Skip to content
×
Try PRO Free Today!
BiggerPockets Pro offers you a comprehensive suite of tools and resources
Market and Deal Finder Tools
Deal Analysis Calculators
Property Management Software
Exclusive discounts to Home Depot, RentRedi, and more
$0
7 days free
$828/yr or $69/mo when billed monthly.
$390/yr or $32.5/mo when billed annually.
7 days free. Cancel anytime.
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
General Landlording & Rental Properties
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated over 4 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

1,344
Posts
1,419
Votes
Sylvia B.
  • Rental Property Investor
  • Douglas County, MO
1,419
Votes |
1,344
Posts

Homeless Moms in Oakland - I'm surprised

Sylvia B.
  • Rental Property Investor
  • Douglas County, MO
Posted

JUDGE RULES HOMELESS WOMEN MUST LEAVE VACANT HOUSE THEY'VE BEEN OCCUPYING SINCE NOVEMBER

Link above to a Newsweek article published today. I was not surprised by the response of the squatters:

"We are not surprised by the ruling," said Moms 4 Housing's Dominique Walker in a statement to Newsweek. "We understand that the courts' hands are tied because in this country property rights are valued over human rights. That is why the California constitution needs to be amended to include the right to housing. We will not leave our home."

"This home was stolen from the Black community in the subprime mortgage crisis, and it's been sitting vacant for nearly years," said Walker in a November press release.


The last sentence of the article did surprise me - "Law enforcement were ordered to forcibly remove any occupants of the house if it is not vacant within five days." I would have expected it to take longer to get them out. After all, they've only been there since November. **eye roll**

Most Popular Reply

User Stats

28,065
Posts
41,075
Votes
Nathan Gesner
  • Real Estate Broker
  • Cody, WY
41,075
Votes |
28,065
Posts
Nathan Gesner
  • Real Estate Broker
  • Cody, WY
ModeratorReplied

Two things I can know:

1. None of these council members are willing to work hard, purchase a property, and allow homeless to move in. They only believe in free housing when they can take it from someone else that has worked hard. They only believe in caring for the poor when it's paid for by someone else.

2. All of these council members believe it is evil to own property that sits vacant. Yet they vote for politicians that have second or third homes (bought by money earned as politicians, not through their own productivity) and they will never, ever require their beloved politicians to give up anything.

There is a growing segment of the population that believes we only build wealth by stealing from others. We didn't work for it, we don't deserve it any more than the next person, and we should be forced to share it with the "less fortunate." It's just a matter of time before states like California start seizing property and giving it to the homeless or poor, which is why we see successful people leaving the state.

  • Nathan Gesner
business profile image
The DIY Landlord Book
4.7 stars
165 Reviews

Loading replies...