Squatting comes to Roxbury

By adamg on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 9:18am

The Globe reports on a woman who moved into a foreclosed house without permission as a statement. And it worked. Rather than evicting her, the bank agreed to sell the property to a local non-profit.

Neighborhoods:

Roxbury

Free tagging:

foreclosure

Ad:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

This sets a very bad

By Haviland on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 10:28am.

This sets a very bad precedent. Eroding property rights is never a good idea because it always leads to escalation of demands and weakening of the law.

I think most posters here would have a problem with the government taking over property for use without permission. Why should individuals be allowed to do the same?

You have a better idea?

By SwirlyGrrl on Sun, 09/27/2009 - 10:42am.

If we all play by your book, what happens is Dudley Square 1980s.

Check your history: houses sit vacant too long, they get torched or turn into crack houses and burn down, the neighborhood is in flames on a nightly basis, and everything goes to hell quickly.

If the alternative is providing housing rather than having it sit on the OREO lists until it burns or breeds blight and drug activity, then I think this is a good precedent. Because the end product of that neglect is often eminent domain and affordable housing.

Might as well skip the drugs and fires portion of the program.

Woo Hoo!

By anon-a-mouse on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 10:55am.

Lets glorify theft! Way to go globe!

The story made it unclear

By dtaylor on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 9:47pm.

The story made it unclear whether her parents were still living with her, and providing income. If they are, they may be able to get a mortgage, but the foreclosure will make it difficult. If not, I think Frances may be living in fantasy land. Her final quote:

“We are in the position to purchase it,’’ said Louis, who has a temporary job in the convention industry. “I’m not going nowhere.’’

I find it fascinating that someone with a 'temp' job, and no other visible income-- except for possibly from her parents-- thinks she can buy a house.

There's no shame in renting, and it sounds like it may be Frances' best option.

Why rent?

By RossieGirl on Sun, 09/27/2009 - 9:44am.

Why rent when you can just move on in for free?

I can't figure out from this story why Ms. Louis feels she has any right to move in. This was not her house, she was not a tenant, some other person lost this house to foreclosure. How does someone have the nerve to just occupy a house, change the locks (the house was unlocked? huh?) and even put the electricity in her name?

Will she just go take a nice car off a lot when she needs one? Grab a tv from the store?