Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

Follow Us

NHI Newsletter

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Next Move: Occupy Foreclosed Homes?

by Paul Bass | Dec 27, 2011 9:09 am

(22) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Occupy Wall Street

Thomas MacMillan Photo With a national movement heading in different directions, empty houses may be beckoning.

If that’s where the self-styled movement of “99-percenters” fighting economic inequality and corporate greed decides to go next.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is at a crossroads. Some original organizers have called for folding up tents, declaring victory, and moving to other kinds of focused activism. Police in some cities have cleared occupations out of public spaces; activists have clashed with police to get back in. In a few cities, including New Haven, occupiers are getting along with police and are determined to stay outside indefinitely.

Now some occupiers have come up with a new strategy, with big lenders as the target: occupying some of the countless foreclosed-upon, empty homes blighting urban neighborhoods. (Read about that tactic here.)

The New Haven occupation has the foreclosure idea “under serious consideration,” said stalwart participant Drew Peccerillo. “We’re trying to figure out the logistics of it.”

Is foreclosure occupation the right way to go? The question was posed to three leading New Haven political thinkers known for smart and unconventional or unpredictable takes on the news: State Rep. Gary Holder-Winfield, who represents Newhallville (the epicenter of New Haven’s foreclosure crisis); Business New Haven and New Haven Magazine publisher Mitchell Young; and Yale history professor Jennifer Klein, who recently got arrested while participating in an Occupy demonstration in New York.

They debated the question among themselves in real time for a half-hour on a shared Google document, and they came up with three different takes (or four?) on the foreclosure question, as well as the success of the Occupy movement so far.

Seize the houses! Klein advised: The banks caused this mess.

No they didn’t, argued Young: Some cities need to wither, and the movement has had no real impact.

It is making a difference, countered Holder-Winfield, but it should focus on “occupying” the legislature rather than messing with private property.

A lightly edited transcript of their online discussion follows. Feel free to keep the thread going by posting comments to the story.

“Now They Can Be On The Move”

Yale PhotoJennifer: I think going after home foreclosures is a great move. It links many people across class: working class and middle class folks have faced this issue. It deals not just with the individual experience of home loss but the systemic problems of banks that have hollowed out neighborhoods.

Mitchell: In spite of my history as an active participant in opening the City University of New York to minorities, and having been arrested multiple times in anti-war demonstrations, I am not a fan of the structure and tactics of the Occupy movement. ... I don’t see that much evidence there is a movement. There are a great many people concerned about their economic issues, and their inability to get ahead. I haven’t seen as much concern about what is referred to as “economic inequality,” as some people believe.

Gary: I would agree that the “movement” moves between the notion that there is broad-based economic inequality and individuals advocating on a more individual level. But is that a problem? Still it moves the conversation.

Jennifer: I think, first, it’s great that they are on the move now and into the communities. The occupation of a common space in the “first phase” of the movement had incredible importance. It not only made discontent about the imbalances in economic and political power visible (especially when protesters were denied basic rights of freedom of assembly). It also enabled people who experienced various forms of economic precariousness or dispossession to see each other: students with debt, people who lost homes, those who lost jobs, those losing their pensions, disabled people facing medicaid cuts. The first step in any movement is creating a sense of shared experience, shared frustration, articulation as social rather than individual.

Now they can be on the move and taking on all kinds of places and institutions that represent the sources of economic insecurity and political powerlessness.

Gary: Truth is, like Mitchell, I would have very different designs for this movement. My thing would be to move beyond the Green and public spaces and occupy the politics that are so problematic. I would move people into positions (assuming they can) to tilt the discussions and decisions of people in office. As long as they stay on greens and parks they don’t have deep impact on elections. Seizure of private homes by the way might cause me to (because of my role as a legislator) find myself at odds with the Occupy movement for which I have much respect.

“All Cities Or Parts Of Cities To Die

Thomas MacMillan File PhotoMitchell (pictured): ... It might be worth to ask if we should do a better job allowing cities or parts of cities to die, rather than forcing them to remain uneconomic and inefficient.  Maybe we should consider helping people move, rather than staying in places that are dying.

But beyond that it is a great stretch to blame the housing bubble on the banks, or the people that borrowed money. Too much money was chasing too few good investments. This has happened several times in the past 30 years. Maybe it wasn’t a good idea for so many countries to print money instead of build their societies in a more organic way.

Jennifer: The banks created a housing bubble. They used balloon mortgages with tricks built into them. They bet on bundling these mortgages and selling them for a quick profit before it resulted in dispossession.

So if dispossession was their route to excessive money and political power, I think people should push back on that directly.

Moreover, it’s not as though the banks are doing anything with a lot of these properties. There are blocks and blocks of abandoned housing all over this country. At the same time, there are people who have nowhere to live. Those left in the heavily abandoned neighborhoods live in increasingly dangerous and unhealthy circumstances. So why shouldn’t people take control of these spaces and turn them to positive social uses? (And politicize them!)

These kinds of actions have a long history in the U.S. Neighborhood activists and labor activists moved evicted tenants back into apartments or homes in the 1890s, in the 1910s, during the Great Depression. Before you had a labor movement that was legalized, there was the Neighborhood Council of Working-Class Women moving evicted families back into their homes.  

In response to Gary’s point about prompting public officials to act, it was these kinds of direct actions that compelled Roosevelt to put in place programs like Home Owners Loan Corporation during the New Deal, which was an incredibly successful program that did indeed “save” people’s homes. (I believe over a million homes.) Right now there are activists from New York to Chicago to L.A. who are going in collective groups to banks like Bank of America to pressure loan officers to let them renegotiate the terms of their mortgage, so that they can keep paying and stay in their homes. It’s not “shirking” some responsibility, but rather bringing the mortgage back in line with home value and adjusting fees, etc. But it takes direct action to make it happen.

As for Mitch’s point, we should help people move on and let a place die? Are you actually saying that? Are you actually suggesting that we just accept some inevitable decline of a city like New Haven? Do you think that’s how we got out of the Great Depression? No! Exactly the opposite. We got out of it through massive public investment that upgraded and modernized cities and the countryside.

“Aim At Pathetic Politicians”

Paul Bass File PhotoGary (pictured): I don’t dispute the points Jennifer is making.  I am just saying that I think there should be direct action aimed at the pathetic politicians sitting safely in their seats. It is one thing to voice solidarity with the occupy movement. It is another to act in office as if that is true. The reason I moved from being an activist into elected office is because I realized that the type of people I wanted in office are people like me. and they don’t get there just because I point out the flaws in those already in office

Mitchell: This is not the Great Depression. That was 25 percent unemployment. Also, by the way, in 1973 we had in Western Massachusetts and other areas with 12 percent unemployment; also not the Great Depression.

What we have is a huge gap between educated white people (not talking about millionaires now) who have today a 5-percent unemployment rate and poorly educated minorities. One state to the north, Massachusetts, has a 7-percent unemployment rate now.

I don’t think New Haven was ever on the death list. That has always been, or at least as long as I’ve been involved (since 1975), a fabrication of some in New Haven. I’ve watched it grow through fits and starts.  But there are many places that we need to let go.

Unfortunately we did not provide northern blacks the mobility they needed in time to move to faster growing economies. Now many have found they can move. I’ve interviewed several young black professionals who assured me they would move to Atlanta; they would not stay in New Haven. They should go where the opportunity is.

And I know they may have changed the history, but in my day, the early ‘60s, they told us those programs didn’t work, and it was World War II that pulled us out of the Depression.

Gary: Mitchell hits the nail on the head with the discussion of whites and minorities.

Jennifer: Although again, that is also a question of public investment and public services. Do we invest in good quality schools and libraries? What does it take to make those top priorities? We have to pay attention not just to some neutral claim of “disparity” but also imbalances of power. Why aren’t people with less education making more on the job? Why have their wages declined since the 1970s? Why don’t they have a pension?

Let’s think about the large corporate interests that block unionization. I don’t see that the Congress has moved in any way to reform labor law. In fact, they are about to let the NLRB [National Labor Relations Board] fail to have a quorum altogether, so it can’t even function.

The fact is there needs to be pressure from below that creates a sense of urgency for people in office to act. There can be good jobs in any region. but workers have to be organized to assert those terms. A movement like “Occupy Wall Street” broadens the definition of that sort of movement, since the official labor movement at this point represents less than 9 percent of private sector workers and is under assault in the public sector; and since 11 million are officially unemployed (and estimates of those no longer looking bring it to 24 million total). It’s reinventing the possibilities of a broad-based economic justice movement, and I’m all for that.

Mitchell: I have to admit I’m not able to see this movement the way others do. Group action to create change is not new.

In this case this movement feels to me like the Kardashians. Sorry for the insult; I’m saying this of the the substance in the movement; regardless of the substance in its origins. I guess I’m old; I want people who are personally identified, who are clearly on the line. I know that there was only a fraction of people who think fought for civil rights or against the war in Vietnam, but there were clear goals, clear identifications. This isn’t new.

Gary: Disagree with the Kardashians comparison. I am somewhere between Mitchell and Jennifer here. When I read Jennifer, I see much of the discussion that goes on about economic inequality. But when I look at our country it seems that here Mitchell has a very valid point about the individual nature that undergirds all of this. There are many groups that have experienced economic inequality as a fact of life—not just now but from day one—and no movement springs up around that.  It is when this hits some people’s door that it becomes a thing worthy of a movement. I don’t know if that makes it sustainable or not.


Previous coverage of Occupy New Haven and Occupy Wall Street:

Bulldozed Elsewhere, Occupy NH Marks 2 Months
3 Arrested At Occupy New Haven
Occupation Rejects “Victory” Declaration
New Haven Occupiers Clash With NYC Cops
Who’s In & Who’s Out At The Occupation?
“I Knew It—He’s A Scumbag”
“Occu-Pies” Arrive
Occupation Weather(ize)s Its 1st Storm
Clergy Bless The Occupiers
Occupiers Eye Clock Factory
In New Haven, “Occupiers” Embrace The Cops
Midnight Drug Warning Sparks Soul-Searching
Emergency Session Poses Democracy Test
The Password (The Password) ... Is (Is) ...
1,000 Launch New Haven’s “Occupation”
Klein: Occupation Needs To Confront Power
Whoops! Movement Loses $100K
New Haven’s “Occupation” Takes Shape
Occupy Branford: Wall Street Edition
Anti-Bankers’ Dilemma: How To Process $$
Labor, Occupiers March To Same Beat
Protests’ Demand: A “World We Want To See”
Protesters To Occupy Green Starting Oct. 15
Wall Street Occupiers Page Verizon
New Haven Exports “Free”-dom To Occupiers

Tags: ,

Share this story with others.

Share |

Post a Comment

Comments

posted by: James on December 27, 2011  9:17am

Let the hipsters occupy a house in Newhallville for a few nights.. then we can all watch them run with their tails between their legs back to their camp with their tax payer funded police watch.

posted by: disgusted on December 27, 2011  10:07am

... This foreclosed homes issue is just a farce and coverup for the homeless !!

posted by: PhillyRock on December 27, 2011  11:06am

Adverse Possession anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

posted by: robn on December 27, 2011  11:42am

WRT Mr Youngs’s (erroneous) comment about unemployment;

The way we measure unemployment has changed since the great depression. Great depression figures were somewhat overstated and current figures are understated. Were we to calculate it in the same way, several states would have depression level stats (California, Michigan, Nevada)

posted by: cba on December 27, 2011  12:20pm

The occupation of foreclosed homes is a blatant disregard of property rights and if it occurs should be met with prompt arrests and expeditious trial and punishment.  The time has come to show these self announcing 99 % that they are really .00000000000001 of society and not what they profess to be despite their loudness

posted by: eastShore on December 27, 2011  12:31pm

Mitchell Young compared the occupy movement to The Kardashians.  That’s just ridiculous.  His responses pretty much summed up why there is an occupy movement in the first place.  At the end of the day the protestors are just trying to get people to open their eyes to what is happening to our citizens.  Let certain parts of the city just die off… Really?  If the occupy movement is The Kardashians, Mr. Young’s ideas are an orphanage from a Dickens’ novel.  I would hope readers can see the underlying theme to his rhetoric, obviously Rep.  Holder-Winfield did not.  In one thought Mr. Young is talking about letting places go and in another he’s talking about members of the black community moving to Atlanta.  That’s some real progressive thought there Mr Young.  Rep. Holder-Winfield, just what sections of town do you think Mr. Young would like to see die off?  (Hint:  If it happens you will no longer have a constituency to represent).

posted by: Gary Holder-Winfield on December 27, 2011  1:30pm

I do not agree with allowing parts of cities to just die. remember you are reading a portion of a 30 minute conversation that the participants had some difficulty following at first themselves.  Not every point was responded to and not every response is here.

posted by: robn on December 27, 2011  1:54pm

What if banks holding empty properties in distressed areas let motivated persons temporarily live rent free in exchange for those persons’ maintenance and upkeep of the property? The associated material costs could be funded by a bank stipend; a necessity for protecting that asset (less than necessary would be illegal according to LCI, right?).

posted by: Gary Holder-Winfield on December 27, 2011  2:37pm

Robn,
Not sure who you are addressing there but if that happened it seems to me it wouldn’t exactly be ‘occupying’ those foreclosed homes in the sense that I suspect we are talking about when we discuss this

posted by: PhillyRock on December 27, 2011  2:41pm

@robn - Letting people live in houses for free is a failed experiment.  See any section 8 or Urban housing project.  The problem with your idea is there lacks a path to ownership and a vested interest in seeing the properties upkeep.  You would hope that the people you allow live in these homes would do the right thing.  Unfortunately and sadly, people cannot be trusted.

posted by: Allan Brison on December 27, 2011  3:47pm

to cba, disgusted, and James:

You guys must be drinking the Fox News Kool-Aid.

The Occupiers deserve our utmost support. They are highlighting the corruption of our government by Wall Street.

Consider: at no time since the Great Depression has there been such a large disparity in the income distribution in this country. The US has the greatest income disparity of any developed country in the world.

The economy, and in fact much of the federal govt, has been hijacked by Wall Street Bankers who are using their power to add to their already obscene asset accumulations.

They committed fraud to bankrupt pension plans by selling them worthless derivative swaps, which they KNEW were worthless. These people should be in jail.

Anybody wanting more details should watch the Academy Award winning documentary INSIDE JOB, available at Best Video.

Meanwhile hats off to the Occupiers. They are raising these issues at great personal sacrifice. And hats off as well to Jennifer Klein.

posted by: James on December 27, 2011  4:08pm

@Allan: I completely agreed with the ideals behind the Occupy movement in general. Occupy New Haven however is just a joke.

Gary Holder-Winfield is right.. they need to occupy the legislature. This is how change will happen. They aren’t changing a damn thing by drinking copious amounts of cheap beer and playing camp on the green. Well.. they are changing the public’s opinion on the Occupy movement as a whole, which is a shame.

posted by: Mitchell Young on December 27, 2011  4:43pm

The nature of blogging and rat a tat, responses probably doesn’t lend itself to the discussion of issues that I prefer.

What it does lend itself to however is the type of comment by eastShore - (a location that is a real haven for the downtrodden), that implies my views about providing mobility to low income people is some kind of cover for racism.

We have a saying in Brooklyn for that, but I can’t use it here.

I understand that some people will hold unto views regardless of who they really hurt or the unintended consequences of them.

The problem I see is that Democrats and most Liberals are stuck in the 1930s and Republicans and most Conservatives are stuck in the 1950s. I’m not for compromise to 1940, but for the realization it is 2012 and we have to move on.

I agreed to this discussion blogging exercise because it is more than past time that we in New Haven re-examine our rhetoric.

Why do you think that mobility is something for professionals and not the rest of us?

The claim of “99%” is the exact type of mis-characterization that we would sit around and PLAN to create when we were trying to open up the New York City University to minorities.

(When I went there less than 5% of students - and it was completely free.)

You may want to consider your basically protected status as troubled, as the young singer in the Hyundai commercial, “I want to be a billionaire” croons , but very few of the 99% actually share much with the bottom 20%.

This is a complete fabrication, indeed that group doesn’t seem to have as much time to feel sorry for itself.

Occupy Branford, Give Me a Break.

Today New Haven’s liberals have finally embraced education reform.

I started calling for it in New Haven in 1995, when the city, the business community (my readers) and nearly all of New Haven’s liberals would have no part of it and some were pretty vocal about it.

It was clear then there would be no economic justice without EFFECTIVE education for low income families.

Many in New Haven unwittingly threw away a generation of children, because new ideas didn’t fit their model. 

Before you go ahead and imply my view was racist, perhaps you should examine how your views actually harm the people you claim to speak for.

When cities were booming in the south and jobs were being created in manufacturing and construction, why was our government policy directed at keeping people in obsolete locations.

When there was no available labor to fill these positions, in many cases they were filled and recruited for by workers from other countries, legal and illegal immigrants.

This cheap and ready labor may have been very good for the overall economy, for the 1% and you and me.

It wasn’t good for the economic mobility of poorly educated blacks and other low income workers.

Demand for labor in the fast growing economies should have increased, instead it decreased.


Ms. Klein: It is not naive to say that the banks “hollowed” out the cities, it is just completely untrue.

Indeed, New Haven and many cities did not suffer as much as gain from the easy money of the mortgage bubble.

Thousands of homes were improved, and median values of homes doubled in New Haven and Bridgeport in a ten year time frame.

Unfortunately, that is not the historic growth in property values and we are now living through the return to mean, of values and it hurts.

Had values increased more slowly bringing us to the same place, most of would have been fine with that.

The root cause of this problem is governments around the world printing money instead of pursuing more “organic growth”.

Too much money is chasing too few safe investments and the money keeps finding its way into risky spots.

Argentina, Condos, Tech, Indonesia, Mortgages, Alternative Energy.

Yes, it is certainly helped along by those who know better, but by now that should be you and me too, but it isn’t.

-

robn: This is not a depression, comparing it to the depression and trying to stretch today’s situation, with claims about how the data is being computed is self defeating.

Forget the stats, apparently they don’t matter anymore, just head over to Red Lobster on Friday night.

Yes 60% of the early mortgage defaults were in 5 states and those places and many of the people are really suffering.

What would be a $200,000 home in New Haven might have been nearly a $1 million dollar home in southern California.

5,000 people a week were moving to Las Vegas every week. Read that again, 5,000 people a week were moving there.

It doesn’t take an economics degree to realize that that was not going to end without trauma.

In each of the five states, Arizona, Florida, California, Nevada and Michigan, there were forces beyond the “easy money” that was fueling the potential collapse.

Another overlay for all our trouble had been predicted by many demographic’s experts as the result of the baby boomers moving out of their purchasing years into retirement.


I am not apologizing for large banks, I have never been a fan of them. It always seemed obvious that the risk to the system was to great and their approach too bureaucratic.

However, securitzation provided lots of credit to people who couldn’t get credit at all in the past. We wanted that credit and most of it was fully deserved.

Much of it did very good things for people.

Not everyone borrowed money they couldn’t pay back, not everyone refinanced their home, not everyone bought a bigger house even as their kids were leaving for college. 

The actions of people in a bubble, you me, your bank, your neighbor always are going to look ridiculous in hindsight.

It is nearly impossible to believe, but during the Tulip Bubble a SINGLE TULIP bulb sold for one million dollars (today’s money).

Like many people, I prefer smaller banks with more local control.

It is useful however to point out that it was during the time of local control of banks, with local managements and local boards of directors that the cities of Connecticut WERE in effect “hollowed out”. The late 70s and 1980s.

Most of the mortgages that were being made or not made were by banks that were NON-PROFITS.

There was no Countrywide, no GMAC and no other national mortgage companies.

It all happened decades before mortgages were securitized and sold.

posted by: Mitchell Young on December 27, 2011  5:20pm

The nature of blogging and rat a tat, responses probably doesn’t lend itself to the discussion of issues that I prefer.

What it does lend itself to however is the type of comment by eastShore - (a location that is a real haven for the downtrodden), that implies my views about providing mobility to low income people is some kind of cover for racism.

We have a saying in Brooklyn for that, but I can’t use it here.

I understand that some people will hold unto views regardless of who they really hurt or the unintended consequences of them.

The problem I see is that Democrats and most Liberals are stuck in the 1930s and Republicans and most Conservatives are stuck in the 1950s. I’m not for compromise to 1940, but for the realization it is 2012 and we have to move on.

I agreed to this discussion blogging exercise because it is more than past time that we in New Haven re-examine our rhetoric.

Why do you think that mobility is something for professionals and not the rest of us?

The claim of “99%” is the exact type of mis-characterization that we would sit around and PLAN to create when we were trying to open up the New York City University to minorities.

(When I went there less than 5% of students - and it was completely free.)

You may want to consider your basically protected status as troubled, as the young singer in the Hyundai commercial, “I want to be a billionaire” croons , but very few of the 99% actually share much with the bottom 20%.

This is a complete fabrication, indeed that group doesn’t seem to have as much time to feel sorry for itself.

Occupy Branford, Give Me a Break.

Today New Haven’s liberals have finally embraced education reform.

I started calling for it in New Haven in 1995, when the city, the business community (my readers) and nearly all of New Haven’s liberals would have no part of it and some were pretty vocal about it.

It was clear then there would be no economic justice without EFFECTIVE education for low income families.

Many in New Haven unwittingly threw away a generation of children, because new ideas didn’t fit their model.

Before you go ahead and imply my view was racist, perhaps you should examine how your views actually harm the people you claim to speak for.

When cities were booming in the south and jobs were being created in manufacturing and construction, why was our government policy directed atkeeping people in obsolete locations.

When there was no available labor to fill these positions, in many cases they were filled and recruited for by workers from other countries, legal and illegal immigrants.

This cheap and ready labor may have been very good for the overall economy, for the 1% and you and me.

It wasn’t good for the economic mobility of poorly educated blacks and other low income workers.

Demand for labor in the fast growing economies should have increased, instead it decreased.


Ms. Klein: It is not naive to say that the banks “hollowed” out the cities, it is just completely untrue.

Indeed, New Haven and many cities did not suffer as much as gain from the easy money of the mortgage bubble.

Thousands of homes were improved, and median values of homes doubled in New Haven and Bridgeport in a ten year time frame.

Unfortunately, that is not the historic growth in property values and we are now living through the return to mean, of values and it hurts.

Had values increased more slowly bringing us to the same place, most of would have been fine with that.

The root cause of this problem is governments around the world printing
money instead of pursuing more “organic growth”.

Too much money is chasing too few safe investments and the money keeps finding its way into risky spots.

Argentina, Condos, Tech, Indonesia, Mortgages, Alternative Energy.

Yes, it is certainly helped along by those who know better, but by now that should be you and me too, but it isn’t.

-

robn: This is not a depression, comparing it to the depression and trying to stretch today’s situation, with claims about how the data is being computed is self defeating.

Forget the stats, apparently they don’t matter anymore, just head over to Red Lobster on Friday night.

Yes 60% of the early mortgage defaults were in 5 states and those places and many of the people are really suffering.

What would be a $200,000 home in New Haven might have been nearly a $1 million dollar home in southern California.

5,000 people a week were moving to Las Vegas every week. Read that again,5,000 people a week were moving there.

It doesn’t take an economics degree to realize that that was not going to end without trauma.

In each of the five states, Arizona, Florida, California, Nevada and Michigan, there were forces beyond the “easy money” that was fueling the potential collapse.

Another overlay for all our trouble had been predicted by many
demographic’s experts as the result of the baby boomers moving out of their purchasing years into retirement.


I am not apologizing for large banks, I have never been a fan of them. It always seemed obvious that the risk to the system was to great and their approach too bureaucratic.

However, securitzation provided lots of credit to people who couldn’t get credit at all in the past. We wanted that credit and most of it was fully deserved.

Much of it did very good things for people.

Not everyone borrowed money they couldn’t pay back, not everyone refinanced their home, not everyone bought a bigger house even as their kids were leaving for college.

The actions of people in a bubble, you me, your bank, your neighbor always are going to look ridiculous in hindsight.

It is nearly impossible to believe, but during the Tulip Bubble a SINGLE TULIP bulb sold for one million dollars (today’s money).

Like many people, I prefer smaller banks with more local control.

It is useful however to point out that it was during the time of local control of banks, with local managements and local boards of directors that the cities of Connecticut WERE in effect “hollowed out”. The late 70s and 1980s.

Most of the mortgages that were being made or not made were by banks that were NON-PROFITS.

There was no Countrywide, no GMAC and no other national mortgage companies.

It all happened decades before mortgages were securitized and sold.

posted by: robn on December 27, 2011  6:07pm

Mitchell,

You write for a business journal so you should know this. (Its a bit more reliable than a trip to Red Lobster).

The widely reported unemployment figures today are U-3. This counts as employed some part-time workers working as little as an hour a week and those seeking full-time employment.

A counting method comparable to Depression era calculations (all post facto BTW…there was no official unemployment data until the 1940s) is U-6.  This counts as unemployed those seeking full-time employment, those working part-time for economic reasons plus marginally attached workers. Marginally attached workers include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work.

The BLS Stanley Lebergott calcs for 31’-36’ were 16%, 24%, 25%, 22%, 20%, 17%. (note that he included many full time workers in his calcs if they took government assistance.)

The BLS U-6 calcs for 09’-11’ were running near 17%. Not depression era peak but comparable to the mean.

posted by: dictionary defintions on December 27, 2011  6:15pm

To occupy is NOT just to take up space. It is to call attention to. I’m gonna keep occupying YOUR time so that you think about ME instead of foreclosing on someone’s house today. I’m gonna make YOU have meetings on HOW to deal with ME. I’m gonna take up your time. I’m gonna educate the public so that THEY take up your time and make YOU think.

I’m gonna bring ATTENTION to the blight. It isn’t about being IN the house…it’s that the NEWS is paying ATTENTION to the issues.

posted by: Threefifths on December 27, 2011  10:32pm

You can use the law call law of adverse possession.

posted by: Mark on December 28, 2011  12:35am

Mr. Holder-Winfield for president.  Mr. Young for vice president.

posted by: Andy Ross on December 28, 2011  7:50pm

Here is a reality check for anyone thinking about moving into property owned by a bank or any one else for that matter. It is called trespassing and you can be arrested for it. At very least the owner of the property will have the unwanted squatters removed through the court system. This will cause the property to linger even longer without a real caretaker.

What are they going to do in these houses turn on the heat and electric? Turn on the water? Mow the lawn? I don’t think so. They will be bad neighbors because they can care less about the property. They will consider their stay short term and will just move onto the next one once evicted. Perhaps they are considering occupying homes because it will be cushier than a tent. Get out of the park, don’t break and enter private property and get a job!

posted by: Harry on December 29, 2011  3:03am

It was bad enough these ...s chose to occupy public places in violation of the law.  Now they want to occupy private property?  If they chose to go down that path, they may risk being shot.

posted by: bad credit loans on January 6, 2012  2:35pm

I am not against stopping the corruption in the wall street or the world. I am not clear what it is being asked by the occupiers.  Another words, what is their mandates. There seems to be no specific mandate.

posted by: Kayln Mortimer on January 12, 2012  4:06pm

I could see Jennifer’s point too. As what I’ve understood, the growth of economic is not stable. So whether we like it or not, all of us will be affected of the downfalls.

Events Calendar

loading…

SeeClickFix »

Illegal Dumping
Apr 14, 2014 9:40 am
Address: 1655-1799 Chapel Street New Haven, Connecticut
Rating: 6

Construction debris - one large cabinet dismantled (3 or 4 pieces about 3 ft X 8...

more »
Tree Trimming
Apr 14, 2014 9:35 am
Address: 257 Quinnipiac Avenue New Haven, Connecticut
Rating: 1

Off of Barnes Avenue take a right onto Quinnipiac Avenue, tree is located on the...

more »

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

smartpill design