EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Foreclosed Homeowners Re-Occupy Their Homes
SAN FRANCISCO – Carolyn Gage was evicted from her foreclosed home in January. Earlier this month, she moved back in.
“I’ve been in here for 50 years. I know no other place but here. I left and it was just time for me to come back home,” said Gage, who is in her mid-50s.
Gage’s monthly payments spiked after her adjustable rate mortgage kicked in, and she could no longer afford the payments on her three-bedroom house in the city’s Bayview Hunters Point district. She says she tried to modify her loan with her lender, Florida-based IB Properties, but to no avail.
When Gage initially left about 10 months ago, she took some personal items with her, but left most of the furniture and continued paying for some utilities.
“It didn’t feel right for me to move. I just left my things because I knew I was going to return to them eventually,” she said.
She had to re-activate a few utilities when she returned, like the water, but found the process fairly easy.
Walking back into the house was an emotional moment for Gage, but a joyous one.
“I was like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz; there’s no place like home,” Gage said. “It’s a family home; I plan to stay there.”
Gage was one of about two dozen homeowners who gathered Tuesday for a community potluck on Quesada Avenue for residents facing foreclosure and are refusing to leave their homes.
Homeowners expressed outrage at the way predatory lenders have targeted their community.
Residents of the Bayview are starting to see how the African-American community was especially victimized in the foreclosure crisis.
Gage believes that single women and elders in the black community were targeted for predatory loans. At the peak of the housing boom she was solicited for an adjustable rate loan to do some home improvements, even though she told the loan agent that she was on disability and did not have a steady income.
According to a report released last week by the Center for Responsible Lending, African Americans and Latinos were consistently more likely than whites to receive high-risk loan products. About a quarter of all Latino and African-American borrowers have lost their homes to foreclosure or are seriously delinquent, compared to under 12 percent for white borrowers.
Bayview residents Reverend Archbishop Franz King and Reverend Mother Marina King, who are founders of the St. John Coltrane African Orthodox Church, are also facing foreclosure. Their eviction date is set for Dec. 22.
King expressed deep anger and sorrow at the situation facing the black community in the Bayview.
“First redevelopment moved us out of the Fillmore and now we’re losing our properties too? It’s like there’s nowhere for us to go,” he said.
Grace Martinez, an organizer with Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) who helped to arrange the event, commented that banks have become increasingly hostile to their efforts. “They call the police on us; they laugh at us.”
Vivian Richardson, a homeowner on Quesada Avenue whose house was also foreclosed on, also has no intention of leaving. Her current eviction date is set for Dec. 31, but she, like many of her neighbors, is asking her lender to reduce the principal on her loan in order to make the monthly payments more affordable.
Richardson has been attempting to modify her home loan for the past two years. Earlier this month, tired of the lack of communication from the lender, Aurora Loan Services based in Delaware, she worked with ACCE to coordinate an e-mail blast to Aurora’s chairman.
On Nov. 3, over the span of one to two hours, approximately 1,400 emails were sent and more than 100 phone calls made, imploring Chairman Theodore P. Janulis to stop Richardson’s eviction. A spokesperson from the bank called her an hour after the blast and asked her to send an updated set of financial information so that they could review her case.
Two weeks have passed and she has yet to hear anything further. The bank spokesperson commented that Richardson’s case is still being reviewed internally and they hope to get back to her by the end of next week.
However, Richardson has lived in her house for 13 years and plans to stay regardless of the bank’s decision.
“I will defend the home,” she said.
On Dec. 6, there will be a national day of action, “Occupy Our Homes,” where people across the country facing predicaments similar to Gage and Richardson may follow their lead.
Partly inspired by the Occupy movement, the day of action is supported by various community organizations like Take Back the Land and ACCE. The call to action is for people to move back into their foreclosed properties and to defend the properties of families facing eviction.
Martinez commented on the growing anger people are feeling. “The idea is, 'I want what’s mine.'” She said many homeowners had trusted the banks and ultimately, “People were buying into a lie.”
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
43 Comments so far
Show AllThe way the banks treated people and the way they outright lied in many cases, I think this movement is superb. Re-occupy your houses and stay till the remove you. If everyone did that, they would behave differently. Hang on tooth and nail and make them do the heavy lifting.
Agreed! Also, when they come to evict the homeowners, there must be someone at the scene to document what is happening. Lots of cellphones have the capability to upload videos instantly to the internet, which makes it harder for the authorities to act in secret. This website tells which phones can do that:
http://qik.com/
The more public exposure, the better.
A great place (ie. many places) for OWS to find shelter for the winter. Congratulations to all of those who elect to fight back!!!!
she was on disability, and they got her to do an ARM? That is so wrong. Idon't wanna hear anymore about 'people' being un-responsible. We are taught from the day we were born that the 'experts' in finance are experts. When they cheat and lie, we must defend the 'duped'. That is, we must defend their right to right the lies. kicking black people outta bayview. This has to stop. I know about the razing of the fillmore....that was bad enough....a horrible destruction for developers gain only...
SF help them defend! I'm gonna!!
"she was on disability, and they got her to do an ARM? That is so wrong. Idon't wanna hear anymore about 'people' being un-responsible."
Nice catch there tommy! Blaming it on the homeowners is doesn't even pass the giggle test. When you loan money to someone it is YOUR responsibility to be sure they have the means to pay it back. If you don't, it would be the same as someone you don't know walking up to you on a street and asking for a lone, and you give it to them!
This nonsense only happened because the lenders had no intention on holding the mortgages long term, and unloaded the crap mortgages as AAA rated securities. If we weren't a banana republic they would be in jail now.
Oh pity me! please!! every load has a contract, it's your resposibility to know what's in it.. in the last two years I've had 1/2 a dozen (Ajustible Rate) loans, I say the same thing every time "DO NOT WANT" I understand there are honest lenders out there till i find one, the new carpet will have to wait!! >^^<
Srsly in CA of all places there are dozens of agencys full to the brim of folks to help you read a loan document if you can't FOR FREE! theres just no excuse, except for greed to get that fat check!!
Could you name a few??
What makes it her or anyone's special and exclusive responsibility to understand that someone is lying to her? Why should we not assign at least some responsibility to the liar?
What agencies are these that will school a potential borrower for free and never attempt to make a sale? It's been a few years since I was in this business - in Southern California - but I doubt it has changed all that much: those "agencies" are mostly if not exclusively sales outreach organizations, funded by the commissions on the loans they sell.
The training that I received to provide these "explanations" had almost nothing to do with law. I had no legal background, and neither did any of the people who directly trained me. Most of the training that I received was designed to convince me that there was little difference between teaching to inform and selling, since almost everyone without a mortgage did or should or would want a loan and a mortgage, and almost everybody employed stood a good chance of paying a loan back because the banks (guess who was teaching me) were so friendly and would do anything and everything possible to ward off loan failure and foreclosure. Explanations of what the borrower had to do to stay current with loans were in plain English or Spanish. Explanations of the legalese of the contract, where they did exist, were woefully inadequate and unlikely to be carried into the field by the commissioned salesmen who provided the classes as a way to attract clients.
A system that rewards sales regardless of benefit to the purchaser is a system set up to mislead. Because some regulation against lying does exist, the lying that banks do is mostly between the lines: lies of omission, lies of implication, lies created by burying relevant information visually or circumstantially. Salesmen are trained professionals who study, practice, and compare notes on the art of misleading clients and helping clients fool themselves.
Another point that I find relevant -- most of these bankers were pretty nice people. I worked with them and drank with them and listened to them talk about their families and watched a few lose their own houses and marriages when the Fed raised the interest rates to gut the little S & L's in '94. I have misjudged intentions before, but were I forced to bet, I would bet that almost all of them believed to some extent that they were doing well and doing right by their fellow citizens: they thought they were honest. They thought people really should be put in houses, that banks were helpful institutions that deserved to profit by their services. They argued with me to that effect, and the institution sure spent a lot of time and ingenuity convincing them that it was the case.
And they stood and sat and doodled diagrams and explained to me how to manipulate buyers' emotions and how that was necessary because people were so fearful and confused that getting them to ignore their qualms would lead to greater sales and support the good system and the ever-so-deserving salesmen who were so critical a part of it.
No, were it only in the province of the consumer to understand when he or she was being lied to, no advertising industry of the sort we know it would exist. An ad would be a bit of simple data about a product. You would see cobblers discussion shoes rather than basketball players, and mechanics would be draped over cars rather than women in bikinis. These ads are all over because they sell.
Sure we should train people to spot lies, but schools do little of that, for sadly obvious reasons (only a few of which have much to do with teachers, btw). A person who has deliberately misrepresented a product to take another person's money should be as responsible for the results of that act as someone who mugs someone for a wallet should be responsible for the results of the mugging. It makes as little sense to say that the victim of the first should have been smarter as it does to say that the victim of the second should have been stronger, tougher, quicker, more alert, or properly versed in self-defense.
Thanks for this thoughtful and insightful comment, bardamu.
It resonates with the sweet ring of truth that arises from the happy synthesis of wisdom and experience.
And it neatly puts the lie to the ubiquitous mean-spirited, small-minded, supercilious "blame the victim" growls that surface in discussions on this topic-- self-righteous cant passing itself off as unsentimental common sense.
Outstanding post, bardamu; thank you! Your last paragraph says it all:
"Sure we should train people to spot lies, but schools do little of that, for sadly obvious reasons (only a few of which have much to do with teachers, btw). A person who has deliberately misrepresented a product to take another person's money should be as responsible for the results of that act as someone who mugs someone for a wallet should be responsible for the results of the mugging. It makes as little sense to say that the victim of the first should have been smarter as it does to say that the victim of the second should have been stronger, tougher, quicker, more alert, or properly versed in self-defense."
You had me at "Ajustible Rate"
Is Occupy SF supporting this? Should be.
I keep saying it over and over. This is a case of "Theft by Swindle." Read the law. The financial institutions knowingly gave people false information with the intent of taking their money. It was a con. A lawyer needs to look at this.
These brave people remind me of the workers at that Chicago factory a couple of years back, where the owners shut it down and laid off everybody, but the workers took over the factory and bought it back and now own it and they have their jobs back.
............... I'd hate to be a deputy sheriff called upon to personally forcibly evict any of these people if the neighborhood is collectively surrounding the home and saying "you have to go through us first"!
............... The banksters would prefer to force vacancies of foreclosed homes, refuse to maintain the property and then bulldoze it, rather than relinquish the power relationships that bring so many white collar workers all of those bureaucratic fees and commissions, and lawyer costs and bailouts from the taxpayers including those foreclosed upon.
................ OCCUPY has never made more sense than in this situation. Let alone REOCCUPY!
-30-
>>I'd hate to be a deputy sheriff called upon to personally forcibly evict any of these people<<
I would LOVE to be a deputy sheriff called upon to personally forcibly evict any of these people... because I would tell those calling upon me to do this to go piss up a rope.
This sort of action needs to happen writ large all over America. If it occurs on a mass level, it will be beyond the capabilities of the authorities that carry out evictions (usually the sheriff's department) at the behest of corrupt Banksters. It would also give individual homeowners the sort of leverage, large-scale, that mega-corporations respect.
Everyone's on the same page here, at least. This is the real story... more people have to stand with each other and refuse to give up their small holdings. The financiers have already proven to be the real criminals... they are the ones who should be on trial and evicted, not us.
Unfortunately, one must also expect intimidation and brute force from their cop minions. I believe resistance is worthwhile, but for a time it will be nasty.
Do not know if it is true but my friend claims that once your mortgage has been bundled as a security you cannot legally be foreclosed on. Occupy Santa Fe is working against foreclosures and my guess is there will be home retentions.
If it was registered by MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System), the person being foreclosed upon should ask to "see the paper", or to have the bank come up with the original, signed mortgage. That will keep the bank from legally being able to seize and evict the homeowner from their property.
More power to the homeowners!
Why should she not have her principal reduced?
Why imagine that "everyone else" is paying their mortgages?
Were everyone current with their mortgages, why would that make it a good idea to do so?
Were it a good idea to do so, would that make it just?
Given that the banks have just taken 2 times $800bn plus some part of 3 trillion over the last several years, given that they have not been held to even account for that publicly, why imagine that this woman or most people with mortgages even owes the bank money?
If we imagine that her bank did not receive any such money, how would anyone imagine that she could confirm that?
When one keeps track of some transactions and not others, it is the entire balance of the account that becomes suspect.
"That all being said, the banks and other failing companies should not have received a dime of my tax money."
And that is something worthwhile that you wrote. I was hoping that there was at least some common ground that brings you to this site.
Truce. Perhaps that's true, and yet there's SO much more of that same verbiage throughout the entire site!
Why should she have her principal reduced? Hmmm...I can think of at least 1 TRILLION reasons why. I doubt that you'll get the hint but I know others will.
Yes, obviously adjustable mortgages are truly stupid to sign.
However, did she read the contract?
This is where it gets tricky. So you agree to a loan, get the money, spend it, then say you won't pay it back because you can't afford it.
I agree too many people have lost their homes. I also think we need to educate people about two things.
Population, and economics. Finite planet. Finite resources.
It's basic mathematics.
It sounds odd but if you come from a familly that are homeowners you don't make the same mistakes that people that have never bought or owned a home. Some people don't know the first thing about it and rely and pay for a service to assist them. In these cases the banks will really make a killing because Hunter's point is a poverty area, they will get all the property redevelop it and sell it again at a much higher rate instead of having to buy it from the originial owners, they will just take it.
9/11. People bought into that lie too.
Are you referring to that little CIA/MOSSAD party in NYC a decade back?
Great story, good people, thanks. Read somewhere that loans knowingly made to people who cannot pay, that is with foreknowledge that the money would not be paid back, are not enforceable contracts.
"At the peak of the housing boom she was solicited for an adjustable rate loan to do some home improvements, even though she told the loan agent that she was on disability and did not have a steady income."
Shame on predatory lenders for targeting people like Gage. But, that said: why the heck did she sign up for an ARM if she had no steady income to pay it off?
"Shame on predatory lenders for targeting people like Gage. But, that said: why the heck did she sign up for an ARM if she had no steady income to pay it off?"
I urge you to read "Griftopia" by Matt Taibbi, some of those loans were so fraudulent, sometimes the mortgage broker flat out lied as to the type of loan and sometimest the tops pages were fixed-rate but the signature page was ARM. So she may not have known what it was.
Ah I see you are fighting the good fight…protecting those in our society who need it most, the Big Banks.
First: STOP MAKING PAYMENTS AS SOON AS IT"S CLEAR WHAT'S HAPPENING.
Second: DO NOT LEAVE UNTIL THE SHERIFF THROWS YOU OUT. (about a year, usually)
Third: MOVE BACK IN AS SOON AS THE SHERIFF LEAVES. (Claim renters status; mail in a $5 bill they must sign for.)
Fourth: REPEAT AS NECESSARY.
They are the ones who broke the moral contract, not you! Don't let them pay you like a fish...play them 100% of the time. You can also swap homes with a neighbor too, back and forth. It's hard for the bank to get the right eviction notice that way.
Bayview Hunters Point district was a largely black community for decades. The 1%'ers that now dominate San Francisco have been trying to get their greedy ass hands on these properties for a long time. While the housing bubble certainly had a racial/class overtone to it, this particular situation reeks of racism due to circumstance. Assholes.
In other countries in the world, these types of mortgages would not be considered legal. I'm not sure of their legal status in the US, but in know that over the last 30 years all manner of corrupt practices by the financial industry have been legalized. After all, a corrupt lawmaking body corrupts the law, and no one can deny that the US Congress is largely corrupt.
Foreclose on the banks. Put people back in homes.
Well, OK. But who will be around in the future to loan money (at affordable rates) to people who want to buy homes?
Golly gosh gee Mr. Big Bank suck-up, perhaps a regulated institution that actually holds the fucking mortgage.
Good for them! This is the way to do it. Take what's yours back. If she lived in that house for 13 years and made the mortgage payments during that time, she has more than paid back the entire loan the banksters loaned her, that's for sure. The rest of the payments are just pork for the fat cats.
Glen Ford, once your mortgage has been bundled, the banks can't tell who ownes it. All you have to do is force them to prove who owns it. A friend of mine walked out on his home 'cause it was so far under water that he just walked out and bought another home. Two and one half years later, he was still getting letters from the city including fines for not mowing the grass. What does that tell you? He checked his credit report and his ex-house had not been reported to the credit agency. He has a perfect credit rating....Go figure.......Q