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.

(Reuters)   There are about 1.5 million homeless people in America. The banks that we bailed out have about 1.5 million homes sitting on their books and falling into disrepair. Hmmm... I wonder how we can solve both these problems?   (reuters.com) divider line 101
    More: Interesting, state banks, loan servicing  
•       •       •

1413 clicks; posted to Business » on 08 Jun 2012 at 10:37 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-08 12:53:01 AM
Give free houses to the homeless? Really? And let the banks take the loss? Good lord.../never go full retard subtard...never...
 
2012-06-08 01:30:16 AM
I wonder how we can solve both these problems?

Jail the homeless, raise taxes on the median workers to pay for the prisons and guards, and cut taxes for the bank executives.
 
2012-06-08 01:39:24 AM
Homeless people are generally crappy at fixing up dilapidated houses.
 
2012-06-08 01:54:34 AM
I don't want to get NIMBY, but would you want to live across the street from a neighborhood filled with formerly homeless people?

Yes, some are just down on their luck, but a lot of them have real mental/psychological problems.
 
2012-06-08 02:00:03 AM

Chariset: I don't want to get NIMBY, but would you want to live across the street from a neighborhood filled with formerly homeless people?

Yes, some are just down on their luck, but a lot of them have real mental/psychological problems.


Well, think of the positive side. If people were faced with that kind of neighbor, might they not pool their resources, buy the house, fix it up for sale or rental? Sometimes scaring the sh*t out of people can spur them into action.
 
2012-06-08 07:27:06 AM
So, we should bus people out of their home state to go live on a farm in Montana in the middle of farking nowhere?
 
2012-06-08 07:52:45 AM
Golf courses.
 
2012-06-08 08:55:43 AM

cman: So, we should bus people out of their home state to go live on a farm in Montana in the middle of farking nowhere?


Is that the same farm people send their old dogs to?

Because I'm suspicious.
 
2012-06-08 08:59:58 AM

joshiz: Homeless people are generally crappy at fixing up dilapidated houses.


But you have to admit that they're GREAT at electrical and plumbing extraction.
 
2012-06-08 09:01:03 AM
Some of you people need to read about social conditions in the UK in the 1800s.
 
2012-06-08 10:27:18 AM
Of roughly 400 bank-owned homes surveyed in the area, half are in a state of blight, with a third "seriously blighted," according to two activist groups, Good Jobs LA and the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.

Yet even though the city of Los Angeles, with some fanfare, passed an ordinance two years ago compelling banks to repair blighted homes they own, or face fines, not a cent in penalties has been collected.

"My people don't even have time to go to the toilet anymore," said Luke Zamperini, head of the Los Angeles Building and Safety department, which is responsible for enforcing building codes and collecting fines.

Zamperini said his department had been cut by 60 percent over the last five years as a result of a non-stop state and local budget crisis.


So collect the damn fines and you'll have more money to pay more people to collect more fines.
 
2012-06-08 10:40:36 AM
So foreclose on the people who were three days late on one of their mortgage payments and then give the house to a homeless person. Makes sense to me.
 
2012-06-08 10:42:48 AM
What happens every time you put section-8 housing into decent neighborhoods? Yup, these losers destroy the property, lower home values and bring their 3rd world mentality of crime and filth.
 
2012-06-08 10:43:53 AM
That would be a really terrible solution that would benefit almost no one.
 
2012-06-08 10:47:51 AM
Sure, you might be homeless in Louisiana and only know people who could give you a chance of getting on your feet in Louisiana, but let's send you to Massachusetts because we found a falling-down rowhouse for you there.

Or,

HotWingConspiracy: That would be a really terrible solution that would benefit almost no one.

 
2012-06-08 10:51:40 AM
People are generally homeless due to severe under education, mental problems, drug problems, etc. Tossing them the keys to the house just ensures you'll have a destroyed house in a year or less.
 
2012-06-08 10:52:21 AM
Chariset:
I don't want to get NIMBY, but would you want to live across the street from a neighborhood filled with formerly homeless people?

Yes, some are just down on their luck, but a lot of them have real mental/psychological problems.


Well, you see, for most of history, the really crazy people were left out to die, or were killed outright. After a long time, they started putting together "hospitals" for people with rich or powerful families, so they could store their crazy relatives.

Then, they had something called the "Progressive Movement," which advocated locking them up in institutions to protect the normal folks from people with defective brains.

Then, after a few decades of that, a different group of "Progressives" said we should "mainstream" mentally ill people with drugs (even though the success rate was known to be pretty low). So they let them out and put them on the street, or in "transition programs." Which didn't work, since the crazy people stopped taking their drugs when they were out of the hospitals. That's how the US ended up with a million or so "homeless" people who are mostly just crazy people outside of mental hospitals.

Waiting for the next turn of the wheel - this generation of "Progressives" will start to suggest big new mental hospitals. But they won't call them that. They'll be "mandatory homeless shelters with professional mental health support staff" or something like that.

(We have a large homeless population here - some are the "down on their luck" sort, but those folks are mostly trying like hell to become non-homeless. The vast majority are nuts. Real, no-kidding crazy people.)
 
2012-06-08 10:55:40 AM

cirby: Then, after a few decades of that, a different group of "Progressives" said we should "mainstream" mentally ill people with drugs (even though the success rate was known to be pretty low). So they let them out and put them on the street, or in "transition programs." Which didn't work, since the crazy people stopped taking their drugs when they were out of the hospitals. That's how the US ended up with a million or so "homeless" people who are mostly just crazy people outside of mental hospitals.


Interesting take on Regan defunding mental health programs.
 
2012-06-08 10:56:26 AM

HotWingConspiracy: That would be a really terrible solution that would benefit almost no one.


Yup. The simplistic thinkers have simplistic notions that help no one.

The childish idea that 'giving empty houses to homeless people solves two problems' ignores lots of issues like who pays for the mortage and taxes, are there jobs for the homeless, are the homeless down on their luck or are they insane and pushed out of institutions with the aid of 'advocates' who think they are better on the street than being taken care of by the state?

Or does Subby think that the new homeless home-owners shouldn't have to pay taxes or utilities let alone mortages?
 
2012-06-08 10:57:31 AM
Demolish the empty houses to build for-profit debtors prisons, jail the homeless and bankrupt, then send the bill to everyone making less than $200,000/yr?
 
2012-06-08 11:00:00 AM
There's one house in my neighborhood, I'm pretty sure you could break in at night and switch the locks, then just show up the next morning with a moving van and have the electric turned on and no one would ever know.
 
2012-06-08 11:05:04 AM
Considering that in the U.S. we have a varying definition of what is required to be "homeless," I question that number to some extent. When I went to college a while back, the city counted the dorm occupants as homeless because their definition used the phrase "lacks a fixed or regular residence" and the state made an issue of it. The school paper then had a huge number of letters from students wanting the government to cover their residence expenses. I know, CSB, but I still haven't seen a counting method that doesn't guess a lot at the number.
 
2012-06-08 11:12:24 AM

HotWingConspiracy: cirby: Then, after a few decades of that, a different group of "Progressives" said we should "mainstream" mentally ill people with drugs (even though the success rate was known to be pretty low). So they let them out and put them on the street, or in "transition programs." Which didn't work, since the crazy people stopped taking their drugs when they were out of the hospitals. That's how the US ended up with a million or so "homeless" people who are mostly just crazy people outside of mental hospitals.

Interesting take on Regan defunding mental health programs.


reAgan!! It's not that hard to spell!!

/unless I'm missing out on a meme, if so please carry on.
 
2012-06-08 11:14:11 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: reAgan!! It's not that hard to spell!!

/unless I'm missing out on a meme, if so please carry on.



You didn't know the little girl from The Exorcist went on to lead an interesting double life in shady finance?
 
2012-06-08 11:14:36 AM
THEY'RE HOMELESS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE
 
2012-06-08 11:15:13 AM

dslfobia: Give free houses to the homeless? Really? And let the banks take the loss? Good lord.../never go full retard subtard...never...


At the same time... I kind of want to do this. Once it fails miserably (selling the houses for booze, turning into hoarders, eyesores, etc) we can finally shut the liberals up.

/would never work though, liberals ignore facts.
 
2012-06-08 11:15:25 AM
Except that the homeless don't have the funds to take care of the houses. You'd have to pay for the utilities, trash collection, cleaning supplies, landscape supplies and more. They also don't have the money to feed themselves. If the house is in suburbia or a rural area, mobility will suddenly be a big issue.

It would just be cheaper to have a contract with a landscape team and a residential cleaning service. Have the landscapers hit the house once a month and have the cleaners hit the house once a quarter. In cold areas, have somebody winterize the house.

As for the homeless, giving them a house isn't going to solve their problems. Especially if they have mental health issues. Chances are, they'll just trash the place. If they want to live on the street, let them rot. If they have mental health issues, give them care. If they sane, don't want to live on the street but are out of a job, give them job retraining. But do it at a community center where they're supervised, can get a meal and can quickly get to their job councilor.

/takes more than just a warm body to take care of a house
 
2012-06-08 11:15:37 AM

what_now: Some of you people need to read about social conditions in the UK in the 1800s.


Care to elaborate or provide a good source?

\not snark, I swear
 
2012-06-08 11:19:07 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: cirby: Then, after a few decades of that, a different group of "Progressives" said we should "mainstream" mentally ill people with drugs (even though the success rate was known to be pretty low). So they let them out and put them on the street, or in "transition programs." Which didn't work, since the crazy people stopped taking their drugs when they were out of the hospitals. That's how the US ended up with a million or so "homeless" people who are mostly just crazy people outside of mental hospitals.

Interesting take on Regan defunding mental health programs.

reAgan!! It's not that hard to spell!!

/unless I'm missing out on a meme, if so please carry on.


Yeah I realized after I clicked add. It annoyed me to, but it was too late.
 
2012-06-08 11:21:19 AM

cirby: "Progressives" said we should "mainstream" mentally ill people with drugs (even though the success rate was known to be pretty low). So they let them out and put them on the street


Oh, nicely done. Subtle trolling is a neglected art these days.
 
2012-06-08 11:21:28 AM

dslfobia: Give free houses to the homeless? Really? And let the banks take the loss? Good lord.../never go full retard subtard...never...


^This

I'm sure subtard has filled his/her house with homeless people. Charity starts at home
 
2012-06-08 11:21:36 AM

Ham Sandvich: what_now: Some of you people need to read about social conditions in the UK in the 1800s.

Care to elaborate or provide a good source?

\not snark, I swear


Charles Dickens. Bleak House to start with.
 
2012-06-08 11:22:12 AM

NewportBarGuy: Chariset: I don't want to get NIMBY, but would you want to live across the street from a neighborhood filled with formerly homeless people?

Yes, some are just down on their luck, but a lot of them have real mental/psychological problems.

Well, think of the positive side. If people were faced with that kind of neighbor, might they not pool their resources, buy the house, fix it up for sale or rental? Sometimes scaring the sh*t out of people can spur them into action.


So your solution is to get people who are fine on their mortgages to overleverage and buy extra houses, giving profit to the banks.

I feel like we've been here before... OH WAIT.
 
2012-06-08 11:24:23 AM

HotWingConspiracy: cirby: Then, after a few decades of that, a different group of "Progressives" said we should "mainstream" mentally ill people with drugs (even though the success rate was known to be pretty low). So they let them out and put them on the street, or in "transition programs." Which didn't work, since the crazy people stopped taking their drugs when they were out of the hospitals. That's how the US ended up with a million or so "homeless" people who are mostly just crazy people outside of mental hospitals.

Interesting take on Regan defunding mental health programs.


You might be a troll if you can't spell Reagan properly.
 
2012-06-08 11:26:29 AM
After reading all the posts, I had to check to make sure I was still on Fark. I didn't see much, if any, left wing derp on the page. I guess all the liberals are still sleeping. Makes sense. They probably went out Thursday night and don't have jobs so they're sleeping off the hangover.
 
2012-06-08 11:27:36 AM

Bullseyed: HotWingConspiracy: cirby: Then, after a few decades of that, a different group of "Progressives" said we should "mainstream" mentally ill people with drugs (even though the success rate was known to be pretty low). So they let them out and put them on the street, or in "transition programs." Which didn't work, since the crazy people stopped taking their drugs when they were out of the hospitals. That's how the US ended up with a million or so "homeless" people who are mostly just crazy people outside of mental hospitals.

Interesting take on Regan defunding mental health programs.

You might be a troll if you can't spell Reagan properly.


Or if you don't read the thread.
 
2012-06-08 11:27:56 AM
All of these news stories are the same.

Banks do whatever the hell they want.
 
2012-06-08 11:28:48 AM

Dinjiin: Except that the homeless don't have the funds to take care of the houses booze. You'd have to pay for the utilities, trash collection, cleaning supplies, landscape supplies beer, liquor, wine and more. They also don't have the money to feed drink themselves. If the house is in suburbia or a rural area, mobility liquor store adjacent park benches will suddenly be a big issue.

 
2012-06-08 11:30:34 AM
Round up the homeless and force them to work repairing the houses?
 
2012-06-08 11:35:49 AM
Right. Besides ruining perfectly good neighborhoods with homeless people, the banks aren't even going to sell these houses to people that can afford them. Want to know why?

The house's asset value is what the loan is worth. That's GAAP. If they sell it in the current market, it's whatever the new loan is worth. The bank's are able to show a higher valuation by holding these properties than they are by converting them into cash.

It's a farking accounting scam.
 
2012-06-08 11:41:02 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Interesting take on Regan defunding mental health programs.


Except that state mental health institutions were well into decline before Reagan came into office. By the 1950s, there was growing disdain for involuntary institutionalization, especially after some high profile incidents like Rosemary Kennedy's lobotomy. Factor in a growing number of pharmaceuticals that could be prescribed by a GP and a number of court cases that made involuntary institutionalization more difficult and you ended up with massive closures of these facilities throughout the 50s, 60s and 70s.

As for Reagan's federal funding cut, I don't see a problem with it. The states could have picked up the tab for running the remaining facilities in their own states, but many chose not to. The feds should be paying for VA facilities, not facilities for the general population.

The whole situation today is just a blame game. Progressives blame Reagan, conservatives blame judicial activism. The reality is that a lot of people and events brought us to our current situation. But when has reality stopped people from taking shots at people they dislike?
 
2012-06-08 11:46:29 AM

Bullseyed: After reading all the posts, I had to check to make sure I was still on Fark. I didn't see much, if any, left wing derp on the page. I guess all the liberals are still sleeping. Makes sense. They probably went out Thursday night and don't have jobs so they're sleeping off the hangover.


You're funny. Shut up.

/Liberal
//Went out last night
///Hung over
////At work
 
2012-06-08 11:47:46 AM
We should have used TARP funds to purchase the houses and bulldoze them.
 
2012-06-08 11:47:55 AM
As one who is a liberally liberal, to this idea I say...Are you Freaking KIDDING me?!?!?!?!?!?

This idea as a whole fails miserably on so many levels. However, I don't think it's a bad idea for banks to 'hire' homeless families to temporarily reside in houses while they are on the market...with specific, contractual conditions on staying there, standards of upkeep/repair, to be out of the house during showings (with advanced warning that a showing is happening at X time.) etc. Since the bank is the property owner, materials are their responsibility, so the family contributes the labor, has a stable place to stay while they find a more permanent solution, and neighborhoods don't have empty houses inviting worse elements into the neighborhood to take over.

I realize this only accounts for a small population of homeless..but it's also the percentage who most likely got into that situation for forces outside of their control.

But throwing the homeless into an empty house to 'solve' a problem creates far more than it actually takes care of. And it's not a real solution to the problem of homelessness.
 
2012-06-08 11:52:45 AM
As my kids are going to say one day, "You know, dad used to say that the ghetto wasn't a place, it was a people."
 
2012-06-08 11:57:44 AM

lordaction: What happens every time you put section-8 housing into decent neighborhoods? Yup, these losers destroy the property, lower home values and bring their 3rd world mentality of crime and filth.


If you screen properly it can work but people, social service agencies and community organizations, always go too far with placing people. They try to place 25 families in a neighborhood where there should be 5 at the most.
 
2012-06-08 12:01:25 PM

DrewCurtisJr: lordaction: What happens every time you put section-8 housing into decent neighborhoods? Yup, these losers destroy the property, lower home values and bring their 3rd world mentality of crime and filth.

If you screen properly it can work but people, social service agencies and community organizations, always go too far with placing people. They try to place 25 families in a neighborhood where there should be 5 at the most.


The problem is that they honestly believe that if you put degenerates into a non-degenerate environment, they will cease to be degenerates.

These people are not products of their environment, they create their environment.
 
2012-06-08 12:04:52 PM
They'll just buy booze with them.
 
2012-06-08 12:06:03 PM

what_now: Some of you people need to read about social conditions in the UK in the 1800s.


Alright, what book are you reading? Just spit it out.
 
2012-06-08 12:12:43 PM

brukmann: what_now: Some of you people need to read about social conditions in the UK in the 1800s.

Alright, what book are you reading? Just spit it out.


This is the second time today I have posted this...

lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report