Moms 4 housing, or Just criminal behavior.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Moms 4 Housing: Meet the Oakland Mothers Facing Eviction After Two Months Occupying Vacant House

In Oakland, California, a group of mothers fighting homelessness is waging a battle against real estate speculators and demanding permanent solutions to the Bay Area housing crisis by occupying a vacant house with their children. The struggle began in November, when working mothers in West Oakland moved into 2928 Magnolia Street, a vacant house owned by real estate investment firm Wedgewood Properties. The firm tried to evict them, claiming they were illegally squatting on private property, but the mothers went to court and filed a “right to possession” claim, saying housing is a human right. Their name is Moms 4 Housing. The battle for the house came to a head last week when an Alameda County judge ruled in favor of Wedgewood Properties and ordered the mothers to vacate the house. But Moms 4 Housing has stayed to fight eviction. Monday night, hundreds of protesters gathered at the house after receiving a tip that the Sheriff’s Office was coming to evict the families — a show of support that led the sheriff to abandon the eviction attempt. We speak with Carroll Fife, director of the Oakland office for the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, and Dominique Walker, a member of Moms 4 Housing who has been living at the house with her family. Our interview was interrupted by news of another possible eviction attempt.

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to Oakland, California, where a group of mothers fighting homelessness are waging a battle against real estate speculators and demanding permanent solutions to the Bay Area housing crisis by occupying a vacant house with their children. The struggle began in November, when working mothers in West Oakland moved into 2928 Magnolia Street, a vacant house owned by real estate investment firm Wedgewood Properties. The firm tried to evict them, claiming they were illegally squatting on private property, but the mothers went to court and filed a “right to possession” claim, saying housing is a human right. Their name is Moms 4 Housing.

AMY GOODMAN: This is a video by Brandon Jourdan and Marianne Maeckelbergh.

DOMINIQUE WALKER: My name is Dominique Walker. I am one of the co-founders of Moms 4 Housing. And the goal of our organization is to reclaim houses back into the hands of the community and to house unsheltered moms and children. There’s four vacant houses for every one homeless person in Oakland.

We are reclaiming this house from a billion-dollar corporation who bought this house at a foreclosed price. It has been vacant for two years while people are living out on the street.

We felt like this was necessary to take this step. Like, even when I personally tried to go through the proper channels to get help to move and be able to pay this rent, they’re still not affordable. So I feel like it was up to us to organize ourselves to be able to have housing.

MARIANNE MAECKELBERGH: In the last two years, homelessness in Oakland has increased by 47%. With average rental rates in Oakland rising to nearly $3,000 a month, there are few or no options for most people looking for housing.

DOMINIQUE WALKER: There are 6,000 to 8,000 folks sleeping on the streets. And that’s not even accounting for all of the unhoused people and housing-insecure. Homelessness affects your mental health, brain development in children, their physical health. And 28% of the homeless population now in Oakland is under the age of 18.

I have a 1-year-old and a 4-year-old. She’ll be 5 on Saturday. And they have been so happy to have a place to call home.

This is our fridge, stove, kitchen area. We had to do a lot of fixing up this house, and we’re still working on it. This house was not kept up to code.

My children are now so excited to be sheltered. My 1-year-old started walking since we’ve been in the house. And he’s had a baby zone where he can crawl around and stand up and start to take those first steps. And he did that here.

This house was owned by Wedgewood, a company that is a displacement machine. They’re composed of five different companies. They all play a role in the direct displacement of people.

We’re taking a stand, and it doesn’t end with one house. We want to take Oakland back from all speculators. We’re not going to stop organizing until we all have shelter.



https://sfist.com/2020/01/12/moms-4-...e-and-shelter/

As a result House flipping and money being used to displace people, personally I hope MORE of this happens especially in major cities where this nonsense keeps happening. It requires push back.

But what is your Opinion...

Moms 4 housing, or Just criminal behavior?

[Milchshake]

There should be highly punitive taxes for owning multiple homes Do this until the housing market is corrected.

[Jonnusthegreat]

I think having real estate as your profession is bad for the economy and needs to be re-evaluated, but this is still a crime and they should be evicted (by force if necessary).

[Shadowferal]

"They" need to have a constructive talk.
Politics had better have the final word...and the mayor knows he or she can't fuck this up.

[I Push Buttons]

They have no right to someone else's property. They should be removed from the property and their children, who they clearly can't provide for, should be taken by the state.

If they want affordable housing, they should bitch at their progressive-in-name-only governments and force them to build some commieblocks. Their local governments shafting them by maintaining all their NIMBY zoning law bullshit doesn't give them the right to confiscate other people's property and claim it as their own.

[Endus]

In general, we need to ensure that property is being used, rather than simply held. Property management firms that buy property cheap and hold onto it, to drive prices up, that is what should be considered criminal. It's one thing if the property market is slack, but if housing is a problem, that's not the case.

That's why I largely support squatter laws. They wouldn't really apply, here; you usually need to occupy the site for at least 6 months without the property owner taking action, but they serve to repurpose abandoned properties back into useful ones. Cases like this indicate other issues with market manipulation.

They have no right to someone else's property. They should be removed from the property and their children, who they clearly can't provide for, should be taken by the state.

The bit in bold is horse shit. These "Moms" aren't homeless. You're confusing protest action with being part of the problem they seek to fix.

If they want affordable housing, they should bitch at their progressive-in-name-only governments and force them to build some commieblocks. Their local governments shafting them by maintaining all their NIMBY zoning law bullshit doesn't give them the right to confiscate other people's property and claim it as their own.

Would've thought you'd be all for reforming the market to serve the needs of the community, rather than demanding a significant increase in government taxation and spending.

But by all means, make shit up and pretend that's an argument.

[Calfredd]

They have no right to someone else's property. They should be removed from the property and their children, who they clearly can't provide for, should be taken by the state.

If they want affordable housing, they should bitch at their progressive-in-name-only governments and force them to build some commieblocks. Their local governments shafting them by maintaining all their NIMBY zoning law bullshit doesn't give them the right to confiscate other people's property and claim it as their own.

1.) They have houses.
2.) They're occupying a vacant property as a protest.
3a.) It is true some people working in real estate only buy houses to jack up property prices without renting them out to turn a bigger profit.
3b.) This can and does cause the surrounding neighborhood to be evicted for no longer being able to pay the new rent and/or property taxes.
4.) Your second sentence and second paragraph are nonsense.

[I Push Buttons]

The bit in bold is horse shit. These "Moms" aren't homeless. You're confusing protest action with being part of the problem they seek to fix.

1.) They have houses.
2.) They're occupying a vacant property as a protest.

Odd, since it sounds a lot like the co-founder of the 'Moms 4 Housing' movement they are speaking to in the article couldn't find a home previously and is glad to have one, albeit unlawfully, now... Or is she lying?

Like, even when I personally tried to go through the proper channels to get help to move and be able to pay this rent, they’re still not affordable.
...
I have a 1-year-old and a 4-year-old. She’ll be 5 on Saturday. And they have been so happy to have a place to call home.
...
My children are now so excited to be sheltered.

Would've thought you'd be all for reforming the market to serve the needs of the community, rather than demanding a significant increase in government taxation and spending.

But by all means, make shit up and pretend that's an argument.

4.) Your second sentence and second paragraph are nonsense.

Yes, a market solution to a lack of housing and drastically increasing housing pricing is to build more housing, particularly multifamily housing, apartments... But the so-called progressives running most of the cities in California where this is a problem, like Oakland in the article, don't want their property values to decrease or the nice views they get during their morning commutes to be blighted by new apartment complexes... So they implement zoning laws that don't allow new apartment developments which would instantly start popping up and immediately drive the costs of housing down, if only they were allowed to.

And I have no problem with the welfare state, I am all for increased taxes and more public spending... Especially if its on economical public housing units rather than on section 8 for already existing housing units in locations with drastically inflated rent.

3a.) It is true some people working in real estate only buy houses to jack up property prices without renting them out to turn a bigger profit.
3b.) This can and does cause the surrounding neighborhood to be evicted for no longer being able to pay the new rent and/or property taxes.

And? People are allowed to do whatever they want with their money, this a free country. Moreover they are literally encouraged to behave that way by the local zoning laws as noted above, since the property they are investing in is vastly inflated in value and until the local governments change said zoning laws, that property will only ever get more and more expensive; IE: a great fucking investment.

[Endus]

Odd, since it sounds a lot like the co-founder of the 'Moms 4 Housing' movement they are speaking to in the article couldn't find a home previously and is glad to have one, albeit unlawfully, now... Or is she lying?

Or she's stuck renting a place that's inadequate for her family's needs. Like a lot of people.

You're reaching so hard to misrepresent this article.

Yes, a market solution to a lack of housing and drastically increasing housing pricing is to build more housing, particularly multifamily housing, apartments... But the so-called progressives running most of the cities in California where this is a problem, like Oakland in the article, don't want their property values to decrease or the nice views they get during their morning commutes to be blighted by new apartment complexes... So they implement zoning laws that don't allow new apartment developments which would instantly start popping up and immediately drive the costs of housing down, if only they were allowed to.

You're making that shit up.

Municipal governments have to make decisions that align with what voters want, or they get voted out. It's much more fractious than national or state politics, because they often have little to do with national parties at all. They can't just make sweeping changes that don't reflect the desires of stakeholders.

You've also provided no evidence of any actual policy push against affordable housing. That's largely resisted by developers, not municipal governments, because the developers get more money selling property at full price, not the lower prices that affordable housing brings. And if the amount of affordable housing required by the city is too high, then existing buildings are left in place, or fallow land is left undeveloped, because it's not worth it to developers to invest.

And? People are allowed to do whatever they want with their money, this a free country.

Literally a false statement.

Can't gamble in many places.

Can't hire a prostitute most places.

Can't spend all your money on cocaine to resell.

Can't hire an assassin.

I could keep going, y'know. How you're entitled to spend your money is controlled.

Moreover they are literally encouraged to behave that way by the local zoning laws as noted above, since the property they are investing in is vastly inflated in value and until the local governments change said zoning laws, that property will only ever get more and more expensive; IE: a great fucking investment.

Zoning laws don't set property values, dude. That's completely incorrect. They control what kind of uses the land can be put to. That's it.

[Moadar]

Justified criminal behavior.

[Yadryonych]

personally I hope MORE of this happens especially in major cities

Personally I hope more of this happens nation-wide and not just to houses but to any kind of posession and whoever should be able to take anything from you and declare that he needs it more than you do. Just seeing the nation crumbling down in anarchy must be spectacular

[d00mGuArD]

I hope they have been arrested

When I was working in UK, I had to leave back my home -empty- for some years, and rent in London where I was working.
I am sure many many many people are in this situation, where they work in other cities or other states or other countries, and they have to leave their home.

Imagine coming back and finding people inside! Unacceptable.

I am sure all the people supporting this, only support it if it is other people's houses, as usual... and would have very different reaction if they found people inside their own homes.

[Aenigma84]

just increase taxes for every house owned after the first 1-2
then double it for every house owned that isnt used atleast 4-6month a year (rented or used)

[Machismo]

Stop telling other people what to do on their own property.

[Kumorii]

just increase taxes for every house owned after the first 1-2
then double it for every house owned that isnt used atleast 4-6month a year (rented or used)

This is reasonable tbh.

[Attackrabbit]

When I was working in UK, I had to leave back my home -empty- for some years, and rent in London where I was working.
I am sure many many many people are in this situation, where they work in other cities or other states or other countries, and they have to leave their home.

if only it was possible to, I don't know, sell a house you're not using for a few years. That would be insane. Or if it was possible to rent it out to someone for the 'some years' you're not using it. It sitting there empty is a massive waste.

[Yadryonych]

This is reasonable tbh.

How is it reasonable? I can only agree that the first or only house should be taxed less

[NED funded]

Or she's stuck renting a place that's inadequate for her family's needs. Like a lot of people.

You're reaching so hard to misrepresent this article.



You're making that shit up.

Municipal governments have to make decisions that align with what voters want, or they get voted out. It's much more fractious than national or state politics, because they often have little to do with national parties at all. They can't just make sweeping changes that don't reflect the desires of stakeholders.

You've also provided no evidence of any actual policy push against affordable housing. That's largely resisted by developers, not municipal governments, because the developers get more money selling property at full price, not the lower prices that affordable housing brings. And if the amount of affordable housing required by the city is too high, then existing buildings are left in place, or fallow land is left undeveloped, because it's not worth it to developers to invest.



Literally a false statement.

Can't gamble in many places.

Can't hire a prostitute most places.

Can't spend all your money on cocaine to resell.

Can't hire an assassin.

I could keep going, y'know. How you're entitled to spend your money is controlled.


Zoning laws don't set property values, dude. That's completely incorrect. They control what kind of uses the land can be put to. That's it.

You can actually see the evidence

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ly-zoning.html

NYTimes had a nice map and some history on how the government got in the way of building more housing.

[I Push Buttons]

The people running the show are deliberately pushing prices higher by intentionally not building enough. There is no market solution to these kind of things.

Except they can't build because many municipalities in California, especially these expensive places where rent is reaching exorbitant levels, literally will not let them build.

Look at this report, for example:
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...etz-Murray.pdf

Of the twelve most expensive municipalities in California... NINE of them haven't allowed a single apartment to be built in years. ONE SINGLE APARTMENT. IN YEARS.

Or she's stuck renting a place that's inadequate for her family's needs. Like a lot of people.

You're reaching so hard to misrepresent this article.

I'm reaching lol? She literally says her kids are so happy to finally have a home, finally have shelter. The only person reaching here is yourself. What the fuck about 'finally having a home and shelter' implies she already had both of those things?

The tiny house I grew up in only had two (small) bedrooms, one for my parents, one for my sisters; quite inadequate for a family of five... I slept on our living room couch until I was 12. Does that mean I didn't have a home? Didn't have shelter? Of course it fucking didn't, what kind of nonsensical argument is that?

You're making that shit up.

Municipal governments have to make decisions that align with what voters want, or they get voted out. It's much more fractious than national or state politics, because they often have little to do with national parties at all. They can't just make sweeping changes that don't reflect the desires of stakeholders.

I like how you accuse me of making shit up, only to turn around and immediately defend the policies I have supposedly made up as a necessary byproduct of 'muh local voters'...



State governments have primacy over local governments. So at the end of the day, if California wanted to, it could override all those zoning laws. They won't, though, as I said they are progressives-in-name-only and don't actually give a shit about the people who's lives they are ruining.

You've also provided no evidence of any actual policy push against affordable housing. That's largely resisted by developers, not municipal governments, because the developers get more money selling property at full price, not the lower prices that affordable housing brings. And if the amount of affordable housing required by the city is too high, then existing buildings are left in place, or fallow land is left undeveloped, because it's not worth it to developers to invest.

Except reality is the opposite of what you describe.

---

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-a...re-apartments/

CALIFORNIA’S APARTMENT MARKET IS UPSIDE DOWN, ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING.

A fundamental precept of economics is that, when the price of one production component increases, firms will use less of the expensive input to produce their goods. For instance, when wages for cashiers increase, supermarkets will install more self-checkout machines and hire fewer cashiers. In housing markets, as the value of land increases, developers will use less land per new housing unit, building homes on smaller lots or stacking homes vertically in apartment buildings. If housing markets are functioning well, we would expect to see more new apartments constructed in communities with high initial rents. But because many affluent communities are hostile to apartments, they often adopt zoning and related policies intended to limit development of multifamily buildings.

...

One difficulty of advocating for apartment-friendly zoning reforms is that local governments have many different tools to discourage unwanted development. Many communities simply ban multifamily buildings outright on most of their land. Whereas the median California city allows single-family homes on at least 50 percent of land, the typical city allows apartment buildings on less than 25 percent of land (Figure 2). Even where apartments are allowed, local governments often restrict building heights or apartment densities to a degree that makes development financially infeasible.



Besides regulating physical characteristics of apartment buildings, most California jurisdictions rely on ad hoc, discretionary processes to permit development. That is, developers seeking to build apartments must request approval on a case-by-case basis from the local city council and/or zoning board, while holding public meetings at which existing residents can raise objections. This ad hoc approval process makes building new housing longer, risker, and more expensive for the developer, which translates into higher costs for the finished housing.

---

Literally a false statement.

Can't gamble in many places.

Can't hire a prostitute most places.

Can't spend all your money on cocaine to resell.

Can't hire an assassin.

I could keep going, y'know. How you're entitled to spend your money is controlled.

Damn you got me, buying houses is obviously the same thing as having people killed, so they should definitely both be restricted!

Zoning laws don't set property values, dude. That's completely incorrect. They control what kind of uses the land can be put to. That's it.

They literally do. Zoning laws have been creating an artificial scarcity which is what is driving the increasing prices; that's just about as simple a concept as there is, what about it are you not understanding?

Here, here's another excerpt for you.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...causes-874803/

California has been experiencing a “housing crisis” since at least the 1970s, but the situation has rapidly deteriorated in just the past few years. According to research by the San Jose Mercury News, in 2012, a family with an income of $100,000 could afford the median rent in 72 percent of Bay Area neighborhoods; as of 2018, the same family could afford the median rent in just 28 percent of those neighborhoods. Worse, there was not a single enclave in the Bay Area last year where a family with two parents working full-time making $15 an hour could afford the median rent.

At its heart, California’s housing problem is one of scarcity: According to one analysis, the state has 3.5 million fewer homes than it needs to house all the people who live there. That gap was created over decades — largely as a result of the zoning policies of individual communities, under pressure from local residents. Randy Shaw, a longtime Bay Area housing advocate and author of the book Generation Priced Out, says the best way to describe the dynamics at play is to look at the city of Atherton. Thirty minutes from San Jose, Atherton is the most expensive city in the country: The median price of a home there is $8.1 million.

“You can’t build an apartment building in Atherton,” Shaw says. City code prohibits anything other than a single-unit building with a footprint that cannot exceed 18 percent of the land. In other words, everything but a single, detached home with a yard is verboten. “You have all of these cities in California where you can’t build anything but a luxury home,” Shaw says. “When you have zoning restrictions that prevent you from building the housing you need, you’re pretty much guaranteed to get in the situation we have.”

It’s a problem lawmakers across the state are grappling with, including in San Jose, where 94 percent of the city is zoned for single-family homes. “You got lots of family housing, and you’re not going to bulldoze it to go build apartments,” Liccardo said at a meeting of the state’s mayors in July. “At least, not if you don’t want [homeowners] to burn down City Hall.”

[Aenigma84]

How is it reasonable? I can only agree that the first or only house should be taxed less

it discourages prize hiking and encourages people to rent to others if they don't use it, whats the issue with that ?
i do agree less taxes on first 1-2 homes makes the concept better in combination with the above.

i wonder what you consider reasonable then tbh