So this is a big deal: a super-long-time Minneapolis resident is being pushed out of her home of 23 years, on a block she’s lived on for over 50, for no other reason than the greed of her mortgage company and their affiliated leeches. There are already several foreclosed homes on the block: empty houses in a city witnessing a (surprise!) spike in homelessness.
She has dealt in good faith with the folks she’s shelled out more cash to than the house is worth in the first place; in return, they have made empty promises and now are poised to toss her on her ass.
In this age of staggering bailouts, one has to wonder: At what point is housing financing simply a naked profiteering gimmick rather than a mechanism for folks to “make their way,” as I remember being told as a child? Assuming the validity of all that rhetoric about middle-class ascendancy, shouldn’t it benefit the larger society, or neighborhood, or block, to provide houses for people rather than squirrels?
Or should it not?
I’m pretty sure it should. What’s more, I think it’s actually really simple: Houses should not be empty while people are homeless. And I’m really not interested in the impact this “radical” notion might have on the bottomline of taxpayer-resuscitated banks.
Call me crazy. Or “anti-capitalist.” Or “anarchist.” Guilty as fucking charged. Until someone else provides a logical reason why poor middle-aged Black folks should bear the brunt of super-rich white folks’ graft, I’ll be comfortable where I’m at … in the occasional empty house, clearing out some space for sleeping bags.
