More

'Occupy Our Homes' Spreads To The San Francisco Bay Area (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

Occupy Our Homes San Francisco

Posted: 12/06/11 09:46 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO -- Hundreds of foreclosure victims and tenants' rights advocates gathered throughout the Bay Area Tuesday as part of the nationwide "Occupy Our Homes" campaign, placing pressure on local officials and vowing to remain in their homes in the face of eviction.

In San Francisco, protesters convened at Vivian Richardson's Bayview residence. Richardson became a local symbol of the foreclosure crisis when her bank tried to seize her home despite months of unsuccessful loan modification attempts. Only after supporters spent a full day sending more than 1,400 emails on her behalf did the bank place her case under review.

Since then, Richardson has worked tirelessly on behalf of fellow foreclosure victims in her neighborhood, spearheading a movement called the "Foreclosure Fighters" and holding regular meetings at her home.

(SCROLL DOWN FOR PHOTOS AND VIDEO)

"It has been too long coming," Richardson told The Huffington Post. "We've been given the run-around from the banks and the lenders. We definitely need to be speaking up and speaking out."

Tuesday's event featured speakers from two other Bayview residents fighting eviction in the midst of complex loan modification efforts and a stagnant system. Denise Collins, a school bus driver, and Archbishop Franzo King, a church leader, both shared their stories and pledged to defend their homes.

After Richardson's meeting, dozens more demonstrators joined a march to City Hall to demand the sheriff place a moratorium on subsequent foreclosures. Sixty evictions are scheduled to take place in San Francisco on Wednesday alone.

And the numbers only get more staggering. Eleven homes on Richardson's block face foreclosure. Those houses join some 3,500 throughout the rest of the Bayview neighborhood, 12,600 in San Francisco proper and 2.1 million in the state of California.

"This is not some television movie. Although it probably seems like a scary movie," Richardson said. "These are real lives. You're closing up these foreclosed homes and leaving them to sit. If nothing else, rent it back to the homeowner until you decide what to do with it."

According to Grace Martinez, an organizer with the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, activists are pushing for a three-tiered strategy in San Francisco: place a moratorium on evictions while banks are investigated, enact legislation that protects tenants' rights, and create a larger platform for constituents to tell their stories and voice their concerns.

Meanwhile, across the bridge, protesters gathered at the West Oakland BART station with Just Cause (a multiracial grassroots organization promoting community leadership) and Occupy Oakland to protest the foreclosures in Oakland. In particular, the group protested Fannie Mae's aggressive foreclosure on the home of the Oakland-based Ramirez family.

At the BART station rally, Margarita Ramirez took the microphone and told her story, speaking in Spanish with a Just Cause translator.

"In 2009, my husband lost his job and we were unable to make payments on our loan. So we went to Bank of America and applied for a HAMP loan through Fannie Mae."

Ramirez said that both she and Bank of America continuously called to check on the status of the loan, but heard nothing from Fannie Mae. Finally, on April 18, 2011, Ramirez received a letter from the agency informing her that she was ineligible for the HAMP program, and had 30 days to explore other options. Two weeks later, while the Ramirez family was in the process of modifying their loan with Bank of America, they received a notification that the home had been sold -- nearly two weeks before the deadline.

"They didn't even give us a chance," Ramirez told HuffPost. "Bank of America asked them to rescind the sale, but they refused." Just Cause alleges that the Ramirez family may have been targeted for being poor, Latino and Spanish-speaking.

In a show of solidarity with the Ramirez family, protesters marched down the street to a local Fannie Mae foreclosed home on Tenth Street and Mandela Parkway that had been vacant for more than six months.

"We are here today so that a house that was vacant yesterday becomes one that has use to the community today," Nell Myhand of Just Cause told HuffPost. "90 percent of the foreclosed homes in Oakland were in the same neighborhoods where the subprime loans went. That's not a coincidence; that's egregious. We need our homes more than Fannie Mae needs one more."

Upon arrival, protesters hung banners around the home, set up community service tables in the living room and started cooking food for the hungry.

"We're going to keep occupying Fannie Mae's homes because they have homes that are vacant that could be put to good uses like housing people or providing services for people," said Robbie Clark with Just Cause. Clark said that the group would not leave the home until Fannie Mae returned the deed to the Ramirez family. "We're taking the opportunity to let Fannie Mae know that we're going to take your home until you give us back ours," she added.

Ramirez spoke with protesters and Just Cause supporters as her young son explored the home. Organizers posted a sign-up sheet for anyone who needed a place to sleep. Meanwhile, numerous police cars idled down the block. Although the scene at Tenth and Mandela was calm and celebratory, supporters said that they realized it would not remain calm for long.

Foreclosure victims and housing advocates say they are prepared to fight until the end.

"It took a lot to just say, 'You know what? I'm not going through this alone. My neighbors are going through it as well,'" Richardson said. "I had to put my shame and embarrassment behind me, leave that outside, and go fight."

Take a look at images and videos from Tuesday's events below:





FOLLOW HUFFPOST SAN FRANCISCO

SAN FRANCISCO -- Hundreds of foreclosure victims and tenants' rights advocates gathered throughout the Bay Area Tuesday as part of the nationwide "Occupy Our Homes" campaign, placing pressure on local...
SAN FRANCISCO -- Hundreds of foreclosure victims and tenants' rights advocates gathered throughout the Bay Area Tuesday as part of the nationwide "Occupy Our Homes" campaign, placing pressure on local...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 29
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
07:38 PM on 01/01/2012
Re occupying foreclosures: To throw some s..t in the game to forestall foreclosures the occupiers should get a "quitclaim deed" from the owners and plead this as a barrier to foreclosure. In most, some?, states pleading a quitclaim to forestall foreclosure will require a separate hearing on the validity of the quitclaim. The court's decision which will more than likely in against the validity of the quitclaim deed, can then be appealed to higher court and a motion entertained to delay proceedings in the foreclosure pending a decision on the appeal, which can then be appealed. Doesn't take too much paperwork and the forms can be used in other cases. With some coaching the cases can be carried forward by the grantees in the quitclaim deed. Sounds complicated but it really isn't, just like most legal proceedings.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:52 AM on 12/08/2011
You sign an agreement with the bank, promising to pay X every month in exchange for them loaning you a large lump sum up front to buy your house. You stop paying X, they get the house back. Modifications of the loan are a privilige, not a right. Stop and think about it before you sign on the dotted line.

It's tragic when something happens and people can't pay, especially when the bank won't modify to a more suitable set of terms and conditions. Yet, it's immoral to steal from the bank, which is what you're doing when you're going to "occupy" their legal and legitimate foreclosure.

Occupy...dang it, I want to love you, but then you go do stupid things like this. Protesting unfair lending practices shouldn't involve blocking legitimate foreclosures when people stop paying. Pass a hat, fund raise, provide lawyers to take it to court, but this...this isn't right. You gave your word to meet the terms of the loan or it would revert to the bank, you stop meeting the terms and it goes back to the bank, not "I'm not meeting the terms but heck with them and my word is meaningless".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
draken54
Don't make me call my flying monkeys
09:02 AM on 12/08/2011
But the Banks and Wall Street also had obligations to meet and agreements they signed, made promises and yet according to our Government they were too Big to Fail. So who bailed them out, WE the taxpayers. It was immoral for Banks, Wall Street and the Government to put this country in debt for trillions, to save them, when they made bad gambling decisions. And personally I do feel that after WE bailed them out, it is our right, not a privilige for modifications after making sure there butts were covered and their CEO's are still pulling in millions as bonuses.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BMHVR
06:05 PM on 12/08/2011
Many of the people living in the Bayview district in San Francisco probably never paid a dime in federal or state income tax in their lives. SO gimme a break. These deadbeats played no parts in bailing out the bank. HAVING SAID THAT, just to be fair, I am totally against bailing out the banks or any private companies in general with taxpayers' dollars. If the government is to bail out failed companies, you're right in how the government should have a say in how these companies run their business or pay their people. But the best course of action is to let the likes of Goldman Sachs and Bank of America break up and die a natural death and let their properly run counterparts take their place.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:38 AM on 12/09/2011
Two issues only slightly related.

Hypothetical:
You take out a home loan. You agree to pay X every month. You stop paying X, the bank takes the home back. The bank fails because many people didn't pay X. The government bails out the major lenders who made poor decisions giving loans to people who couldn't afford it.

The government bailout does not absolve you of your contractual responsibility to pay back the bank. If you're arguing that it should have, that would have stuck it to everybody who made their payments responsibly, which is no good.

TARP was terrible. The banks should have been allowed to fail, and gone through bankruptcy. The negative on the economy would have been worse short term, but probably better long term, replacing this drawn out no job garbage with a spike down and faster picking up. People who agreed to the loans did not have a clause saying "in case of government bailout, you're required to modify my loan" however.

TLDR: You made an agreement, stick to it or don't be mad that they take their house back...it's not your house till you pay for it.
08:37 PM on 12/10/2011
Bank bail outs are a privilege too, yes?

The Moral Hazard argument for home owners is BS if you do not think the banks should have gone under too.

What about all the Mortgage backed bond sold with a BS rating?

We could have let the banks go under instead of bailing them out. Now that they exist because of our bail out, is it too much to ask for some refinancing?

http://bit.ly/u8vz7s
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:46 AM on 12/11/2011
You talk as though you think I support TARP, which I don't. The banks should have been allowed to collapse, it would have been far better for our economy. Not in the short term, it would have been a rough year or two, but it would have snapped out by now rather than droning on for years with more years of it to come.

Either way, the two are not related. The federal government, once again, offered some botched refinancing assistance for people (notice a trend here, government involvement, things are botched?). The bailouts do not rewrite the original terms of the loan which people agreed to. Could it have? Perhaps, had it been a requirement of the bailout to offer refinancing to everyone, but it wasn't. Might as well go back to McDonalds and tell them you overpaid for a burger a year ago, and you want a quarter back.

Also...are you trying to sell me a t-shirt? I have plenty, thanks.
01:49 PM on 12/07/2011
no sob story here. i mean when you fail to pay for something, you never really bought it now, rite?

its called "GET OUT OF THE BANK's HOUSE and MOVE INTO AN APARTMENT". Then figure out what you can REALLY afford with your cash on hand and move there ASAP. there you go...not so hard is it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
draken54
Don't make me call my flying monkeys
09:04 AM on 12/08/2011
I totally agree, when the banks and Wall Street could not pay for their debts, they should have been allowed to fail, the same way that our economy is failing now.
photo
moonwolfph
I'm a Pacifist. Don't Make Me Kill You.
01:20 PM on 12/07/2011
When I applied for a mortgage, I used the mortgage calculators available online.
I figured out what I could afford, then went for the $129K house, NOT the $229K house for which the bank was willing to lend me.
Each month I pay $50 extra towards the principle, to pay the loan off faster.
I don't spend my $ on electronic games, eating out, I have a pay-as-you-go phone, I get the minimum cable TV channels...

SURE I have great sympathy for those who have lost their jobs. But I would sell all the furniture out of my house first on eBay if I needed, to keep it.
You have to do things w SOME sacrifice and sense.
And sometimes, LIFE SUCKS and you have to start all over again.
People used to deal w RATS in the streets.
Now they're in CONGRESS and on Wall Street.
I have sympathy for those who have lost their jobs AND I want to see ALL the crooks go to JAIL.
RightRealDeal
Keep The Change
10:16 AM on 12/07/2011
Ok, this is why we have Police Departments to correct the situation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anastmosis
01:55 PM on 12/07/2011
Police are there to make sure things are done legally. To do things correctly, laws must be in place which will correct the situation. At the present time, it is legal to have properties sitting idle, but it is not correct to have properties sitting idle attracting crime, and reducing property values. Occupiers are protesting the inaction of politicians to properly address this situation which hurts everyone.
RightRealDeal
Keep The Change
02:00 PM on 12/07/2011
but they have no legal right to occupy so they should be arrested and moved out
07:30 AM on 12/07/2011
I am confused------is it
Flea Baggers or
Free Baggers

Help
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HawaiiSteve
be your own lamp... let truth be your light!
04:13 AM on 12/07/2011
The theft of the equity in our homes was just a part of the ongoing efforts by Wall Street to strip the Middle Class of all its wealth and power. They're coming after Social Security next, and they'll rob it just as thoroughly. It's time to fight back!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:56 AM on 12/08/2011
It was artificial equity in the first place, it never existed. There was a housing bubble, and frankly it goes back to 1938. You're complaining that something that didn't exist was stolen. The market is correcting itself.

If you want the bubble reinstated, you're just kicking the can down the road to wreck another generation at some future point.
03:47 AM on 12/07/2011
Who wrote this article? Foreclosure "victim?" I know that when I closed on my mortgage I actually READ what I was signing! No one forced me to borrow the money either. Why do these borrowers have no sense of personal responsibility?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HawaiiSteve
be your own lamp... let truth be your light!
04:21 AM on 12/07/2011
What about Wall Street's responsibility for destroying the equity value of our homes? I bought mine with 15% down and a 30 year mortgage at 6%. Eight years later it's now worth half of what I paid for it, and I could lease twice the home for much less than my payment. Every dime I spend on my mortgage now is money I will never be able to recover. ALL the equity in my home disappeared because of greedy dealings in toxic mortgages that carried no risk for those who sold them.

Why am I responsible for all the risk, when other have made huge rewards through deceit? They knew from the beginning that their 'deals' were not sustainable. What do you think credit default swaps were all about? They protected themselves from the risk of their own greed, while stealing our futures. Where is their "personal responsibility?"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:03 AM on 12/08/2011
"8 years later" The legislation that sped up the bursting of the bubble was passed under Clinton, prior to you purchasing your home. Yet, someone did speak up on your behalf, back in 2002 he was fighting to protect you. If you want to read something that shows that this was something our government could have and should have prevented, read this: http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/ If you want to just skim, pay attention to the bolded parts, though I think you'll read through more thoroughly once you read the bold.

(That speech is also on youtube)

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
draken54
Don't make me call my flying monkeys
10:00 AM on 12/07/2011
We could also say the same about the Big Banks that we as tax payers bailed out. They, the big banks and Wall Street also knew the risks they were taking when they SIGNED on the dotted line, oh yeah, I forgot, they had Big Brother to bail them out.
02:41 AM on 12/07/2011
LOL

Losing the "battle" on occupying public property, they're attempting to occupy private property!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
iamyourknight
Imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever
01:46 PM on 12/07/2011
Oh, they've won. You're just too blind to see it.
12:28 AM on 12/07/2011
No comment....
11:30 PM on 12/06/2011
So the bank (BofA) actually tried to work with this family on the default of the loan but Freddie/Fannie refused to? But I thought the big bad banks were the enemy of the 99%'ers?
And Freddie/Fannie were actually supposed to be the middle man security between the people and the big banks. They offered the insurance of below market financing on risky homeowners.
And now Barney Frank is getting out? I wonder if the timing of his announcement has anything to do with the Shhit about to hit the fan!