If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Homeless hippies in San Francisco are forcibly redistributing "vacant" houses. You can't like "own" property, man   (sfgate.com) divider line 554
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

18925 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2010 at 4:39 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



554 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-04-05 05:48:14 PM
keithrogan: The takeover epitomized the tensions between property owners and tenant activists that have flared for decades in the city...


I guess in Kalifornia, if thugs call themselves "activists" they can do whatever they want.

Excuse me while I go drag the nearest hot woman in the bushes, because, you know, I'm a "sex activist".


Southern California cops would never put up with this crap. It's a Bay Area thing.
 
2010-04-05 05:48:31 PM
oh jesus, RD is a farking "Discordian".

that explains the failgarrbl.
 
2010-04-05 05:48:32 PM
So let me get this straight: There's a bunch of vacant buildings in San Francisco because rent's too high to rent them out. And there's a bunch of homeless people who can't afford rent.

How about this: The city uses those vacant buildings to house homeless people and pays the property owners a specified amount for rent. The city also buys insurance in case the homeless person trashes the place and kicks people out who do. Women with kids get first dibs.

The property owner gets to have at least some income on the property, the city gets homeless people off the streets, and the homeless folks have a place to sleep and shower.
 
2010-04-05 05:49:17 PM
The Icelander: So let me get this straight: There's a bunch of vacant buildings in San Francisco because rent's too high to rent them out. And there's a bunch of homeless people who can't afford rent.

How about this: The city uses those vacant buildings to house homeless people and pays the property owners a specified amount for rent. The city also buys insurance in case the homeless person trashes the place and kicks people out who do. Women with kids get first dibs.

The property owner gets to have at least some income on the property, the city gets homeless people off the streets, and the homeless folks have a place to sleep and shower.


we won't have any of that sensible talk in here!
 
2010-04-05 05:49:20 PM
MorePeasPlease: lanciepants: Let's say you have a wife. And she's got way more orfices then you've got peni. Are you just going to clam up and not share? Even though it's physically impossible for you to fill all said ofices, with your wang? Wouldn't it be the socially equitable thing to do, to share the excess of orfi?


Apparently you're too dumb to cash in on your excess?


There's a part of my post missing there...ooh where is it.

"Check it out, I can make retarded analogies too."

Ooh there it is. I can see how you missed it, being it was a line above. No problem though, it's the effort that counts.

www.friedmanarchives.com
 
2010-04-05 05:49:59 PM
keithrogan: The takeover epitomized the tensions between property owners and tenant activists that have flared for decades in the city...


I guess in Kalifornia, if thugs call themselves "activists" they can do whatever they want.

Excuse me while I go drag the nearest hot woman in the bushes, because, you know, I'm a "sex activist".


I would suggest "troll activist".

Or moron activist.
 
2010-04-05 05:50:17 PM
rufus-t-firefly: Little.Alex: dryknife: Redistributing?

Stealing is in fashion now, haven't you heard? And if you disagree; it means you're a racist.

No, disagreeing that stealing is in fashion (or that stealing is wrong, not clear on your point) is not racist.

However, assuming that it would only be people of color doing the stealing IS racist.

:ahem:


Actually, all I was trying to point out an (at least) awkward use of the word redistribute (which wasn't used in TFA). See angryjd comment above.
 
2010-04-05 05:50:29 PM
RanDomino: Will the workers own their own means of production? If not, how would a situation where one person owns practically everything be avoided again?

Absolutely, they can work to own their own land, their own tools, their own means to make tools, their own food and means to produce food. I'll lend them the money. I'll arrange for them to be trained in order to protect my investment. In then end, they'll stand on their own and I'll use the loan repayment to fund another stand-up project. My goal is an economy of free men and women.

Now, if you come to me with a "workers own the means of production" that doesn't include a "workers earn the means of production" concept, you're going to find that is one of those behaviors that negatively contribute to the survival of the community. We don't stand for that sort of thing in my Tyranny. That kind of thing extends the length of time I must be a Tyrant, and I don't want the job.
 
2010-04-05 05:51:11 PM
The Icelander: How about this: The city uses those vacant buildings to house homeless people and pays the property owners a specified amount for rent. The city also buys insurance in case the homeless person trashes the place and kicks people out who do. Women with kids get first dibs.

And the city pays for that how, exactly? Local government already spends like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse.
 
2010-04-05 05:51:51 PM
But meanwhile, In Det-riot, there are about 400,000 houses sitting vacant, anyone who wants can move in.

But of course, you would have to pay the back taxes, and you would also have to repair the property, and this would take money so you would also have to work.

How much easier it is to sit on your ass and b*tch, and say the government should give you a house for free.

That about get it?
 
2010-04-05 05:52:55 PM
The Icelander 2010-04-05 05:48:32 PM

So let me get this straight: There's a bunch of vacant buildings in San Francisco because rent's too high to rent them out. And there's a bunch of homeless people who can't afford rent.

How about this: The city uses those vacant buildings to house homeless people and pays the property owners a specified amount for rent. The city also buys insurance in case the homeless person trashes the place and kicks people out who do. Women with kids get first dibs.

The property owner gets to have at least some income on the property, the city gets homeless people off the streets, and the homeless folks have a place to sleep and shower.



What if the property owner doesn't want to take part?
 
2010-04-05 05:53:03 PM
break and enter, and squatting, are still illegal and immoral, no matter what socialist crap you spout.
 
2010-04-05 05:53:09 PM
The Icelander: So let me get this straight: There's a bunch of vacant buildings in San Francisco because rent's too high to rent them out. And there's a bunch of homeless people who can't afford rent.

How about this: The city uses those vacant buildings to house homeless people and pays the property owners a specified amount for rent. The city also buys insurance in case the homeless person trashes the place and kicks people out who do. Women with kids get first dibs.

The property owner gets to have at least some income on the property, the city gets homeless people off the streets, and the homeless folks have a place to sleep and shower.


1) I like the people that think the government just has tons of free money laying around. No wonder California is handing out IOUs.

2) If a plan like that was voluntary and charitably funded it would be a great plan.
 
2010-04-05 05:53:10 PM
drewkumo: I would suggest "troll activist".

Or moron activist.



He's not acting...
 
2010-04-05 05:53:20 PM
The Icelander: So let me get this straight: There's a bunch of vacant buildings in San Francisco because rent's too high to rent them out. And there's a bunch of homeless people who can't afford rent.

How about this: The city uses those vacant buildings to house homeless people and pays the property owners a specified amount for rent. The city also buys insurance in case the homeless person trashes the place and kicks people out who do. Women with kids get first dibs.

The property owner gets to have at least some income on the property, the city gets homeless people off the streets, and the homeless folks have a place to sleep and shower.


The property owner can already lower the rent if they want. I also am left wondering why the city should be paying rent and insurance for anyone.
 
2010-04-05 05:53:37 PM
RanDomino: I'm interested in a world where there is no coercion, got it?

You are a farking moron.

If they intend to rent out the other one for profit, that's unearned profit.

You are a farking moron who has never been a landlord.
 
2010-04-05 05:53:53 PM
lanciepants
Yes, because it's your property. It makes you nob because you're too dumb to cash in on your excess. But still, it's your property.

Why the fark does one person have all the food in the first place??


PawisBetlog
And I'm sure YOU'RE the one to determine what's "plausible" right? The owner said in the article, "I use it for my own personal reasons." Help me understand what gives you the right to in any way judge those reasons?

No, it's none of my business. It's between the titular owner and the squatters. The titular owner said, "I'm using it because I'm using it"... that's not a reason. If they're just using it to rent out to others to make money, they're not using it. If they're just sitting on it until the market improves, they're not using it. If they stay there on the weekends, they're using it. But I obviously can't make that decision. I just hope that if they're keeping it unused for profit, then no one will be their friend or do business with them, compelling them to either be seen universally as a jerk or give up the house and rejoin humanity.


davidphogan
How is it unearned profit? It takes an investment in the first place to buy the property you're renting.

Investing isn't work. It's just turning money into more money. It's purely extractive and exploitative.


jshine
Contracts are the opposite of coercion. A contract is an agreement -- formalized on paper, but ultimately just an agreement -- between two people/groups/companies/etc.

But if a contract is broken, there may be legal consequences. Any time there's a "Do it or else," it's coercion.
 
2010-04-05 05:53:53 PM
The Icelander: So let me get this straight: There's a bunch of vacant buildings in San Francisco because rent's too high to rent them out. And there's a bunch of homeless people who can't afford rent.

How about this: The city uses those vacant buildings to house homeless people and pays the property owners a specified amount for rent. The city also buys insurance in case the homeless person trashes the place and kicks people out who do. Women with kids get first dibs.

The property owner gets to have at least some income on the property, the city gets homeless people off the streets, and the homeless folks have a place to sleep and shower.


And the taxpayer get stuck with the bill, nice.

/good thought but someone has to pay in the end.
 
2010-04-05 05:54:04 PM
rufus-t-firefly: The_Six_Fingered_Man: rufus-t-firefly: MorePeasPlease: rufus-t-firefly: The landlord says "It's not actually vacant. I use it for my own personal uses."
So when he has an unexplained absence from home, I hope his wife checks his "vacant" rental properties. He's probably banging whores in them.

Why? Do you have fantasies of her watching or joining in?

No, just curious as to what "personal uses" a property in the same town would be used for other than banging women who aren't your wife.

Vacant house is in San Francisco. Personal residence is in Daly City. Those aren't the same town.

That's like saying Manhattan isn't part of NYC. It's a suburb.

What if he often meets clients or business associates in the City and uses the vacant building as a meeting place or home office?

You're working off the same lack of information I have. Your guess is as good as mine. I just find it amusing to think he's cheating on his wife, which is why he wouldn't want to elaborate to the press.


Daly City is not a borough of SF, as Manhattan is of NYC. To conflate them is a bit dishonest. It's a bit more than a suburb. It's also not unheard of for those that live in the SF bay Area to have a home in the City that they work out of on the weekends.
 
2010-04-05 05:55:29 PM
olddinosaur: But meanwhile, In Det-riot, there are about 400,000 houses sitting vacant, anyone who wants can move in.

But of course, you would have to pay the back taxes, and you would also have to repair the property, and this would take money so you would also have to work.

How much easier it is to sit on your ass and b*tch, and say the government should give you a house for free.

That about get it?


And you'd have to move to Detroit, who would do that?
 
2010-04-05 05:56:07 PM
The Icelander: So let me get this straight: There's a bunch of vacant buildings in San Francisco because rent's too high to rent them out. And there's a bunch of homeless people who can't afford rent.

How about this: The city uses those vacant buildings to house homeless people and pays the property owners a specified amount for rent. The city also buys insurance in case the homeless person trashes the place and kicks people out who do. Women with kids get first dibs.

The property owner gets to have at least some income on the property, the city gets homeless people off the streets, and the homeless folks have a place to sleep and shower.


They have that. It's called Section 8 housing and it's nationwide.
 
2010-04-05 05:56:11 PM
lanciepants: There's a part of my post missing there...ooh where is it.
"Check it out, I can make retarded analogies too."
Ooh there it is. I can see how you missed it, being it was a line above. No problem though, it's the effort that counts.



It was a joke referencing the use of "cash in on your excess" regarding the excess zones you pointed out in the hypothetical wife.

It looks like you took umbrage with quoting your "Apparently you're too dumb".

Please try to enjoy the silly joke you missed.
 
2010-04-05 05:56:20 PM
madmann: Gangway Fathead: fsbilly: 2wolves: On a millennial scale, you're only renting.

The universe is indifferent.

That's why I love the universe and recommend it to all of my friends.

Not me, I'm definitely in the market.

Looking for some plane of existence where the Derp & Wharrgarbl doesn't wash all over me all day. As soon as I find it, I'm out of here.


Turn off cable news and avoid the blogsphere.
 
2010-04-05 05:56:23 PM
My ex wife was a hippie wannabe. what was I thinking? Problems that bothered me on a daily basis:
1. Juggling between pretending to be a vegetarian and eating meat because you're sickly and your doctor is forcing you to go back on meats for a bit.
2. biatching about conformity, and yet...wearing only hippie-approved attire.
3. REFUSING to listen to any music unless it's:
a. from the 60s/70s
b. music heavily influenced by the 60s/70s
c. exotic world music
d. featured in a the soundtrack to a stoner film
4. Your friends. My God, they're the most self-absorbed people I've EVER MET. They don't care about the rainforest. They care that you notice that seem to care about the rainforest.

but I digress...
 
2010-04-05 05:56:25 PM
2007 article about this tenant/landlord dispute. (new window)

Seems our landlord bought the property, then wanted to get rid of the (then) current tenant of 42 years so he could renovate and get more money from future renters.

Yet he got rid of the guy in 2008, and still hasn't rented it out.

Then again, from the article I just linked:

Morales contested that the landlord did not fill out the required paperwork by the City properly. Morales fears that Tehlirian's intention to renovate/restore the units was really to demolish the century-old building completely.

"Jose's strongest angle in the case was the possibility that the landlord was trying to take the units off the market," said Ted Gullicksen of the SF Tenants Union. Yet there was not sufficient evidence to prove such an intention.


So, either he's paying property taxes for 2 years and can't rent the property, or he did take the property off the market (for his "own personal uses"), which confirms the previous tenant's accusation.
 
2010-04-05 05:56:30 PM
RanDomino: Investing isn't work. It's just turning money into more money. It's purely extractive and exploitative.

Hahahah. Go join a commune, idiot.
 
2010-04-05 05:56:44 PM
plausdeny: RanDomino: Will the workers own their own means of production? If not, how would a situation where one person owns practically everything be avoided again?

Absolutely, they can work to own their own land, their own tools, their own means to make tools, their own food and means to produce food. I'll lend them the money. I'll arrange for them to be trained in order to protect my investment. In then end, they'll stand on their own and I'll use the loan repayment to fund another stand-up project. My goal is an economy of free men and women.

Now, if you come to me with a "workers own the means of production" that doesn't include a "workers earn the means of production" concept, you're going to find that is one of those behaviors that negatively contribute to the survival of the community. We don't stand for that sort of thing in my Tyranny. That kind of thing extends the length of time I must be a Tyrant, and I don't want the job.


This is why you show up as a mellow green color on my screen.
Carry on.
 
2010-04-05 05:56:57 PM
On a side note, I hope this property owner sues the living shiat out of the police department for failing to enforce the law as they watched people break and enter his property. I hope the legal expenses alone, whether he wins or loses, cost the city enough that they need to make some budget cuts. It would be spectacular if those budget cuts were made by closing some homeless shelters.
 
2010-04-05 05:58:00 PM
Wow, poor people are absolutely worthless
 
2010-04-05 05:58:03 PM
cloister the stupid: Kim-Chi_and_Blaze: Lets just put it this way, say you were sitting on a stockpile of food. And lets say it was enough to feed a city for ten years, also that even if the hungry masses got pissed off enough to try to take it they couldn't. Now this is more food then you will ever need and people are going to go without if you don't share. Do you keep it all to yourself and let people starve because "it's yours"?

Yes I do, and fark em that is why.


don't forget that you tell the unwashed masses with no food that they are all going to burn in hell because they're not an exact clone of you......unless they give you more food in tribute then you wont tell them they're going to hell QUITE so often

there, now you sound like a proper neo-con
 
2010-04-05 05:58:06 PM
RanDomino: What is that use?

And just who the fark are YOU that he has to justify his use of his own property?

Arrogance is a pretty consistent trait among people who presume to know what's best for everyone.
 
2010-04-05 05:58:09 PM
jshine: And the city pays for that how, exactly? Local government already spends like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse.

What's the city doing right now for the homeless population?
 
2010-04-05 05:58:21 PM
RanDomino:

But if a contract is broken, there may be legal consequences. Any time there's a "Do it or else," it's coercion.


So what incentive would I have to enter into an agreement with you? More then that how do I avoid the risk that you will just walk away from the contract with out full filling your end of the contract?
 
2010-04-05 05:58:46 PM
RanDomino: It's between the titular owner and the squatters.

And just how is that ever going to be resolved?
 
2010-04-05 05:59:12 PM
dryknife: rufus-t-firefly: Little.Alex: dryknife: Redistributing?

Stealing is in fashion now, haven't you heard? And if you disagree; it means you're a racist.

No, disagreeing that stealing is in fashion (or that stealing is wrong, not clear on your point) is not racist.

However, assuming that it would only be people of color doing the stealing IS racist.

:ahem:

Actually, all I was trying to point out an (at least) awkward use of the word redistribute (which wasn't used in TFA). See angryjd comment above.


Little.Alex is the one who made the comment about stealing/racism, and that's what I was pointing out.
 
2010-04-05 05:59:22 PM
I own a huge pile of ammunition - much more than I'll ever use, most likely. As a part-time socialist, I like to "redistribute" my excess ammunition to anyone who enters my house without authorization. Not the brass part though, because that's recyclable and I'm a "green" socialist. I only redistribute the lead part.
 
2010-04-05 05:59:24 PM
*LOCKS DOOR*

img189.imageshack.us

"Now yous can't leave."
 
2010-04-05 05:59:31 PM
Noticeably F.A.T.: And just how is that ever going to be resolved?

Shotgun?
 
2010-04-05 05:59:32 PM
The Icelander: So let me get this straight: There's a bunch of vacant buildings in San Francisco because rent's too high to rent them out. And there's a bunch of homeless people who can't afford rent.

How about this: The city uses those vacant buildings to house homeless people and pays the property owners a specified amount for rent. The city also buys insurance in case the homeless person trashes the place and kicks people out who do. Women with kids get first dibs.

The property owner gets to have at least some income on the property, the city gets homeless people off the streets, and the homeless folks have a place to sleep and shower.


Sorry sir; close but no cookie.

In a free-market system rents cannot fall below what people are willing to pay, or can afford to pay; landlords cannot charge more than what the people have.

That means if houses stay vacant then rents have to fall or salaries have to rise, in order for the people to afford to live there. Otherwise, the houses stay empty aqnd the landlords make nothing; the people move to a place where living is cheaper and salaries are higher.

That is simple economics----- HOWEVER: If there is an outside force at work, screwing up natural law, then things will get farked up and stay that way, until the outside force is removed.

In this case, the outside force may be bankers demanding more in mortgage money than the house will bring in rent, tenants demanding free rent or discounted rent, or government thinking it could give these people a handout to reward their selfish and antisocial behavior. Most likely, it is all of the above, everyone looking for a free suck on the nipple and no one willing to supply the milk.

In a free market system that could never happen, but where have you seen that in the USSA?
 
2010-04-05 05:59:56 PM
I see these people are getting a lot out of their philosophy degrees.
 
2010-04-05 05:59:59 PM
flsprtsgod: And you'd have to move to Detroit, who would do that?

varifrank.com
 
2010-04-05 06:00:42 PM
RanDomino

If they intend to rent out the other one for profit, that's unearned profit.

Do you have any idea of how much work it is to rent your property? Not even counting miles of paperwork, for both government and tenant, who do you think is responsible for ALL repairs/issues that come up? Not the renter, the property owner. Unless you are a slumlord absentee owner, property rental is work. It can be profitable work, but thats the idea.

You sir, are a commie, and I mean that as an insult.
 
2010-04-05 06:00:47 PM
RanDomino:
davidphogan
How is it unearned profit? It takes an investment in the first place to buy the property you're renting.

Investing isn't work. It's just turning money into more money. It's purely extractive and exploitative.


This alone shows more ignorance than any other statement posted in this board.

If investing is this little free-money game you think it is then I highly recommend you get into it and donate your profits to charity. Oh but then you would find out it doesnt work like that. Next thing you know if (and this is highly unlikely) you did make a profit, then you wouldnt want to donate all of your gains to charity, you would want to reinvest some of them (to generate more money for the people you want to help). Then you would start to reach a scale you couldnt handle alone and wow, you start to hire people to help you make more money from investing (scouting new opportunities, doing your financial work etc). Now your donations are at the highest level yet! Oh and youve actually used capitalism to make the money...

But the problem is that people who want to use the government to take money from others and redistribute it are the same lazy bastards who dont want to work for it. Its nice having your cake and eating it too.
 
2010-04-05 06:00:52 PM
Hollywood Cole: The_Sponge: Ah...the memories. I remember the time he defended enviro-terrorists who were torching new homes (under construction) in the Seattle area.

3 words: Chinese Torture Socks.


Whatever you do, do not GIS that with safesearch off.
 
2010-04-05 06:01:10 PM
pxlboy: TheWoozle: RanDomino:
I'm interested in a world where there is no coercion, got it?
But the only way that world will exist is through coercion. That's one hell of a conundrum you've got there, pal.

i think he's just a moron. care to hazard any guesses on his/her age and occupation (if any)?


19, just finishing first year of college. The "holy shiat I'm WAY smarter than everyone else" feeling is peaking as a result of his earth-shattering revelations in Philosophy and Political Science 101 classes last semester.

10 years from now he will look back on these ramblings (because they'll still be here you dumb shiat) in embarrassed horror.

I'm lucky because when I was spewing that shiat in college there wasn't enough internet for me to leave it out there forever...
 
2010-04-05 06:01:18 PM
while rent is very high in sf, there do have the best laws for protecting renters. depending on the age of the building, most places can't raise your rent more than 2-3 percent a year. i think i would be okay of these squatters went to public buildings and public land, but this is privately owned. gtfo.

/pays rent in sf.
//there are protests of some kind weekly if not daily here.
///only the craziest make the paper.
 
2010-04-05 06:01:41 PM
The only way you can own property is if you can defend it. Otherwise you're just renting it from those who can.
 
2010-04-05 06:02:00 PM
MorePeasPlease: lanciepants: There's a part of my post missing there...ooh where is it.
"Check it out, I can make retarded analogies too."
Ooh there it is. I can see how you missed it, being it was a line above. No problem though, it's the effort that counts.


It was a joke referencing the use of "cash in on your excess" regarding the excess zones you pointed out in the hypothetical wife.

It looks like you took umbrage with quoting your "Apparently you're too dumb".

Please try to enjoy the silly joke you missed.


Sorry. I've got battered troll syndrom.
 
2010-04-05 06:02:09 PM
The Icelander: jshine: And the city pays for that how, exactly? Local government already spends like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse.

What's the city doing right now for the homeless population?


Too much, keeps them dependant
 
2010-04-05 06:02:21 PM
RanDomino - So a poor person should have to be homeless even if there is plenty of empty housing?

There you go. You're catching on.

Oh, and the property value on that house that the hippies broke into? It just went down. So will any property that has people that don't have a share in ownership. The only reason apartments don't get boarded up after 5 years of use is the rent pays for the owner to rehab the shiatbox.
 
Displayed 50 of 554 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report