Great story Thank You

Any home abandoned for more than one year (or sell it to another owner that will occupy ther home within 30 days)? Then they'd have no up keep, maintnence, loitering, squatting or security issues.

... than for banks to let them rot unattended.

What a waste of materials! For the most part, fixing up these homes has got to be cheaper than bulldozing. How about if we got these banks to allow people back in them? We have a glut of homeless & displaced people and a glut of unoccupied homes. Why not simply rent them out? Sure some renters might trash some of these homes, but most won't. Surely someone could come up with some kind of program where short term housing could be provided while people got thier ducks in a row? The banks could at least break even instead of taking a complete loss on the home. The city could spend less on boarding up and surveliance. People who have a chance to "Be Home" will take better care of the place than someone who has nothing to loose by gutting the place. Not all homeless are criminals and many would welcome a chance to start over. Compassion could go a long way here.

This is a great piece with some good questions, and an unfortunate lack of answers. You can't help but feel for some of these people, but I'm sure if I had squatters next door, I'd feel very differently.

Private enterprise like these banks shirk their responsibilities and pass the costs to gov't and taxpayers.

In the early 90's I led a campaign on part of the homeless people of the Twin Cities to occupy hundreds of vacant HUD and VA homes. We did this for years and many of the homes we occupied we fixed up and made them livable. We tried to get along with neighbors and for the most part kept alcohol and drugs out of the homes we occupied. People desparate for housing will do what they have to do to survive. Housing should be a basic right. But in this cut throat society where poor people are ignored this type of thing will only worsen. For all you rightwingers that condemn squatting and assistance for the poor. Someday your job and finances way worsen to the point you too could be squatting! Poverty and homelessness threaten's millions of people.

Would it make more sense to just let them live there if they agree to keep the property up? Until it could be sold. After all they need a place to live and if they keep their end of the bargain the house would stay in better shape then if it were left empty? If its left empty the story seems to say it could get trashed anyway?

Putting the threat to demolish wouldn't actually cause the homes to get demolished, it would be incentive for the banks to sell the houses quicker at more reasonable prices. Many lower income families or investors could actually buy some of these places and build them back up then.

What kind of communist market are you trying to create? I agree people should have a shelter, but a right for their own house simply because they are a breathing human? That's a little ridiculous.