The Redistribution Of Private Land Begins In The US

[Ryan Ruck]

FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE, COMRADE!

Housing Protest Leads To Takeover Of Duplex

April 5, 2010

A group of homeless people and housing activists took over a privately owned Mission District duplex on Sunday in what served as the climax of a protest designed to promote use of San Francisco's vacant buildings as shelters for the needy.

But the owner of the property - who was targeted over his eviction of a tenant - said the demonstration was nothing more than breaking and entering.

"It's not actually vacant. I use it for my own personal uses," Ara Tehlirian of Daly City said in an interview, adding that he was in contact with the San Francisco Police Department. "I know nothing other than my property was apparently broken into."

The takeover epitomized the tensions between property owners and tenant activists that have flared for decades in the city, and sometimes tip into outright hostilities near the peaks and troughs of the market cycle.

This time, more than fifty people marched in the rain through the Mission District, hoisting picket signs that read "House keys not handcuffs" and chanting "Whose city? Our city." The action was organized by Homes Not Jails, a 20-year-old group affiliated with the San Francisco Tenants Union.

By the time the tail of the procession reached the duplex on the 500 block of San Jose Street, at least eight people were inside, holding banners from second-story windows. It wasn't clear how they gained entry, and Ted Gullicksen, leader of the tenant organization, declined to provide details.

More than a dozen police officers were on hand, most standing on the sidewalk on the other side of the street. Asked earlier whether they would take action if protesters occupied the property, officers declined to comment. One said, "We'll see."

By 3 p.m., all had left but one, who stayed to ensure that "nobody is out of hand," said a police official, Sgt. William Escobar. No arrests had been made.

Gullicksen said the protest carried important symbolism during a tough time for tenants.

Because of housing speculation during the real estate boom, "a lot of tenants were evicted," Gullicksen said. "Now a lot of those homes are sitting empty. The city should be doing something to turn vacant buildings into affordable housing."

Specifically, he said the city should foreclose on buildings where hefty back taxes are owed or use its powers of eminent domain to turn over long-vacant homes to nonprofit developers. The group is not advocating turning over the city's stock of new but unsold properties to the homeless.

Jose Morales, 80, lived in the San Jose Street building for 43 years before he was forced to leave in 2008 through the Ellis Act, which allows property owners to get out of the rental business.

Morales said he now lives in a small space in an office building in the Mission District.

"The city should have protected me," he said. "It's like they don't see me. It's like I'm a ghost to them."

But attorney Andrew Zacks, who represented Tehlirian, said the landlord resorted to the Ellis Act only after Morales remained on the property illegally, after being given more than a year's notice and relocation fees.

Zacks said he hopes charges are filed over what he characterized as "people taking the law into their own hands and breaking into property."

"It's sort of ridiculous to think that a private property owner like Mr. Tehlirian would have any obligation to house the homeless," he said. "It's a problem we should deal with as a community, not something that should be foisted on the back of a small property owner."

Gullicksen called it an act of civil disobedience.

"They can characterize it as an illegal act, but that doesn't mask the fact that the building has been sitting unused and that Jose Morales was evicted from there," he said.

About 5 p.m. Sunday, he said, police knocked on the door of the building and asked protesters how long they planned to stay. According to Gullicksen, they responded that they had no immediate plans to leave.

[Malsua]

Nice sign.

House for the race(slang for Mexicans)

[Ryan Ruck]

I heard this on FNC not more than 30 minutes ago and tried to find an article on their site about this but no luck. I then did a general search and only came up with a bunch of leftist sites but, finally found one at least palatable but still plenty leftist - a union website. So, here it is...

Union Will Block Factory Auction to Save Jobs

November 29, 2010

In a move to save factory jobs that evokes shades of the ’30s, the United Electrical Workers are asking supporters to block a December 14 auction of presses and equipment from a plant south of Boston. The UE is calling for mass picketing and blockading of entrances to the 80-year-old plant if necessary.

Esterline Technologies Corp. of Bellevue, Washington, has refused to hold off on selling the equipment till another buyer can be found. The union’s request to buy the closed plant, which would create an employee-owned factory, has been ignored. “They told us a year ago they did not want the presses or equipment,” said UE Local 204 President Scott Marques. “But they would rather junk them than sell them to us.”

The plant makes crucial door-seals and silicone gaskets for aircraft. Esterline is consolidating operations in Southern California and in Mexico.

Eminent Domain

Actually, the UE is trying two drastic tactics to keep the plant open: it’s also enlisted the Taunton, Massachusetts, city council, which has said it would use eminent domain to take over the assets, and then sell them to a new owner. Keeping the machinery together—rather than sold off piece by piece or for scrap—is crucial to that plan.

Marques says that in addition to help from fellow union members and groups like Massachusetts Jobs with Justice, the union is trying to enlist the plant’s neighbors and nearby business owners. “They’re losing out, too,” Marques said, noting that generations have been supported by the plant.

The plant’s workers are known for their longevity, through multiple owners. Marques said 25 to 30 of the 85 union members have worked there at least 30 years, and two retired with 51 years’ seniority.

Doreen Arguin says she’s not ready to retire at the age of 60 years, 41½ of them in the factory. Now a van driver, she says it takes skill to create seals from silicone, fabric, and rubber—take a look at your window the next time you’re on a plane, and be grateful for union labor. (Now if I ever take a flight again, I'll just sit there in fear wondering if I'm going to get sucked out at 30k feet thanks to union labor! ) “I’m a worker, I like to work,” Arguin said. “I can’t fathom not going there every day. I’ve never been married, but I feel as if I just got divorced, and not a divorce that I wanted.”

Peter Knowlton, the UE’s regional president, says Esterline could realize only a pittance by selling the machines, maybe $100,000 to $250,000. An auction typically brings little more than the cost of scrap. “It’s collectively they have value,” he said, “when you put a workforce in front of them.”

But potential investors need to be sure there will be something there to buy. “No one wants to give you an answer if they don’t know if there’ll be presses or equipment in the building,” Marques said.

Knowlton believes Esterline might defy the city’s use of eminent domain, and hold the auction on December 14 anyway. Thus the need for as many supporters as possible to get in the way of that plan. The UE is no stranger to militant actions in December: in 2008 its local at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago occupied a factory for six days to demand legally required severance payments.

Bad Actors

Esterline and its local subsidiary Haskon , Inc. have set the standard for bad actors in a plant closing. Executives were shocked to learn that Massachusetts law requires a company to keep paying its regular share of workers’ health insurance for three months after a closing. It took the intervention of the state’s congressional delegation and attorney general to convince them to pay up.

Then the company reneged on severance pay. Its proposal “gets worse every time we meet,” Marques said. “Now they’re putting our severance on the basis of what they can get at auction of the machines.”

The Taunton mayor and city council are asking Esterline to postpone the auction till February 15. The union, potential investors, and interested management employees also need time to raise funds and write a business plan. The union has hired the longtime former president of Haskon as a consultant, and a feasibility study by the ICA Group, experts in employee-owned cooperatives, concluded that a new company could succeed in the aircraft sealant market.

Arguin , the local’s secretary-treasurer, explained that a small business would be eligible for certain government contracts through a program for “historically underutilized business zones.” Federal agencies are required to give a certain percentage of their contracts to such businesses.

The UE is asking for emails, faxes, and calls to Esterline requesting a delay of the auction till February 15.

[vector7]

I am convinced the Left want Anarchy in the streets.

They have carefully positioned themselves in all the exit rows of the plane to open the emergency doors and watch Middle America get sucked out at 30,000 feet.

[Ryan Ruck]

Government Considers Turning Foreclosures Into Rentals

August 10, 2011

The Obama administration may turn thousands of government-owned foreclosures into rental properties to help boost falling home prices.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency said Wednesday it is seeking input from investors on how to rent homes owned by government-controlled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

The U.S. government rescued Fannie and Freddie in September 2008 and has funded them since the financial crisis. The mortgage giants own or guarantee about half of the nation's mortgages and nearly all new mortgages.

At the end of last month, the government owned roughly 248,000 foreclosed homes, officials said. About 70,000 of those are listed for sale. But officials expect the number of foreclosures to soar in the coming months.

Many foreclosures have been stalled so attorneys general and federal regulators can investigate whether lenders cut corners and improperly handled thousands of cases. Once a settlement is finalized, foreclosures are expected to pick up again and further depress home prices.

Converting the homes into rentals may reduce "credit losses and help stabilize neighborhoods and home values," said Edward DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie.

Homes in foreclosure sell at a 20 percent discount on average, which can hurt prices of surrounding homes.

It also might meet the growing demand for rentals. Since the housing meltdown, nearly 3 million households have become renters. At least 3 million more are expected by 2015, according to census data analyzed by Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies and The Associated Press.

A federal "request for information" released Wednesday included an option for previous homeowners to rent out the homes or for current renters to lease to own. Private investors could also be allowed to manage the rental properties.

Officials are also mulling whether to only implement the program in areas hit hardest by foreclosures and in those with high demand for rental housing, such as Arizona and Florida.

The homes include single-family homes and condominiums. The deadline for responses is Sept. 15.

[American Patriot]

I am convinced the Left want Anarchy in the streets.

They have carefully positioned themselves in all the exit rows of the plane to open the emergency doors and watch Middle America get sucked out at 30,000 feet.

This was Beck's thing last night. They want anarchy, and will have it one way or another.

[American Patriot]

Wow.... Cheap government housing, taking from poor folks who couldn't afford to own a home, and now can afford to pay the government to move back in!

Awesome move on the government's part.

[Backstop]

They want anarchy, and will have it one way or another.

They'll get it.

But they'll discover it isn't the anarchy they were looking for.

[American Patriot]

PreCISESLy Watson...

[Ryan Ruck]

'They Took My Place!' Single Dad Trying To Take Back Home Occupied By OWS

January 15, 2012

They’re occupying his home.

Occupy Wall Street protesters announced with great fanfare last month that they moved a homeless family into a “foreclosed” Brooklyn home — even though they knew the house belonged to a struggling single father desperately trying to renegotiate his mortgage, The Post has learned.

“They’re trying to take a house and say the bank is robbing the people because the mortgage is too high — so contact the owner!” fumed Wise Ahadzi, 28, who owns the home at 702 Vermont St. in East New York.

Occupiers “reclaimed” the row house on Dec. 6 and ceremoniously put out the welcome mat for a homeless family.

But Bank of America, which has been in and out of foreclosure proceedings against Ahadzi since 2009, confirmed to The Post that he is still the rightful owner.

Meanwhile, the family that OWS claimed to be putting into the vacant house has not yet permanently moved in. And it turns out the family is not a random victim of the foreclosure crisis, but cast for the part, thanks to their connection to the OWS movement.

OWS last week said it has spent $9,500 breaking into the house and setting it up for the homeless Carrasquillo family. A photo of the smiling family covers a window, under the slogan, “A place to call home.”

The head of the family, Alfredo Carrasquillo, 28, is an organizer for VOCAL- NY, a group that works with OWS. His Facebook page shows him in a “99 Percent” T-shirt at an OWS protest in November.

The Post visited the Vermont Street home last week — six weeks after OWS announced that the Carrasquillos were moving in — and the family was nowhere to be found.

In fact, the only people occupying the house were occupiers themselves.

“They only stay here sometimes,” a protester named Charlie said of the Carrasquillos. “There’s not enough room for the kids.”

The occupier refused to say how many others were inside, but at least two more protesters could be seen at the house, along with mattresses on the floor, during The Post visit.

“We’re almost done with the basement,” he said of the renovations.

The real property owner is livid because he could be raising his two little girls, Imani, 3, and Kwazha, 10, in the two-story home instead of in a meager, two-bedroom rental in Brownsville while he tries to sort out his mortgage nightmare.

Police notified him in early December that the vigilante vagrants moved into his East New York digs, he said. He immediately ran over to the house to see for himself.

“Oh, don’t call the police!” an occupier begged him.

OWS leaders and Brooklyn Councilman Charles Barron, an OWS supporter, met with Ahadzi before the press conference to discuss the future of his property, he said. Ahadzi hoped that the group would help him regain his footing.

“Why can’t you fight for me?” he asked them.

“They told me I don’t qualify,” he said. “So my lawyer asked what the qualifications are. [They said] I have to be with an organization and they’ll deal with the bank and you have to be homeless.

“They said they couldn’t help me,” he added.

Ahadzi explained that he purchased the house for $424,500 in 2007 before the housing bubble burst and the market price plummeted to $150,000. He claimed he lost his job as a day trader in 2009 and couldn’t meet his mortgage payments.

He packed up and left after foreclosure proceedings began in 2009, he said.

“I paid the mortgage on the house for two years,” he added.

Ahadzi even attended the Dec. 6 press conference at the house when the Carrasquillos were introduced. He wanted to tell reporters his story.

“[OWS] told me not to talk to them [reporters] because they [OWS] had an offer for me,” he said.

At a second meeting after the press conference, however, organizers said they would not pay him for the house. At that point, he told them to leave.

Inside the house the walls are knocked down and all of his belongings, including a stove, refrigerator and bedroom furniture, have been moved to the basement.

“I’m pissed off,” he said.

“I’m trying to get my house back, and they’re trying to take it from me.”

[American Patriot]

I'd take it back by force

[Ryan Ruck]

Detroit Group Tells Welfare Recipients to Hijack Homes

May 9, 2012

The Michigan Welfare Rights Organization (MWRO), headed by Maureen Taylor, has been telling Detroit welfare recipients to occupy foreclosed homes around the city. “You can’t imagine,” Taylor told WWJ in Detroit, “when we get to work at 9 and 10 in the morning, there are 20 to 30 people in the hallway talking about ‘I don’t have any more money, my rent is due’ – three or four months behind – what can I do? And its unreal, because we don’t have answers except to say, ‘here’s a list of houses that we have intercepted that have been repossessed by banks, pick one and move in.’” To boot these trespassers out of the homes, banks are forced to take MWRO to court.

Taylor has been feted by the Detroit NAACP this month; the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization says that Taylor has “given her life to fighting in the interests of the working class … She understands and educates that we must build a new society where we will not be facing homelessness, we don’t have to face a day without food, health care, quality and free education, etc.”

Colloquially speaking, this is called communism. Taylor and her allies aren’t fighting for the working class. They’re fighting for the non-working class, who live off taxpayer dollars, then violate property rights.

[Ryan Ruck]

Cities Consider Seizing Mortgages

July 4, 2012

A handful of local officials in California who say the housing bust is a public blight on their cities may invoke their eminent-domain powers to restructure mortgages as a way to help some borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth.

Investors holding the current mortgages predict the move will backfire by driving up borrowing costs and further depress property values. "I don't see how you could find it anything other than appalling," said Scott Simon, a managing director at Pacific Investment Management Co., or Pimco, a unit of Allianz SE.

Eminent domain allows a government to forcibly acquire property that is then reused in a way considered good for the public—new housing, roads, shopping centers and the like. Owners of the properties are entitled to compensation, which is usually determined by a court.

But instead of tearing down property, California's San Bernardino County and two of its largest cities, Ontario and Fontana, want to put eminent domain to a highly unorthodox use to keep people in their homes.

The municipalities, about 45 minutes east of Los Angeles, would acquire underwater mortgages from investors and cut the loan principal to match the current property value. Then, they would resell the reduced mortgages to new investors.

The eminent-domain gambit is the brainchild of San Francisco-based venture-capital firm Mortgage Resolution Partners, which has hired investment banks Evercore Partners and Westwood Capital to raise funds from private investors. The company's chief executive, Graham Williams, is a mortgage-industry veteran who helped pioneer lending programs for low-income borrowers at Bank of America Corp. in the early 1990s. Its chairman, Steven Gluckstern, is an entrepreneur who once owned the New York Islanders hockey franchise. Evercore's founder and co-chairman, Roger Altman, served in the Clinton administration and is raising funds for President Barack Obama's re-election effort.

For a home with an existing $300,000 mortgage that now has a market value of $150,000, Mortgage Resolution Partners might argue the loan is worth only $120,000. If a judge agreed, the program's private financiers would fund the city's seizure of the loan, paying the current loan investors that reduced amount. Then, they could offer to help the homeowner refinance into a new $145,000 30-year mortgage backed by the Federal Housing Administration, which has a program allowing borrowers to have as little as 2.25% in equity. That would leave $25,000 in profit, minus the origination costs, to be divided between the city, Mortgage Resolution Partners and its investors.

Proponents say this would help residents shed debt loads that are restraining economic growth, while preventing foreclosures that are eroding the tax base. But unlike the beneficiaries of most recent mortgage-modification efforts, who must show hardship, these borrowers would have to be current on their payments to participate. And the program initially would focus only on mortgage-backed securities that aren't federally guaranteed—about 10% of all outstanding U.S. mortgages.

The move is yet another sign of the desperate measures taken by cities still reeling from the effects of the housing bust. Several have declared bankruptcy.

"A number of cities, mayors, city managers have come to me and said, 'How soon can we get in?' " said Greg Devereaux, San Bernardino County's chief executive. He said he learned of the program last year from a California state official. He said county officials haven't yet made a firm decision on whether to proceed. "We think it would be irresponsible, given the size of the problem in our county, not to at least explore it," he said.

Unemployment in San Bernardino County, the nation's 12th-most-populous county, is among the nation's highest and tops 30% in some parts. More than two in five borrowers with a mortgage owed more than their homes were worth at the end of March.

The seizure of home-mortgage liens, but not the underlying homes, hasn't ever been conducted through eminent domain, as far as the group's principals can tell. And while they believe they have a strong legal case, they expect loan owners to sue.

"California legal precedent and political posture favor the program and constitute an ideal proving ground," Mortgage Resolution Partners said in a presentation to investors reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The document said it would begin with a $5 billion effort in California that could grow to three million mortgages as part of a $500 billion multistate effort.

Several states have authorized the taking of other intangible property, such as insurance policies, shares of stock or rights of way, according to Robert Hockett, a Cornell University professor of law and adviser to Mortgage Resolution Partners.

In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state of Hawaii's use of eminent domain to transfer residential tracts of land to renters to break up a landownership oligopoly and stabilize home prices. In 2005, the court affirmed the right of a Connecticut town to use eminent domain to transfer non-blighted homes to a private developer to spur redevelopment. That spurred several states to pass laws restricting such powers.

The three local California governments have created joint powers authorities that don't need permission from their city councils or board of supervisors to move forward unless they need public money. That means if the agencies back proposals that are privately financed, the plans could only be stopped from moving forward in court.

Mortgage-bond investors—who are the property owners, for eminent-domain purposes—say the program would do nothing to deal with the biggest problems—borrowers already in default. "Shouldn't that be the first priority?" said Laurie Goodman, senior managing director at broker-dealer Amherst Securities Group LP.

A letter sent last week to city leaders from 18 trade associations, led by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, warned that such a move "could actually serve to further depress housing values" by making banks less willing to lend. The plan's backers are unfazed. "The exact opposite is true. There's no private market right now," said Mr. Gluckstern of Mortgage Resolution Partners. "Until you clear out this problem [of underwater loans], private lending will not come back."

[American Patriot]

What are they going to actually DO with mortgages? Make people actually PAY them?

[Ryan Ruck]

Occupy Atlanta Takes Over Vacant Home

December 7, 2012

Occupy Atlanta demonstrators spent Friday taking over a bank-owned home in southwest Atlanta’s Pittsburgh community.

Channel 2's Sophia Choi went to the home on Windsor Street as Occupy members carried furniture inside. Demonstrators weren’t shy about staking the claim, covering the home in signs identifying the movement.

Electricity and water are now up and running. Two members of the group, Reneka Wheeler and Michelene Meusa, moved in Thursday with their two kids after bouncing around in shelters. Other members are keeping them company in case officers attempt to remove them.

“You got veterans. You got cancer patients. All these people getting kicked out of their homes when one like this stands vacant. Why is that?” Wheeler told Choi.

The house is owned by M&T bank. Bank officials said they are now investigating the takeover.

“The best thing for them to do is literally to give it up, because really they're not doing anything with it," Meusa said.

The couple faces some opposition within the neighborhood.

“They're taking these homes, and they're living in them for free,” said Harold Williams, who runs a corner store up the street.

He said a lot of neighbors aren’t happy with the move, but Occupy Atlanta members said they even had the support of the home’s former owner.

“We also have knocked on every door in the six block area and have had almost 100 percent support,” Occupy’s Tim Franzen said.

Atlanta police said if the bank chooses to file a criminal trespass complaint, officers will enforce it, but that hasn't happened.

[Ryan Ruck]

The New Bailout Begins: Eminent Domain Is Upon Us

July 30, 2013

While one can have sympathy for the over-levered, underwater homeowners that took free-money with both hands and feet as house prices surged in the mid-2000s (just like they are now) but the latest moves to 'save' people from themselves in the city of Richmond, CA is raising both market and constitutional concerns. As NYTimes reports, the city is the first to use eminent domain by the local government (in partnership with a 'friendly' mortgage provider) to seize homes, force investors to take a loss on the mortgages, re-issue a new 'lower' mortgage, and allow the homeowner back with positive equity (ready to lever-it-back-up into a new Harley). As Guggenheim notes, this is likely to hurt supply of new mortgages and as we noted previously (here and here), it seems clear that private-label MBS holders will not be happy, consumers hurt as mortgage costs would rise (this 'risk' has to be priced in), and taxpayers unhappy as this is yet another transfer payment scheme to bailout underwater loans.

Where are all the underwater homes?




Via NY Times,

The power of eminent domain has traditionally worked against homeowners, who can be forced to sell their property to make way for a new highway or shopping mall. But now the working-class city of Richmond, Calif., hopes to use the same legal tool to help people stay right where they are.


...

On Monday, the city sent a round of letters to the owners and servicers of the loans, offering to buy 626 underwater loans. In some cases, the homeowner is already behind on the payments. Others are considered to be at risk of default, mainly because home values have fallen so much that the homeowner has little incentive to keep paying.

Many cities, particularly those where minority residents were steered into predatory loans, face a situation similar to that in Richmond, which is largely black and Hispanic.

...

Richmond is offering to buy both current and delinquent loans. To defend against the charge that irresponsible homeowners who used their homes as A.T.M.’s are being helped at the expense of investors, the first pool of 626 loans does not include any homes with large second mortgages, said Steven M. Gluckstern, the chairman of Mortgage Resolution Partners.



[How It Works]





The city is offering to buy the loans at what it considers the fair market value. In a hypothetical example, a home mortgaged for $400,000 is now worth $200,000. The city plans to buy the loan for $160,000, or about 80 percent of the value of the home, a discount that factors in the risk of default.

Then, the city would write down the debt to $190,000 and allow the homeowner to refinance at the new amount, probably through a government program. The $30,000 difference goes to the city, the investors who put up the money to buy the loan, closing costs and M.R.P. The homeowner would go from owing twice what the home is worth to having $10,000 in equity.

All of the loans in question are tied up in what are called private label securities, meaning they were bundled and sold to private investors.

...

About two dozen other local and state governments, including Newark, Seattle and a handful of cities in California, are looking at the eminent domain strategy, according to a count by Robert Hockett, a Cornell University law professor and one of the plan’s chief proponents.

...

“This is not the first choice, but it’s rapidly becoming the only choice on how to fix this mess,” said William Frey, an investor advocate.

Mr. Frey said that the big banks were terrified that if eminent domain strategies became widespread, they would engulf not only primary mortgages but some $450 billion in second liens and home equity loans that are on the banks’ balance sheets. “It has nothing to do with morality or anything like that, it has to do with second liens.”

[vector7]

Companion Thread: The Overbearing EPA

Obama Kicks Wyoming Residents Off Property And Gives Away 1 Million Acres To Indians

Robert Rich January 9, 2014 8:37am PST



It appears that Obama’s habitual abuse of his executive action is beginning to rub off on the rest of his administration. His EPA soldiers are now telling a town in Wyoming that they no longer have the right to live there. And what’s worse? They’re giving away that land that the residents rightfully bought to other people.

The town of Riverton, Wyoming has been an issue for quite some time with regards to Indians and the “white man.” According to local Indians, the 1 million acre plot the town sits on should rightfully be added to their reservation.

(See also: Obama Quietly Gave Away $1 Million To Promote Gender Equality In Morocco)

Well, for some strange reason, Obama’s goon squad has obliged the Indian’s request even though the borders were place there in 1905. Now the 10,000 residents of the town are being forced to stick to their guns and stay there, or forfeit their land. The choice here though isn’t quite so simple. If the residents decide to stay, they would not be, “eligible for state or federal services.” Along with this, they may just get tossed off their land they bought anyways because the, “deeds do not have to be recognized by the Indians.”

Sen. Leland Christensen declared in a public statement:

“This is an alarming action when you have a federal agency step in and start to undo congressional acts that has really been our history for 108 years … with the stroke of a pen without talking to the biggest groups impacted, and that would be the city of Riverton and the state of Wyoming.”

But really, is this anything new when it comes to this administration? No, but it is nonetheless wrong. They are simply acting in “monkey see, monkey do,” fashion. The President has unconstitutionally enacted executive action countless times in order to get what he wants and bypass congress. If he’s getting away with it, why shouldn’t they?

(See also: Obama Using The Race Card To Change School’s Disciplinary Procedures)

Like the rest of the United States however, the resident aren’t so easy going about it. Even Wyoming Govenor Matt Mead is threatening to take action without going through the courts saying that the state of Wyoming wouldn’t recognize the EPA’s authority.

Describing the reasoning behind his claims, he explains:

“My deep concern is about an administrative agency of the federal government altering a state’s boundary and going against over 100 years of history and law. This should be a concern to all citizens because, if the EPA can unilaterally take land away from a state, where will it stop?”

And Mead is exactly right. Obama’s administration has proven time and time again that, “if you give a mouse a cookie, he’ll ask for a glass of milk.” So where does it end? When do American’s stand up and say enough is enough? It looks like when the government is ready to throw you off your land that you rightfully bought and paid for, might be a good place to start.

Wyoming authorities are doing their best to handle the nonsense legally as they have already “sent a letter to the EPA demanding they reverse their decision.”

Either way, both parties have agreed that the matter should be decided in Federal Court.

What do you guys think—do the Indians deserve the land that badly, or is Obama’s administration knowingly taking advantage of their power?

Let us know in a comment below!

[American Patriot]

Physically evicted? No one fought back?

[Ryan Ruck]

The War on Landlords Has Begun

August 17, 2020

As the widening gyre that that is 2020 continues to turn, it seems that every day some new disastrous and ill-thought-out proposal is made or policy implemented. Among the chaos, the chorus to cancel rent in particular has stuck out for its sheer insolence and the ease with which it has entered the discourse as a sensible policy solution.

The idea of abolishing rent is not new, but until now it has never really been considered anything but a nutty pipe dream. But with the economic carnage wreaked by the virus and ensuing government lockdown still ongoing it has disturbingly come to be viewed as a conceivable policy option. With tens of millions out of work, the ability to pay for basic necessities like housing is obviously a valid concern, but the callousness of the idea of simply expropriating housing from property owners is disturbing and indicative of darker trends coursing through the body politic in these turbulent times.

One of the most high-profile leaders of the cancel rent movement is Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who introduced legislation in April that basically amounts to nothing other than government extortion of landlords. Christian Britschgi reports that the bill would simply cancel all rent and mortgage payments for primary residencies across the entire country until a month after the federal state of emergency has ended. Attempting to collect rent or reporting the nonpayment of rent to credit agencies results in increasing fines, including the seizure of one’s property.

After Omar had taken a baseball bat to landlords' knees everywhere, she generously extended a government crutch, with strings attached, of course. Landlords who accepted federal aid in compensation would be required to not raise the rent for five years, and they would not be able to take into consideration someone’s credit or criminal history when taking rental applications. Additionally, landlords would be required to provide tenants with 10 percent equity in the property. The mafia would be proud of such a blatant shakedown.

Fortunately, Omar’s bill has a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming law at the moment, but that doesn’t mean that people will not keep trying to cancel rent. Since the crisis began, groups around the country have called on people to simply stop paying their rent in an attempt to simply force its cancellation. Washington Post columnist Michelle Singletary wrote that "this movement is not without merit," but at least pointed out that while many jurisdictions have put a moratorium on evictions, rent that is not paid now will still be owed if the tenant doesn’t want to face eviction when the moratoriums expire.

The United Neighborhood Defense Movement, which has a chapter agitating in Pittsburgh, has a manifesto chock full of socialist buzzwords about the evils of the capitalist system that oppresses everyone for failing to provide housing to them for free by virtue of their existence. With the seriousness of a college freshman fresh off a bong hit, they declare that “Housing should be collectively owned, managed, and built for the most benefit to those who live within them. Housing is a people’s right, and should not be cause for private profiteering.”

Similarly, writing in Teen Vogue, Kandist Mallet launched a full-on socialist attack on the very idea of property itself, saying that privately owned housing causes “economic violence” and that the pandemic has exposed “the cruelty of payment-based housing.” According to Mallet, housing should be considered a human right that must be provided for everyone by virtue of their being born. But instead the evil institution of property is defended by the state and its agents. This is unsurprising, she declares, since the US is "a country founded on the genocide and colonization of indigenous peoples.”"While rent should of course be canceled during the pandemic, she argues, the end goal is "a rejection of the construct that any one person should own this earth’s land."

It is fitting that such a call for the abolition of property itself can be found in a fashion magazine like Teen Vogue, because it speaks to the heart of the issue true liberals are facing in the wider culture today. Woke socialism has become fashionable, especially among the youth. Some might say that Teen Vogue has moved away from its fashionable roots, but that is incorrect. Teen Vogue has come to understand that the Jacobin desire to tear existing institutions to the ground in the name of progress is “in vogue,” so to speak, and therefore promotes both sexual and socialist revolutionary fervor.

It does not bode well for our society when proposals to simply expropriate property are becoming more and more prevalent and discussed with more seriousness. While it seems hard to imagine now, it is not out of the question that these antiproperty sentiments could continue to gain ground and eventually culminate in a genuine unabashed socialist coming to power. Venezuela was once the richest country in South America but is now a crumbling ruin thanks to the socialists who have been in power for two decades. A similar fate awaits us unless we are able to prevent the continued erosion of the institution of private property in this country.

[Ryan Ruck]

Rental Nation: Depriving Americans of Home Ownership Could Be a Good Thing, Economist Says

June 20, 2021

The American dream of home ownership should be replaced by corporate investors snapping up houses and turning them into rentals, one economist is proposing.

Karl W. Smith, an adjunct scholar with the Tax Foundation and Bloomberg columnist, believes that scenario could be positive, even if he doesn’t address the fact home ownership is the main way for the middle class to build wealth.

Smith argues “a nation of renters is not something to fear. In fact, it’s the opposite.”

Smith lays out his argument, including citing the troubling statistic that the 64.3 percent of Americans who owned home in 2016 is the lowest percentage since the U.S. Census Bureau starting keeping track of that data in 1984.

And Smith gave a nod to former President Donald Trump, saying homeownership rebounded during his tenure to 66 percent, “but that trend is likely to be arrested by a housing market that is desperately short on supply and seeing month-over-month price increases greater than they were in the frenzied market of 2006.”

Smith argues that single family homes have historically been an “extremely illiquid asset.”

And, Smith says, the housing landscape has changed:

Houses have typically traded with very little liquidity premium. That meant a relatively low purchase price compared to what it would cost to rent — the equivalent of the dividend from housing investment — and stable prices over time. These two factors made houses a good investment for moderate-income families who often lacked the cash and the risk tolerance for market investments. As investments went, single-family homes were cheap and slowly grew in value in both good times and bad.

In the early 21st century, automated appraisals and mortgage underwriting began to change that. Combined with the repackaging of subprime loans into presumably safer CDOs, they created a far more liquid market for housing. In response, housing prices soared — and became more sensitive to the vagaries of the markets. When investors pulled out of CDOs, buyer financing dried up and the whole housing market crashed.

It may have seemed at the time like a failed experiment. But financialization had changed the housing market forever. Houses are now more prone to be priced high relative to rents, and to see their prices fluctuate with the market. The very features that made home buying an affordable and stable investment are coming to an end.

Smith also blames the change on people who chose to live in single-family home neighborhoods where their families have privacy and security and oppose forced diversity accomplished by installing multi-family units — “existing homeowners are reluctant to agree to development with unknowable effects on the value of their most precious investments. The result is less development — and sky-high rents for any residents not lucky enough to own their own home.”

Smith, however, clearly believes in revising the meaning of the American dream. He thinks corporate investors will see the financial benefits of buying up homes and renting them. And Americans could be more mobile if not tied down with a mortgage.

So he advocates for a nation of renters.

“The U.S. is not quite there yet, and not just because too many people are chasing too few apartments,” Smith concludes. “To see the U.S. as a nation of renters requires a revision of the American Dream of homeownership. This country was always more about new frontiers than comfortable settlements, anyway.”