more property rights?
It’s more of that Californian freedom.
Let the games begin. There will be a media frenzy at the eviction. These women need to get on the talk shows like TheView to exploit their 15 minutes of fame. Bonfire of the Vanities in Oakland.
Is California a state in decline? People and ruler not wanting to respect property rights and follow the rule of law?
Justice served. I have been at several evictions. Never seen four people arrested like this one. This is a revolutionary act. Landlords beware. The homeless advocates have been radicalized. Scary stuff. Luckily the liberal mayor wasn’t out their protesting, too.
Skinner is a terrorist.
A non-profit is going to buy the property, fix it up and let those moms live in it. Happy ending, kudos to all parties involved for finally finding the solution to end all homelessness!
Dunno. this is completely in the area of moral hazard for me. The people were very organized about this. They studied the properties exchanging hands (one of the moms worked with a group that monitored the listings), and they picked a convenient villain (Wedgewood). They then illegally moved in (knowing it was against the law), and fabricated a story that they know was untrue (that the company was sitting on the property for 2 years and were waiting to flip, when in actual reality they only had the property for a few months and were going through the permitting process). They then drummed up opposition against those “evil, faceless” entities and turned night into day like Wedgewood did them harm (when it was the other way around). Now in order to pander for votes (both Sharf, Newsom and the idiotic Oakland city council) are buying them a house and letting thousands of others who were following the process to be stranded. Basically, if you lie, cheat, and commit a crime, it will pay off. Don’t follow the rules. I am extremely disappointed with Newsom for catering to this. The moms should have been thrown in jail and their kids removed for endangerment.
What happened to Wedgewood could happen to any one of us. There was no respect for property rights in this case and our political institutions enabled law breaking and the subsequent theft of property. We should all vote every one of the politicians that supported this crime out of office
Extremely dangerous, but any ways cost of doing business in CA!!! Silicon valley can pay out of it’s profits for all such future moms.
Seriously though, isn’t property right a fundamental right?
I mostly share your sentiment that this should not have happened, but I disagree that this will happened to us small potatoes. Like you said, the moms picked that house because it’s owned by a big corporation.
How is this any different from big corps hiring lobbyists to change laws in their flavor behind closed doors?
This will just encourage more and more people to break the law, since it as rewarded. First is was increasing the limit for shoplifting. Now people can steal at will as long as it’s below the limit. Now the limit is a house, since you can force the city to buy it for you. All the people waiting in line and following the rules should be livid.
I suspect we’ll look back at this as a tipping point and not a positive one.
People will “hire” other people to do this in the future.
My Austin PM advises buy only turnkey! That is, can be rented out immediately. Guess he knew well.
Definitely don’t buy any more houses for rental in California. Of course is ok for @manch who doesn’t mind losing his house to homeless.
The corporation didn’t “lose” its house. Didn’t the sheriff come and remove the moms?
What the moms did was a shrewd political act. Set aside your moral feeling for a second. Suppose you are late to an important client meeting and there is no parking around. So you parked next to a fire hydrant. What you did is “illegal”. But you made the calculation of how much you lose with that illegal act, vs how much you’d gain with making to that meeting with the important client.
There is a of elasticity in the real world.
I don’t disagree. This worked out well for the women, but badly for society at large. It tells people that the end justifies the means and will eventually lead to anarchy if enough people behave like this. It also makes everyone who played by the book feel bitter. To appease a vocal minority, I wonder how many others have been left revolted.