In the city of Groningen, in the Netherlands, due to an increasing housing shortage, I participated in a housing project that enabled my partner and I to live in an abandoned law office for the ten months that we lived there.

This project requires a tenant to pay a monthly rate per individual occupant, and the organization will find a location to be rented for this flat rate. If the space is going to be further developed or occupied, then the tenant is provided with two months notice, and meanwhile is provided with a new location to occupy.

These locations are usually public buildings, which can include, but are not limited to: schools, offices, halls, community centers. When I inspected the living arrangements at a school, tenants each occupied a separate classroom and used it as an apartment. This was a great space for artists especially. In exchange for providing people with safe, affordable housing, the objective is to demonstrate that the 'abandoned' building is occupied, which will deter vandals from deteriorating the structure aimlessly.

It is saddening to see a building with boarded up windows, yet know that the shelters are full.

Of course, all that white-collar crime that created this disaster really isn't 'criminal' - or is it???

Why don't we just call them 'settlers' - as they were called hundreds of years ago - or in Palestine today... that would make it all perfectly legitimate...

I was wondering how all the folks here that approve of taking other peoples property for your own use, i.e. "squatting", are going to solve the problem of utilities for these homeless folks?

I understand that this is just a publicity stunt to make a point, but just say everyone did it, who would pay for the ongoing costs?

Here is a short commentary on the recent stampeding of an employee at
Wal-Mart that I thought you all might like to hear:

http://www.guyfinley.com/Wisdom_Tree/Audio_Clips/Listen/3354/?q=Wal-
Mart&x=6&y=9

Or

http://www.guyfinley.com/GFaudio/20081205_commentary_walmart.mp3

viva is right. this made my day.
when property is less sacred than people we'll finally be on the right path.
max has the right idea.

Just Google: "who owns my mortgage" and you will find that mortgages were used as anchors for Ponzi-scheme speculation by investment banks. Many people cannot find the actual owners of their mortgages even with the help of lawyers.

Foreclosed properties should have 90 days from the notice of foreclosure to put an occupant in the building who agrees and demonstrates an ability to pay taxes, do maintenance and upkeep on the property. These empty houses owned by mystery entities are a danger to the actual property owners and residents in their neighborhoods.

A gutted house next door is a fire, vermin and crime hazard. You don't want it and if you don't force the lien holder to fix it YOUR HOUSE is in danger.

Fighting the forces of rather dim lighting wherever they may be found!!

Viva Max Rameau ! Viva !

This is called bottom-up activism. I read a lot of comments about people who say this is illegal, and this is trespassing. They really don't understand a thing about how the whole ecomomy works and how it was built up in the first place.

But this is how far it has come. If the 'owning' class screws things up to the extent as they have done in America, and if human rights and needs are entirely ignored and compromised by property rights, in the end those very same property rights are the ones that lose all credibility.
If problems are not solved, because the political and economical elite is only concerned by protecting their own privileges and they do not do anything to solve the fundamental problems in the economy ( --> Many poor --> this means that the solution has to be found in redistribution --> socialism) then people start to take the law in their own hands. You will find that all the laws and property rights and the financial abacadabra are just paper tigers and a collective illusion. If the people don't buy into that illusion any more, all of it is worth nothing any more. But at least the basic fundamentals of the economy will be in place (everybody has a home to live in and a full stomach).

What the people who are complaining about this don't understand is that America's economy (and virtually every economy) was founded in this way when the land was stolen from the Indians and the whole concept of 'property rights' still needed to be established. If the 'owning' class of the country does not do anything productive for their nation, they become superfluous and they can be removed (well it just costs way to much to sustain their lifestyles and I'm sure they are not prepared to really work for it, so as a society, you can't afford that), just in the way as the Indians were one time regarded as 'superfluous'. It forces the elites to think really about how to redistribute wealth and how to put social policies in place (that is the best way to safeguard their own wealth in any case. In most countries, rich people have come to understand that, but I must say that the U.S. has the most underdeveloped upper class anywhere) and that is how America once became 'a land of opportunity for all'.
All these people are doing is just repeating history.

I think it is putting a skirt of 'nice gesture' on blatant theft. I'd sympathize if there was an attempt to pay the owner's rent.

This sounds altruistic, but besides being illegal, there is good reason it should be stopped. Itis a legal and economic disaster waiting to happen for whoever is the current owner. If the owner allows the "squatters" then he could be held to legally entering a legal relationship with unwanted responsibilities and liabilities. For example if the property has toxic mold, or asbestos, or a slow gas leak, or other harmful aspects, or faulty wiring,or a heater that explodes, or even unsafe aspects caused by the unwanted tenants resulting in sickness,injury, or death(say to a child) then some out-of-work US lawyer might sue to get money from the owner on the grounds some type of acquiesced relationship was established. Or if the tenants cause damage to the premises say by a fire,maybe the insurance company lawyers (if the property is insured) might not want to pay because it was not insured as a "rental" property.Of if no insurance the owner will incur the damage loss.Also neighbors property values might be affected, or in the case of an incident involving the tenants the neighbors might seek redress from the owner.And so on ...

Basically what I'm saying is that potential undefined risks exist for the property owner,the "squaters",neighbors, property insurers, ... so it is incumbent on the property owner to have the "squatters" "evicted" and not allow the undefined relationship to occur.

Now it is quite possible that it would be advantageous to both the "squatters" (potential temporary "tenants")and the property owner to enter into a legal relationship wherein the owner's rights and liablilities are well-defined, and the responsibilities amd limitations of the potential tenants spelled out (protecting the property,limitation on other "tenants", no secondary rental or rental income, etc. Perhaps it is even in the owners interest to pay the temporary tenants for their security services and property maintenance. "Jesus" should investigate these potentials and where appropriate act as an intermediary to establish these legal relationships in the interests of both owners and tenants.Maybe he should establish a "security agency" non-profit that establishes a track record with local authorities, law enforcement,and property owners/realtors that checks out potential homeless house-sitters and possibly even certifies their reliableness.... and that highlights the point----"Jesus" should have legal risks too !!

"Truth_Forward December 8th, 2008 8:33 pm

...

Help reduce the National Debt - TAX CHURCHES!"

We can agree on that, but not in an absolute or absolutist manner, for some parishes or else parish priests, ..., could be justifiably taxed, or thrown in prison, behind bars, like the Archbishop in the articles below, f.e. Parishes that are poor couldn't be taxed much, if at all, and parishes that aren't poor should help those that are, but don't; because greed is found there, too, we all know.

"Email to John Sentamu, Archbishop of York",
by Rhisiart Gwilym, Dec 7 2008

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m49403

QUOTING, but not every word:

To Archbishop John Sentamu:

...

... you are calling for military action in Zimbabwe, to ..., because ..., and for the trial at the International Criminal Court of Robert Mugabe and key members of his government.

Though it's a great surprise to hear the leader of the Anglican communion -- ... -- calling for war, with its inevitable innocent victims, I understand your concern ....

I take it that your call for the similar arraingment at the Hague of Tony Blair, the apparently-unelected George Bush, and ... over the past eight years, for their far greater genocidal crimes against humanity in Iraq and elsewhere, will be announced tomorrow?

...

END QUOTE.

The following two articles are good and provide additional information on the topic of this Archbishop or arch-antichrist praising the most criminal regimes in the world for their actions or words on the situation in Zimbabwe. There're also good pictures of the arch-... (whatever he's arch of) and while wearing his interesting disneyland or clownistic wardrobe, too. I wonder how much such garments cost; more than most two billion people trying to survive on $2 and less a day have for money over an entire year, or rather set of years, I suppose.

"Open letter to Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York",
by Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat's Blog, Dec 7 2008

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m49396

QUOTING from this above piece:

"...

Condoleezza Rice and Gordon Brown are among the main responsible for the slaughter of more than a million innocent children of God in Iraq and dozens of thousands in Afghanistan but in your view that very same God would be acting through their blood-stained hands. What a grotesque (and sexist) idea of God you must have to invoke Her name in this unholy farce. Or do you think those innocent human beings are children of a lesser god?

You quote Martin Luther King Jr. in your article, but did you ignore that it was that same Martin Luther King Jr. who called the U.S. government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today"?

..."

EMPHASIS on that latter quoted paragraph, s.v.p., I'll add.

"Holy interventions and children of a lesser god",
by Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat's Blog, Dec

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m49379

QUOTE:

...

The spiritual leaders of the Church of England are crossing an ocean of blood to join the greatest mass murderers of our times in a spectacularly indecent show of hypocrisy. The notorious humanitarian interventions, sponsored by Human Rights Watch and welcomed by the lib-left intelligentsia, have finally got the blessing of the holy men.

The Church of England's message is clear: in Iraq and Afghanistan they're children of a lesser god.

...

END QUOTE.

Oh, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Haiti, Nicaragua and other South American countries, Mexico too, but it's in No. Am., oh, where many more indigenous peoples are ongoingly genocided, to boot; and then of course Laos, VietNam, Diego Garcia, Australia, many African countries, ... and thank goodness no indigenous peoples populate Antarctica, otherwise they'd also be "children of a lesser god", as the arch-bishop or -antichrist makes abundantly clear!

NOW, back to the idea of taxation for the churches; I agree, and the above arch-..., whatever kind, could be [nailed] real good with taxation, and it being made illegal for him to use church tithes to pay these taxes; they'd have to come out of his personal wages, i.e., wealth. After all, such hierarchical figures in the churches are not poor, far from it!. He should be additionally taxed, by members of the church, not by state, or then maybe by both; well, for NOT abiding by the commandment Jesus taught and which is [separation of church and state].

AND with that said, it's NONSENSE to think of taxing the churches until corporations are first returned to the status of not being citizens, not being persons, not having equal rights to persons, and then equitable taxation should be applied, as it is what is just. Most large corporations don't pay more than ... drips in taxes, some are exempt, and most profit from warmongering and wars actually being commanded, hence from wars of aggression. Church representatives or "leaders" are also warmongers, hypocrites, etc., as Gabriele correctly states in her above articles, and these people do personally profit from serving state instead of God. But they will pay for the latter act of betrayal, and they don't represent anywhere near the clout of large corporations, the Bankers' "U.S." Federal Reserve and etcetera; the MIC and mining corporations, f.e.

What each church could pay for taxes would average to relatively little, overall; a "drop in the bucket" compared to the corporations, ... if only they were really taxed.

The RCC is the richest institution in the world, or one of the very richest, but it's not really based in any state, well, except for the Vatican City, aka State, which doesn't provide public services, doesn't have a military, only a clownistic Swiss Guard for Vatican property, especially the Pope and other "special" church elites there, and doesn't tax citizens of other states, not even of its own state, afaik. Quite adept at [robbing] people paying tithes though.

The U.S., et alia (countries or govts), and the major corporations and financial elites (George Soros and others), now they tax everyone on Earth, [all] of humanity; and they tax the living life out of humanity, worse than vampires!

I prefer honest thieves, who aren't represented in the following video of people with extremely corrupt and [stupid] minds.

"Anatomy of the Mortgage Crisis: Part 2", (1:46:06 - yes, nearly 2 hours), UChannel.princeton.edu, Nov 14 2008

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JeZoM40CGt4

I just came across that link while viewing the three other videos I linked in this page, so I have not listened to more than the first couple of minutes of this video. However, I believe it's certainly fitting to say, "MEET THINE ENEMIES, SEE them and HEAR or LISTEN TO them LYING to YOU and ALL who aren't among or with the extremely corrupt (and stupid) enemies of you, me, all of humanity (the members of good character and will, that is)!".

I knew Princeton, Harvard, and etcetera, weren't worth more than spit or pigeon turd on shoes, and they too constantly prove me right about this. Too many [dumb animals] enter and graduate from the "privileged" schools, and I guess it's a reason to call them "privileged", given there's no other valid reason for saying it, really. Anyway, too many of that likeness, as well as too many professors and other people associated with the schools in some reputational sort of ways that are supposedly of value, to be respected, ..., again supposedly; well, are far too many schmucks like that and the schools are still treated as if "privileged", elite, ....

Some good minds have entered, graduated, and continued, having remained good minds, but there aren't enough of them to make up for the bs nature of those schools. Plenty of qualitative education is obtainable in far less expensive state colleges and universities, enough for there to be no call for jealousy when we're unable to afford the status of graduating from "privileged", elite schools; the only problem being the injustice when it comes to the additionally privileged starting (and onward) wages for the graduates, for many of those from the "privileged" schools are ENEMIES of humanity, fascists and corporatists, evil, fiend, ..., not worth a f*cking nickel! They should be sent to rehab. or else incarcerated, removed from society for the sake of society! For every person who comes out well learned and can and does use the knowledge and skills gained to help (a relatively very) few people, there are many who graduate as [monsters] or fiends of humanity, and that's while being more empowered, to boot.

Conversely, pigeon turd, simply turd of fowl, is a good or excellent, and actually necessary, fertilizer; just don't use more than little, though, for it'll burn the roots of your vegetables, f.e. Mighty fertilizer though, and as healthy as Nature'ly could be; not meant for human consumption, the ingestive kind, though.

Too bad Princeton, etcetera, don't provide any kind of healthy "fertilization" of the [mind]; instead, they provide much corruption, perversion of mind and society.

Just listening to the first couple of minutes of the above conference presentation immediately informed me that the people speaking are liars, some most certainly are, but while I think maybe the young oriental guy may be simply too inexperienced in life and therefore too ignorant, not really knowing what the f*ck sort of conference he's speaking at and why, what supporting the conference, besides for exposing the schmucks behind it, can and/or does mean; etcetera, that sort of reasoning. The initial speaker tells me, by tone and words, right away that he's a blatant liar, but am not sure about the oriental guy; seems like his mind is not trained based on real and significant [experience], but maybe he's just another liar too, or both.

Maybe all of those people are both of those attributes; liars, and damn ignorant due to being awfully inexperienced with [real] life. They exist, sure, but clearly don't know real [living].

"wrjvsapp December 8th, 2008 6:43 pm

He may be the 'new' Jesus...also a law breaker."

I believe that he is breaking some law, given that he's helping people move into foreclosed homes, which are, I believe anyway, but maybe there are exceptions, ... well ..., which are therefore owned by the lenders or mortgage providers. How accurate that is, and whether or not there are exceptions, such as some foreclosed homes also having been abandoned by the foreclosers or foreclosing parties and without selling or getting rid of the properties in any other way, only abandoning and collecting no money for these, I don't know. But I believe most, if not all, remain owned by the foreclosing parties until they get rid of the properties; like, f.e., re-selling to other people for homes, or for the structures to be destroyed and the land used for other purposes.

Anyway, the foreclosing parties are definable as or like, http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Grinch , evidently, or obviously.

As for Max being a "'new' Jesus", I don't think so. Since when did he go around helping homeless people move into home properties under foreclosure and therefore still under ownership by ... see Grinch, above? But Jesus certainly wouldn't object to what Max Rameau and the others he works with are doing; and I include the latter, given he says, ""We're matching homeless people with people-less homes," he said with a grin", and 'we' is plural. Jesus advocated or taught helping the poor, emphasized the importance of doing this, but didn't directly challenge state; and what Max Rameau is doing does challenge state, given the actions challenge the forclosers now owning the homes and they're protected by extremely corrupt, corporatist (and fascist), ... govt.

Jesus didn't object about Francis of Assisi converting and taking merchandise from his father's business to throw out for the poor and Jesus later called upon Francis to conduct a special mission, which was to help re-build the Church, which, in turn, is to say to help make it as Jesus had established and intended it to remain; non-institutionalised, etcetera. So Francis worked on both (and more), working on restoring, as best he could, abandoned churches in the country sides, and telling the Pope (and Vatican council, or whatever it's called) that the Church needed to get back to its origin, which is the teachings, way and life of Jesus, since he's the earthly origin of the Church and the part in Heaven is [with] him, while he, loyal son, works for God The Father. Etcetera. Oh, and Francis actually did directly challenge state, however; f.e., having done this a number of times when he called on Rome to stop its damn wars of aggression against the Muslims, whom Francis treated and spoke of as brothers (and sisters) to Christians, or those of the kind of [mind] Francis had and which was [good], anyway. There was another occassion, amongst perhaps even more examples, when Francis sort of challenged state and it's when he went to the local or regional state leader, a Roman Empire one, who was having one of Francis' contemporary religious brothers punished for supposedly coming to the town or city in question to try to overthrow the state leadership there and based on some liar. Francis went to the state leader to tell him that the person being punished or killed was innocent and the state leader knew of and liked Francis, but the liar who had deceived the state leader had him convinced enough to ask Francis if he had the intention of trying to overthrow the state govt there. Francis simply and honestly replied that he would, if he could, for he didn't have the means of doing so.

I consider that directly challenging state in a sense; just that Francis lacked the means of implementing the overthrow and evidently didn't believe that trying to accomplish what was impossible was a good way to spend his life, instead preferring to try to do what was possible, even if very difficult.

Yep, I'm sure Jesus definitely approves of the work of Max and all other people working to try to help the poor, especially the poorest, and all oppressed persons. It's what Jesus called upon disciples (and friends) to do.

And following is another video.

"The Cheap Property Boom" (02:16) CBS, Nov 17 2008

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=p1fOB8zhgEw

I suppose it's not a serious or big deal, but of unwelcome surprise in that piece of news is some guy who goes around painting lawns of foreclosed homes green because the properties don't sell well when the lawns are dried up. So this guy's into making a considerable (or much, and his words make it seem much enough) racket living from helping to deceive people into being more attracted to buying such properties and who will perhaps be a little surprised when they wake up some morning to find the green [gone] and dead lawn. It's not a really big deal, for people who can afford a house or condo. like the one he's shown painting the lawn of can surely take a $250 "hit"; perhaps repeatedly and to try keep the lawn always looking like it's really green. What bothers me about what he's doing is simply the wittingly complicit act of trying to deceive people.

Painting it surely doesn't fertilize and really water it; or maybe he uses a paint that does fertilize, but then that wouldn't help if the lawn's dying from lack of water.

Funny man with [good] heart, real soul and [mind]; and an example of what we can understand for meaning when saying that it's healthy to be able to show or demonstrate [initiative].

Following is a short, but I think good report, good in terms of informing viewers, that is; certainly not in terms of what the report is about.

"US mortgage crisis threatens tenants - 6 Dec 08", by AlJazeera, Dec 6 2008 (02:42)

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=HoLtJO8QEUM

The following one doesn't seem to say much, but does report that Pres. Bush has announced 'today', Dec 6th, I guess, for the news channel doesn't specify what date 'today' is; well, reports that Bush was announcing a plan to help or so-called help people with homes and that have mortgages three years or less old, or maybe on the latter, 'less old'. Bush is taped when saying this.

"Mortgage crisis hits home", (02:21), Wavy.com, Dec 6 2008

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=sjTn4NkCFk8

Why only help, and that's if it does amount to real help, people with mortgages no older than three years when many people buying homes get mortgages that are 25 years long (and sometimes longer, I believe)?. Why should someone with a mortgage that's 4, 5, 10, 15, ... years old not be helpled? It's not what I had in mind, but what additionally just came to mind is that the longer a mortgage has been held and payments made, the more the persons will have poured money into one day fully owning the house, so they'd be the biggest losers of all without the government assistance provided to people with mortgages that are relatively new; I believe.

Doesn't seem right to me, and I wonder what this help will amount to; anything worthy of mention, besides [cheap], that is?

Max Rameau...if your reading this i would love to have some way to connect with you by email or something....your ideas might work in our town and i would love to know more about how you do what you do...my email is zseagle@harding.edu

No matter how you present it, theft is theft. Private property doesn't belong to anyone that comes along to squat in it.

The very idea that you (any of you) feel its allright to steal from someone else is reprehensible to say the least and classes you right up there with the CEO's and bankers that helped make this mess.

Trying to make a moral argument on the order of its unused so we might as well use it is absurd. Empathy has nothing to do with this and to try to use it as an argument shows lax morals in itself.

This is tghe kind of thinking that makes real people discount our arguments for justice and equality.

I'd suggest you all look at this again and consider what you are really advocating.

"Homes with No People, People with No Homes" Hmm. There's a solution in there somewhere.
Maybe Mr. Obama and his folks can take a look at that and set some rules about this, that can make it work.
I have a home for sale in Fla. (after my father-in-law died) and wish it was in a less restricted neighborhood so I could at least rent it to a family. But it's in a "restricted" neighborhood. Over 55 and no kids. Well, the over 55 thing is flexible, but the rules state kids can't stay for more than 30 days. SO here sits a 4 bedroom home that we are paying $500 per month to keep up, and no one wants it.
It's completely ridiculous, and I am kind of mad at the last generation for sending us in this direction.
It was BOUND to come to an end someday, and those of us at the end are just going to have to deal with it!

nwfisher;

would you seriously feel justified in shooting some desperate homeless person who had been living in an unused property that you owned simply because it was 'yours'? This response seems disproportionate. Furthermore, your statement about 'rampant lawlessness and theft of property' seems hyperbolic. As far as I can tell from the text, the phrase 'rampant lawlessness' does not seem applicable to this situation. Firstly, most rampantly lawless situations do not have the tacit (for that matter, any) approval of law enforcement which this does - at least for the moment. As the police said, any measures to have the squatters removed would have to begin with the property owners, who seem not to have made any movements in that direction. Secondly, I cannot imagine the act of someone quietly moving into a house as ever being appropriately described as rampant anything. The word denotes an activity which is violent and multitudinous in some fashion. So far Mr. Rameau has moved six (6) people into unoccupied homes in Miami. Also, one is never forced to defend one's property with violence. I am pleased however with the way that you managed to squeeze the word 'property' twice in that reasonably short sentence.

Conversely, if you were homeless, you might see it as slightly obscene that hundreds of homes were sitting vacant - doing nothing except costing money in property taxes.

I'm inspired to hear stories like this one and am further inspired to hear that there are brave and caring people like Mr. Rameau who are willing to do what needs to be done to look out for vulnerable people when the law and the government has clearly failed to do so.

"I think everyone deserves a home" too

nwfisher;
You are SO macho!Five of your likely heroes from Blackwater are now indicted-hope that's just a start.I hope you are not armed wherever you may be.
Try empathy-it actually feels good.

It's called trespassing and in most places is both a civil and criminal offense. If I walked into a property I owned to find a stranger living in it they better hope I'm not armed.