The end justifies the means.
At least that's what Ode magazine would have you believe, in an article titled "A Place to Call Home."
Max Rameau, an activist for the homeless in Miami is held up as a role model for making a difference, by helping homeless people move into foreclosed homes. Would be nice if the owners of the foreclosed homes had consented to the arrangement.
Instead Rameau plays re-distribution czar by calling his initiative "Take Back the Land" and the matching of homeless families with foreclosed homes as "liberations." Say what? Since when is enabling others to become squatters considered a liberation? And how is this considered "taking back the land?" Rameau missed his calling as marketer.
The article points out that Rameau briefs the families ahead of time that what they are doing is illegal and as such has risks that include being charged with burglary, being deported, or having their children taken away. He goes on to say, "We just explained the levels on which you can hit and the only real question they had was, "Do you have any four-bedrooms?" This really speaks to how desperate people are."
Really? C'mon. You mean if someone is really desperate and they want to steal a car, they'll go for the Escalade instead of the Scion? Is that what he means?
The end does not justify the means. Let me say that one more time.
The end does not justify the means.
Photo by Mike Licht
I *totally* agree with you!
However, I have thought there must be some legal way for those empty homes to be used. One example is what my in-laws did. They sold their home recently. Until it was sold, a tenant lived there for next to nothing. She paid the utilities and kept it occupied till there was a showing. It was a win-win.
Yes, the situation you describe is a win-win. The important difference is that the owners *chose* to bring someone in and who to bring in and what to charge. I’m all for making use of idle resources, when there is consent from the appropriate stakeholders. My blood pressure goes up when someone or some entity decides they know best how to use resources that I own, without my permission. (Hey, I think I’m starting to sound like a Libertarian….)
Thanks for helping to make that clarification.
Ode sounds like he is trying to be a folk hero – but I don’t see what risk he is taking for the cause. The squatters are ‘informed’ of potentially serious consequences but are so desperate they’ll do anything to find short term solutions. Folks in that situation often don’t hear or evaluate risks clearly. I think that finding ways to use empty property makes a lot of sense, but it would be nice if all involved found ways to make it happen and not push already desperate folks into potentially riskier situations.
Thanks for your comment, Fred. While I can understand desperate people doing desperate things, I don’t believe that means abdicating judgment or personal responsibility. What does it say about how we view homeless people when we have to worry about “pushing them into potentially riskier situations?” I’d like to think that all of us, those with a place to live and those who do not, have the capacity to make good decisions.
I appreciate the dialogue and how this has sharpened my thinking.