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 551
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

18928 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»



551 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-04-05 05:29:37 PM  
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.
 
2010-04-05 05:29:59 PM  
angryjd: How do you redistribute a house? (Somebody post that pic of Eddie Murphy in BHC 2)

Or a pic from "Up."

Wait..that's "relocate."
 
2010-04-05 05:30:29 PM  
RanDomino: jagec
No sympathy for the squatters, though. It sucks that the old guy got evicted, but you can't expect to pay super-cheap rent forever, and he was given plenty of time (and relocation assistance!) to find a new place.

So a poor person should have to be homeless even if there is plenty of empty housing?


A poor person can rent or buy whatever housing lies within their means, taking advantage of any government programs may exist to improve their purchasing power. This may mean that they can't rent the waterfront condo that they had their hearts set on, but them's the breaks.

/something tells me that I've been a lot poorer than you
//for people of able body and mind, homelessness is a choice
///why yes, it WAS a pretty crappy apartment that I was stuck in for a while
 
2010-04-05 05:30:49 PM  
Lots of talk about giving "unused" property over to the homeless. I would imagine that the owner has been paying some pretty hefty taxes on that property - whether someone is living there or not. Property taxes are typically fixed at the value of the home, not how much money you make off of it. I would also imagine that property taxes have risen steadily in SF over the decades (partially to provide city funded resources for the homeless).
 
2010-04-05 05:31:19 PM  
mregecko: This. Is. Retarded.

No, This... Is... S- aw, fark it.
 
2010-04-05 05:31:39 PM  
The_Sponge: Ah...the memories. I remember the time he defended enviro-terrorists who were torching new homes (under construction) in the Seattle area.


He worked hard here on FARK, defending his decision to major in Philosophy...
 
2010-04-05 05:32:05 PM  
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.
 
2010-04-05 05:32:58 PM  
RanDomino:
How many homless live with you? How can you sit there using a computer when people are out there starving? GTFO the computer and go help your fellow man!
 
2010-04-05 05:33:09 PM  
Tonka Truck: Lots of talk about giving "unused" property over to the homeless. I would imagine that the owner has been paying some pretty hefty taxes on that property - whether someone is living there or not. Property taxes are typically fixed at the value of the home, not how much money you make off of it. I would also imagine that property taxes have risen steadily in SF over the decades (partially to provide city funded resources for the homeless).

Prop 13 would tell you that you are only partially correct. They have been increasing, but not as steadily as one would believe.
 
2010-04-05 05:33:36 PM  
images.fanpop.com

Nobody?

/Soaps relevant
//You wanna make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs.
 
2010-04-05 05:33:39 PM  
plausdeny
Other than that, a solid rule: if you don't work, you don't eat.

Will the workers own their own means of production? If not, how would a situation where one person owns practically everything be avoided again?


jshine
Although there's always the occasional case of outright fraud, the vast majority of people who are in debt signed the contracts of their own free will.

contracts are bullshiat. if you have to depend on coercion to get someone to live up to their end of a bargain, you shouldn't have been working with them in the first place.

I'm interested in a world where there is no coercion, got it?


The_Sponge
So in other words, if somebody worked hard and saved up enough money for two properties, moochers and free-loaders can have a right to trespass and squat on the unused property, right? Yeesh.

It depends on why they have two properties. If they use both, fine, keep 'em. If they intend to rent out the other one for profit, that's unearned profit.


ExtremeHobo
'"It's not actually vacant. I use it for my own personal uses," Ara Tehlirian of Daly City said in an interview'

What say you?


What is that use?


doopid
So, you should only be entitled to own one house?

If you actually live in both of them, and if you got the money fairly, go for it.


muck4doo
I should be entitled to Jay Leno's cars. No way he could be driving them all, all the time.

Now you've got it!
 
2010-04-05 05:34:02 PM  
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?
 
2010-04-05 05:34:12 PM  
dryknife: Redistributing?

ilriclippings.files.wordpress.com

Stealing is in fashion now, haven't you heard? And if you disagree; it means you're a racist.
 
2010-04-05 05:34:29 PM  
Ellis Eviction Relocations Benefits

Tenants forced to relocate due to an Ellis eviction are entitled to relocation benefits. In February of 2006, the California Court of Appeals upheld the legality of relocation benefits adopted by the San Francisco Board of supervisors in 2005. The relocation benefits are $4500 per tenant with a maximum of $13,500 per household. There is an additional benefit of $3000 per tenant when the tenant is a senior or disabled.

Perhaps the gentleman in question should return the $7,500.
 
2010-04-05 05:35:11 PM  
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, 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.

Check it out, I can make retarded analogies too.

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?

You can't own orfices man...
 
2010-04-05 05:35:32 PM  
plausdeny: 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"?

Oh, hell, no. You're sitting on a scarce, yet perishable commodity.

First, you exchange some food for some guns and ammo. This is going to go to hell real fast if there is anarchic looting.

Next, you exchange some food for some building supplies and fortify your warehouse.

Then, you open a store. A well guarded store.

Is there a working currency in this hypothetical city? No? Don't forget to open a bank, backed by food. Exchange for labor, goods, or real estate.

You know, that food's not going to last forever. Use some food-bucks to have some of this local population make some industry, and that includes growing more food.

Someone's going to have some good ideas, but you don't want to run the entire show. Loan him some food-bucks, if he's a good risk. Even better if he grows food, or provides clean water.

Do your part to keep things orderly. The population is in a survival situation, obviously, or you wouldn't be in this position. The last thing you need is behavior that's going to lessen the chances of survival.

Other than that, a solid rule: if you don't work, you don't eat. It worked for Miles Standish, it'll work for you. In the end, you're aiming for them not to be dependent on you and your declining stocks of food.


Just hope they don't start overusing the plasmids. Splicers > Zombies.
 
2010-04-05 05:35:56 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.



Lulz. Wow....it's been forever since I've heard that one.
 
2010-04-05 05:36:02 PM  
Joe Blowme: I for one will welcome you as overlord in the Zombie apocolypse.

I already have the guns, and friends with guns, so I've got a leg up on Step One.

If you're willing to work and not produce anti-work (you know, stealing, murder, destruction), you have a place in the Benevolent Tyranny of Lord HumongousPlausdeny.

Now, bring me a collander.
 
2010-04-05 05:36:04 PM  
MorePeasPlease: wmoonfox: if you aren't making good use of the property, you shouldn't be allowed to horde it.

Lay off the WoW.


I submit that this says more about you than me.
 
2010-04-05 05:36:18 PM  
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?
 
2010-04-05 05:36:21 PM  
birdboy2000: If you want to keep the property, live in it. I won't shed any tears for anyone who can afford two houses.

Spoken like a true lazy ass who was brought up and spoiled by rich parents and now resents people who go earn their living.RanDomino: schattenteufel
Need does not dictate entitlement.

yes, it does.


birdboy2000
If you want to keep the property, live in it. I won't shed any tears for anyone who can afford two houses.

this


palelizard
Peaceful anarchy is all well and good until someone comes along with a baseball bat and says "Yeah, this is mine."

So you fight back. Since when are Anarchists pacifists?

(or until you have to share your food with the farker who always spends his earnings on weed and smokes it all before you get some)

Who says you have to share your food, or anything else, with some jerk?


ExtremeHobo
I have arbitrarily decided

It's not arbitrary. If it doesn't appear that you're using the second TV or house or whatever, and someone asks if they can have it, if you have any remotely plausible explanation for how you're still using it, it's yours. And, no, "I'm renting this house out for profit because I'm a slumlord" is not a good reason.


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? And no, "WHARRGARBLE IRON RICE BOWL WHARRGARBLE!!!" is not a good reason.
 
2010-04-05 05:37:07 PM  
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.
 
2010-04-05 05:37:41 PM  
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.
 
2010-04-05 05:37:41 PM  
wmoonfox: I submit that this says more about you than me.


As long as you submit, I'm fine with that.

I will hoard your posts for rereading.
 
2010-04-05 05:38:32 PM  
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.
 
2010-04-05 05:38:35 PM  
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"?

2 chicks, man.
 
2010-04-05 05:38:43 PM  
RanDomino:

I'm trying to decide if you're trolling or just naive/stupid.
 
2010-04-05 05:39:10 PM  
RanDomino: It depends on why they have two properties. If they use both, fine, keep 'em. If they intend to rent out the other one for profit, that's unearned profit.

How is it unearned profit? It takes an investment in the first place to buy the property you're renting.
 
2010-04-05 05:39:24 PM  
RanDomino: contracts are bullshiat. if you have to depend on coercion to get someone to live up to their end of a bargain, you shouldn't have been working with them in the first place.

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.

The idea is that each side gets what they want -- if not, they would not agree to the deal. For example, a person gets to live in a home that they couldn't afford to buy in cash, and the bank gets a small (say, 5%) return on its investment. Both sides win. Seems fair enough to me.

True coercion (extortion, blackmail, etc.) is illegal, of course.
 
2010-04-05 05:39:28 PM  
russsssman
True... True. If everything is going to be dished out for free the rest of us Americans that work our ass off to create everything we'll just quit working, sit on everyone elses free couches playing free Xboxes with Free hoho's and smoking free gonja that free farmers made. When I get sick I'll get my free healthcare too! Wonder how long America will stand on it's own two feet...

Fine. No one should be able to force you to work. Keep in mind that, if you don't, then no one's going to give you anything, either, probably.


Joe Blowme
How many homless live with you? How can you sit there using a computer when people are out there starving? GTFO the computer and go help your fellow man!

I'm working on it; are you?
 
2010-04-05 05:39:50 PM  
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.


a studio? place for friends or family to live if they need it?
 
2010-04-05 05:39:57 PM  
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:
 
2010-04-05 05:40:20 PM  
Enjoy your real estate business...
i33.tinypic.com
...while it lasts.
profile.ak.fbcdn.net
"Here's a tip. Learn to make soup from grass and rocks."
 
2010-04-05 05:40:21 PM  
pxlboy: RanDomino:

I'm trying to decide if you're trolling or just naive/stupid.


Im going with both on this one. Maybe is id CZARang... reincarnated with a new proxy?
 
2010-04-05 05:40:32 PM  
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.
 
2010-04-05 05:41:22 PM  
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)?
 
2010-04-05 05:41:29 PM  
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. What if he often meets clients or business associates in the City and uses the vacant building as a meeting place or home office?
 
2010-04-05 05:42:16 PM  
RanDomino: russsssman
True... True. If everything is going to be dished out for free the rest of us Americans that work our ass off to create everything we'll just quit working, sit on everyone elses free couches playing free Xboxes with Free hoho's and smoking free gonja that free farmers made. When I get sick I'll get my free healthcare too! Wonder how long America will stand on it's own two feet...

Fine. No one should be able to force you to work. Keep in mind that, if you don't, then no one's going to give you anything, either, probably.


Joe Blowme
How many homless live with you? How can you sit there using a computer when people are out there starving? GTFO the computer and go help your fellow man!

I'm working on it; are you?


Yes, they are called my children.
 
2010-04-05 05:43:59 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)?


I'm actually amused rather than angry. So if s/he's trolling, it isn't working on me.
 
2010-04-05 05:44:31 PM  
Kim-Chi_and_Blaze: Ooops meant to say any goods necessary for life. Obviously I'm not talking about redistributing luxury goods.

Housing in San Francisco sure sounds like "luxury goods" to me. Go live somewhere more affordable. It's what I and many others do.
 
2010-04-05 05:44:53 PM  
pxlboy: 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.

a studio? place for friends or family to live if they need it?


That's definitely what I'd tell her. "It's my studio. I make...movies."
 
2010-04-05 05:45:51 PM  
RanDomino:

ExtremeHobo
'"It's not actually vacant. I use it for my own personal uses," Ara Tehlirian of Daly City said in an interview'

What say you?

What is that use?


It doesnt matter. Whats the use of homosexual sex? Its not making babies...

Use isnt for anyone else to decide.
 
2010-04-05 05:46:04 PM  
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".
 
2010-04-05 05:46:53 PM  
RanDomino: Who says you have to share your food, or anything else, with some jerk?

You did. Right here:

RanDomino: schattenteufel
Need does not dictate entitlement.

yes, it does.


Where else is this stuff they need and are supposedly entitled to come from?

It's not arbitrary. If it doesn't appear that you're using the second TV or house or whatever, and someone asks if they can have it, if you have any remotely plausible explanation for how you're still using it, it's yours. And, no, "I'm renting this house out for profit because I'm a slumlord" is not a good reason.

So who gets to decide what is a good reason, the person with the stuff, or the person wanting to take the stuff?
 
2010-04-05 05:47:09 PM  
reminds me of the Troubles.
 
2010-04-05 05:47:10 PM  
rufus-t-firefly: pxlboy: 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.

a studio? place for friends or family to live if they need it?

That's definitely what I'd tell her. "It's my studio. I make...movies."


i was thinking music studio, but didn't didn't specify. i mean, there are plenty uses for a second home. but if you're still paying property taxes on it, guess what -- it's still yours.

i consider myself to be pretty socially liberal, and even i think that these house-stealing hippies are assholes. sorry, but you're not entitled to just walk in and start taking things.
 
2010-04-05 05:48:04 PM  
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.
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 551 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