Squatter to legal homeowner

Bay Area
21
  1. Break the law
  2. Lie to create a sympathetic story
  3. Create media outrage
  4. Leverage outrage for personal gain despite breaking the law and lying
2 Likes
22

At the end of the day it’s all politics. The moms used the lever to their advantage. We the money class also has our own lever. My point is that we should not get emotional and bitter. It is what it is and if we feel like we can’t win this game, we can always take our chips and play at another table.

23

Finally some wisdom :smirk: Move some chips to Austin :hugs:

24

Rental housing is only one of many ways to make money off renters. Think outside the box. :blush:

25

Are you suggesting some of those foolish ideas sprouted in the blogosphere? They are for MFs and Condos. Nada for SFHs. No dumb ADUs, please. KISS is usually the best policy.

26

Will you still get mad at me if I use these terms to describe the state of California?

Peak California
Terminal Decline
California Complex

Adding two more to list:
California Values
desperate and confiscatory

27

The frog inside the pot doesn’t realize water is getting hotter until it’s too late. :grinning:

700×491

2 Likes
28

Some are very aware. It was crazy when I looked at my annual spend and 4/5 largest expenses were taxes. Then you have Democrats campaigning on the premise that I don’t pay my fair share and should pay more. To add insult, there’s zero interest in accountability for programs producing desired results. They want me to pay more to increase funding for programs that are proven ineffective. That’s not helping anyone, but it is creating more control over everyone.

Then you’ll see ridiculous arguments about preventing the poor from starving in the street. No one in America is starving except by choice. Seriously, try searching how many Americans starve to death a year. We have an obesity epidemic and throw away 50% of food grown. There’s no reason for anyone to starve. A bigger issue is the low quality of all the processed foods people choose to eat. It used to be food stamps were limited in what they could buy. Now fast food places accept them. In California, it’s just money out in a debit card that can be spent anywhere including Las Vegas strip clubs. Yes, that does happen.

2 Likes
29

According to the news, the non-profit does pay the property owner to acquire the property at seemingly market value, so in the end the property owner was made whole, less the legal fees for eviction. Maybe the flipper owner could have made more by completing the flip, but this sale is still reasonable (if it’s truly at market value) considering the fame the whole stunt has brought to the owner.

The non-profit is set up by the city to purchase land and housing using public money and provides benefits to selected few. If these moms did not pull this stunt, they probably would not have become beneficiary of this program. So they did what they did and jumped ahead of other people waiting in line to get that benefit. Of course, there is no mention of that in any news.

Buying a single family house and rent to a family is an inefficient way to spend the public dollar. They should be buying MFH instead to maximize the value of the limited funds they have. Nobody is questioning why these moms get special treatment over other people who are also in similar housing situation. The only logical reason is because they are somewhat “famous”.

It would be interesting to watch what other copycat actions are going to happen after this. If 10 other moms do the same thing, what is the city going to do? Buy them all? If the city does not buy them all, it might get into another publicity problem that it does not “protect” its people equally. Basically the more you try to take care of people, the more needs are going to appear for you to take care until you run out of resources (or goodwill).

4 Likes
30

Should city be in business of setting up NGO to buy and sell properties? Smells like socialism with state owned business.

1 Like
31

Trailer parks are the solution. Nobody can afford new sfhs in the BA. The other solution is to encourage people to move to less expensive areas like Mississippi. One of these women already had. The middle class has been moving out for years. Many commute back from Stockton and other inexpensive exburbs. SF spends $400m a year on the homeless. That could buy a lot of trailers. Used trailers in Oklahoma go for less than $25k.
These celebrity moms will never pay their bills and will be evicted again sooner or later.

1 Like
32

Here is the real story. Homelessness has become a social industrial complex with corruption throughout.

“As a lobbyist I can tell you I have witnessed many lawmakers having a 2nd job of sitting upon the board of directors for 501©(3) non-profits, and getting paid $10,000 to $20,000 per month salaries. Since the lawmakers cannot directly receive any substantial money from labor unions and companies which need their votes on legislation, the lawmakers then direct these payoffs to the 501©(3) non-profits. The contributor gets the tax write-off, the donations tot he non-profit fill their coffers, and the lawmaker continues to get their salary.
A 2nd way is the lawmaker has the company employ their child or spouse (see Senator Calderon’s scandal).
A 3rd way is the lawmakers authorize payment of taxpayers’ General Fund dollars to a 501©(3) non-profit for a program and services to be rendered, and then the non-profit hired a for-profit vendor that doesn’t actually provide the services required. Then the for-profit entity uses the pass through state dollars it received to make campaign contributions to individual lawmakers and the state political party, or fund an independent expenditure committee (IEC).
The reason why millions and millions of $$$ have been spent on homelessness, without any measurable results, is because of scam #3 above. Federally, Hillary Clinton’s “Clinton Foundation” did precisely this on building homes in Haiti. Millions spend, but only 6 small houses built.
A 4th way is the lawmakers are privy to insider information. Congress exempted itself from any prosecution from using information they learned confidentially in meetings about market trends or company plans, and directing their financial advisers to place orders and act upon that information for personal enrichment of the lawmakers. This would be “insider trading” if done by anyone else, but the rle makers exempted themselves from that restriction. Nancy Pelosi has benefited by this scheme 8 times.
A 5th way is the lawmakers are invited to invest in IPO (initial public offerings) of stocks. The lawmakers receive access to purchase the stocks, and then sell at any time in the future. It is a quick and easy way for them to triple the money or more.
Oops, did I just say all of that publicly?

3 Likes