Let me take this as the chance to fully clarify this question – The Occupy Movement is protesting (in part) big banks and financial institutions for their role in the economic & housing crisis.
Earlier this week the folks from Occupy Oakland announced via Twitter, that they “just passed a proposal to encourage the occupation of bank-owned/foreclosed and abandoned properties across Oakland.” This means that they are encouraging their protestors to seek shelter in these vacant homes. This call to action will most likely sweep across the country to other occupations nationwide.
Their re-entry will be in protest of the lenders roles in the vast amount of foreclosures – however, if the property is a foreclosure and vacant, it is owned by the bank and anyone that enters the property would be trespassing, just like if someone entered a home you owned without your permission. If utilities are utilized without being paid for, that would be considered theft as well.
Banks have already been paying for the foreclosure crisis and handling the unintended consequences of their actions for years. While I understand the desire for change and for more things to happen to help homeowners, keep in mind the homeowner that defaulted on their mortgage did not follow through on their promise to pay the mortgage. The bank holds the home as collateral for the note – just like a car title is held by the lender or any other “secured” loan has collateral. When you don’t pay, the collateral is forfeited.
What do you think of this act of “protest”… are they justified, are they breaking the law or is there another view that I’m missing? Tell me what you’re thinking!
