There seems to be a trend now where squatters are moving into abandoned properties and calling them home. I think it's a great idea and good for all sides concerned. Here is a link to the article and my argument is below the bump.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
We know for a fact that there are an increasing number of homes that are being abandoned and foreclosed upon. This is not only bad for the person who had to leave the home but it is bad for the neighborhood and the banks that hold the mortgage.
I will skip all the problems associated with being homeless with one exception; it is expensive to be homeless. I base these assumptions on what I have seen in Chicago so it may vary by location. I think one of the hardest things about being homeless is the constant search for a place to sleep, weather it be a shelter, a hotel or outside finding a safe place to sleep is always a concern. Then they must eat, again this is a struggle as the ability to go to the super market and by a weeks worth of food really doesn't work. I assume a good portion of the diet consists of take away food, which is not cheap. All in all I think a great deal of time and money is spent just to survive to the next day and a long term approach is not really viable.
Now, on to how we can create something where everyone benefits.
The banks in their own self interests should partner with the homeless and develop a program where they can live in a vacant property if they maintain it, pay a nominal fee for rent and agree to move to another property on short notice in the event that the property is sold.
How will the banks benefit from this program? First, the property is occupied; every study shows that an occupied property sells faster than an empty property. Further, since the property is not empty it will help maintain the property value in the area, which is also a benefit to the bank. The tenants will also function as a caretaker to the property so it has less of a chance to falling into disrepair. They will also discourage the theft and damage that can happen to a vacant property such as ripping out the plumbing and electric for the copper which can costs thousands of dollars to repair. Finally, if the proper accounting magic is done they could get a great tax break and get lots of goodwill from the community.
How is this good for the homeless? Simple, they are no longer homeless. There children can attend the schools in the area where they now reside. They have a better chance at getting work as they have a permanent address. Finally, they have a chance to stabilize their lives and prepare in the long term which is difficult when you must live day to day.
Where are the sticking points? I think the first problem is liability. I think this is where a nominal monthly rent is charged to the tenant to cover the cost of insurance, if the tenant cannot afford the whole amount it would still be beneficial for the bank to supplement the difference for the benefits I described above. The second problem is the tenants themselves. The tenants must be screened carefully so that they are unlikely to cause damage to the property they reside in and will cooperate when they are asked to move to another residence.
So that's my idea. What do you think?