Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/21/texas-mans-16-property-seizure-throws-obscure-law-into-spotlight/

TLDR
Find another person getting foreclosed on.
Agree to 'adversely possess' eachother's homes. Write a contract to maybe trade houses back at the end of the period.
PROFIT

Adverse possession takes awhile (several years) to come into effect. It varies by state (lol property law) but I'm fairly certain still exists in all of them, since it derives from common law. Most of the cases I've read dealing with it are at least 50 years old, though.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Why can't the bank evict the squatters from foreclosed homes?

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

This.

Fox News blows an obscure incident out of proportion to make right wing backers (greedy and incompetent bankers) look good.

Foreclosure means the house is bank property. It's not "abandoned", and actually, for public health and safety reasons it is very hard to legally abandon property.

Hypothetically, if the person abandons the property prior to foreclosure then the bank can simply file a lien against the loan contract.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

You can adversely possess bank property if they make no effort to defend it and it appears abandoned. That said, it's a simple matter to keep squatters out, since you only need to disperse them every few years to prevent possession from shifting hands.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Then this sounds like nothing but a good thing to prevent banks from accumulating lots of property then unproductively sitting on it.

That is, in one form or another, the root of the "jobless recovery" and why trickle-down doesn't work. Wealthy interests aren't investing, they're just sitting on their gains.

Also see: Henry George

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Banks aren't just sitting on property. Foreclosed houses are bad for the books, there are a number of costs associated with property that the bank must occur all the while they make no return. There was a an npr report a little while back talking about the millions Fannie must pay just to keep the yards mowed for the properties they've foreclosed on.

Dvergar /
Quisling

I forgot about that.

That puts a dingy in my schemes.

Why you gotta dingy up my schemes?

Feds own 30% of US lands, and thanks mostly to hybrid driving people who like the smell of their own farts, it's not used productively.

Just saying.


Why Fannie and Freddie haven't been shot and dropped in a river somewhere is beyond me.

That's a statistic that gets kicked around by right-wing interests that have a vested interest in making the government the bad guy so they can profiteer unmolested.

30% of US lands...New Mexico? Nevada? Utah? Alaska? Nebraska? Montana? That's what most of that 30% figure is. Hardly prime real estate. Air Force and NASA bases have huge footprints, too.

Besides the abject wasteland that makes up most of government possession are forests and coal fields in the Midwest and Southeast. That's where the controversy starts.

The reason these interests want US possessions broken up and sold is so they can slash-and-burn, or strip-mine, or otherwise cash in on those properties for nothing, and give the nearby populations no enduring benefit.

How would it benefit the American people - anyone but wealthy corporations - to sell off public land for pennies on the dollar so the resources can be swiftly extracted and the land's spiritual and economic value reduced to zero, forever, overnight?

TLDR: You can't compare urban/surburban real estate with virgin land or wastelands.

Is that buying us a future, or long-term prosperity, or just letting a few rich interests line their pockets?



You could say the same about any banking interest.

Fannie and Freddie get heat for their proximity to the government, but Bank of America and other private banks that passed loans out of greed are at least as guilty. That's private industry - the guys on the other side of the fence from the bogeymen in Congress - and they haven't gotten dropped in a river, or crucified, as particular FUBU denizens prefer, either.

You also overlook that although Goldman Sachs and other derivative investors didn't take handouts directly, they nonetheless benefited immensely - and know it. Their holdings in other companies and derivative investments would have been reduced to zero and pretty much every investment firm would have gone bottom-up if the government hadn't acted.

FnF, BoA, Sachs...they are all involved with the government because they either asked to be - or they made it necessary. Someone made a buck.

It's plausible to at least make the argument that the government deserved blame for forcing banks to make loans to the undeserving. But what you can't blame the government for is that other banks decided to speculate on those bad loans (i.e., derivatives). The reality of the latter negates the former because the overall theme is the same: banks were greedy then bit the hand they begged for feed.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Mowing the lawn is sitting on the property. It's no different than owning an empty warehouse and being responsible for the electrical drip and safety hazards associated with the property.

Not sitting on it would be selling it or writing off the foreclosed debt and letting someone else mow the land.

In the final analysis, it is a cost of doing business.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Do they count national parks like yosemite and yellowstone in that 30%?

Joining the Azelma ranks of stupidity.

Yes, I think national parks are part of that 30%.

I was being a limited gov type, not totally disagreeing with the Georgian concepts of land. I can understand it and why one would agree with it. Just trying to point out a similarity. Except that <any company here> can't force anything from you.

The lands, despite not being in heavy population areas, could be exploited without severely or permanently damaging land though.Which brings me to regulation I'm ok with (and off topic). If you're gonna harvest, you gotta replant. (talking about trees here). Because it's not just good environmental sense, but sustainable economic sense.

Also, I don't demonize just fannie and freddie. Fannie and freddie are just the biggest ones. No business should be bailed out by the government. Ever. Lack of loopholes and bailouts means lack of incentive for markets or companies to get in bed with government.

I agree in principle but in practice business doesn't want that - they want a quick buck. "Replanting", as it is vaunted, is usually a scam because what they replant are basically tree farms, consisting of a single short-lived, fast-growing variety of industrial tree, and not actual forests with diverse ecosystems and old-growth species.

For want of an immediate example, look at World of Warcraft. Gaming started to go downhill when it went into the hands of finance and business people who can't manage anything in a sustainable way or trust technical experts to call the shots. It's really a question of American corporate culture. If people can't manage an MMO in a sustainable way within, say, a 10-year timeframe, what makes you think the same business culture can manage a mine or a forest in a 50 or 100 year timeframe?

Hence we're at this impasse. After all, why negotiate sane, viable and sustainable laws for investment and sustainable, profitable development when you can just sit on the capital, or go to China?

And so we have the role of government. Pure capitalism/libertarianism doesn't work for the same reason Communism doesn't work: people do stupid, even self-defeating, things, ensuring the non-viability of any system based on the premise of rational behavior, even rational behavior within the narrow scope of amoral self-interest.

In short: we have this situation because experience proved it necessary.

So how to fix? Partnership of business and government, and forcible reshaping of the corporate culture by the democratic or imperial political system.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Mowing the lawn is active possession. While the banks are "sitting on the property" in our terms, that's enough to prevent adverse possession from vesting. Something has to be actually abandoned for AP to work.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh