It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by benrl
I can see why these people are doing that, I could only imagine the anger at being forced from a home by an uncaring bank.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I think I have one simple question to ask the people who do this. Did they sign a mortgage contract and did they then fail to make the payments, as agreed and through the foreclosure process?
Now, if they did NOT and there is some funny business, as has happened on a large number in recent years then I have real sympathy for them. Although destroying the property for the next buyer is still wrong. (The bank doesn't care...what human being at the big bank was supposed to get mad or upset anyway?)
Now if they did fail on the payments, hey...Life sucks. I'm not back in school and just overflowing with "free" time because I want to retire at 38. Jobs aren't exactly out there to be had at the moment. However...... Really??? Trash the house?? Again, WHO is this supposed to piss off?? The people at the bank just check different boxes and push a few more sheets of paper with a check out to someone for repairs..IF they repair it at all.
50/50 chance these days, the bank won't even care to fix it and the people doing this will have actually helped the bank by trashing the property they go find someone to sucker into being stuck with it. Way to stick it to 'em. Err... Yeah
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Neither situation makes malicious destruction of property "OK"
Originally posted by Sergeant Stiletto
While I understand and sympathize with the sentiment behind this, it's just juvenile and wrong.
What if every time someone didn't like an outcome they behaved like this? It's uncivil and it's criminal. It seems the height of irony and ignorance to be pissed off at the banks uncivil and possibly criminal behavior only to do the same.
Plus think of the natural resources wasted on revenge as well as the even further devalued properties surrounding these homes...
Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
thats all well and good, if we weren't in the current economic dire straights, with a large portion of the problem being at the feet of the Banking industry.
Liar loans, predatory lending etc...
Sure Ill give you a house you can't afford, with no stated income, with a payment that increases annually.
It is 50/50, the lender for lending, and the homeowner for accepting.
Except when this 50/50 burden comes down to it, the homeowner is the one that suffers, meanwhile the bank will just turn around and churn the house out to someone else.
All the while taking government bail outs to save their asses from the stupid mistakes they made...
Meanwhile the homeowner is homeless.
The end result is angry people, angry people do not act rationally.
I am not excusing the behavior, I said I understand it.
Was the home owner homeless before they bought the house? Back in the early 2000 all these people were renting when Barney Frank and co pushed banks into providing anyone who wanted a house a house ... Prior to that only people who could afford house could get a loan.. AND most of these houses were bought well AFTER 2000 and so had little or no principle in them.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
thats all well and good, if we weren't in the current economic dire straights, with a large portion of the problem being at the feet of the Banking industry.
Liar loans, predatory lending etc...
Sure Ill give you a house you can't afford, with no stated income, with a payment that increases annually.
It is 50/50, the lender for lending, and the homeowner for accepting.
Except when this 50/50 burden comes down to it, the homeowner is the one that suffers, meanwhile the bank will just turn around and churn the house out to someone else.
All the while taking government bail outs to save their asses from the stupid mistakes they made...
Meanwhile the homeowner is homeless.
The end result is angry people, angry people do not act rationally.
I am not excusing the behavior, I said I understand it.
Was the home owner homeless before they bought the house? Back in the early 2000 all these people were renting when Barney Frank and co pushed banks into providing anyone who wanted a house a house ... Prior to that only people who could afford house could get a loan.. AND most of these houses were bought well AFTER 2000 and so had little or no principle in them.
SO what is the family out of? I'm missing the point here, they would have had to pay rent in either case if they didn't get a house loan they could never afford in the first place. How is it that losing their house puts them on the street and not back into renting once again.
The point is most of these foreclosures should never been given a loan in the first place, and many lived free for a year or more and then trashed the house on exiting. I can't see the bank making anything off of this other than what basically comes down to rent money, but they can't sell the house again because they would lose their ass in the sell, so it sits....kind of like stocks as in you don't lose money until you sell.
Try and buy a house today...not very easy since you need to once again really qualify for it, and I'm not totally sure who is the victim here...
Originally posted by MikhailBakunin
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
thats all well and good, if we weren't in the current economic dire straights, with a large portion of the problem being at the feet of the Banking industry.
Liar loans, predatory lending etc...
Sure Ill give you a house you can't afford, with no stated income, with a payment that increases annually.
It is 50/50, the lender for lending, and the homeowner for accepting.
Except when this 50/50 burden comes down to it, the homeowner is the one that suffers, meanwhile the bank will just turn around and churn the house out to someone else.
All the while taking government bail outs to save their asses from the stupid mistakes they made...
Meanwhile the homeowner is homeless.
The end result is angry people, angry people do not act rationally.
I am not excusing the behavior, I said I understand it.
Was the home owner homeless before they bought the house? Back in the early 2000 all these people were renting when Barney Frank and co pushed banks into providing anyone who wanted a house a house ... Prior to that only people who could afford house could get a loan.. AND most of these houses were bought well AFTER 2000 and so had little or no principle in them.
SO what is the family out of? I'm missing the point here, they would have had to pay rent in either case if they didn't get a house loan they could never afford in the first place. How is it that losing their house puts them on the street and not back into renting once again.
The point is most of these foreclosures should never been given a loan in the first place, and many lived free for a year or more and then trashed the house on exiting. I can't see the bank making anything off of this other than what basically comes down to rent money, but they can't sell the house again because they would lose their ass in the sell, so it sits....kind of like stocks as in you don't lose money until you sell.
Try and buy a house today...not very easy since you need to once again really qualify for it, and I'm not totally sure who is the victim here...
what it really puts in perspective is not the loan sharks or the real estate agents or companies or the sharpie-readied delinquents... it brings us to question the economic system in place... and it begs for a change.
Originally posted by littled16
We bought our home years before the whole housing "bubble" hit, but we got it dirt cheap because the previous owners were foreclosed on and had ripped out every permanent fixture in the house out of anger. If not for the previous owners doing that we could not have afforded our home.
We were able to move in for 5% down plus $500 closing cost with a 21 year note of under $400 per month at a high- but fixed- interest. We were able to pay the house off in less than 11 years, which knocked off a LOT of what we'd have paid in interest, and we own our home free and clear! It just took time and work and we fixed things up as we could afford it. Nothing fancy but it's all ours!
If it weren't for the previous owners vandalizing the place we never could have afforded a house this big with such a huge yard. I'm grateful to them! Maybe these "Sharpie Parties" will give other people the opportunity to own their own home too!
Originally posted by eleven44
reply to post by jude11
HA!
I had a bunch of good friends who lived in Savannah, GA in a house that ended up being foreclosed on. They had less than a month of notice to get out. (This was about 5 years ago.)
So, what'd they do? They threw a spray paint party the night before they left for the exact same reason!
Why let the bank just get away with it that easily?
I think it's a good way of non-violent retaliation.
Originally posted by eleven44
reply to post by jude11
HA!
I had a bunch of good friends who lived in Savannah, GA in a house that ended up being foreclosed on. They had less than a month of notice to get out. (This was about 5 years ago.)
So, what'd they do? They threw a spray paint party the night before they left for the exact same reason!
Why let the bank just get away with it that easily?
I think it's a good way of non-violent retaliation.
Originally posted by Jetman44
I feel that if a bank is going to forclose on any type of property( home, business or property), they should be required by law to have insurance on said property. We have to have insurance to protect the property, so should they.... my .02