Homeless placed in foreclosed houses; conservatives' heads exploding

I've said it for years: With both foreclosures and homelessness at record rates, isn't it obvious what the vacant houses can be used for?

A man in Miami, Florida, has the same idea. He acts as a realtor of sorts - but the difference between him and a conventional realtor (besides the fact that he does his work for free) is that he helps the homeless move into foreclosed homes.

Squatting? Perhaps. But locals are pleased that this service graces their community. The homeless benefit from it, and other area residents say it prevents the houses from being targeted by vandals, arsonists, and thieves.

Who wouldn't be in favor of such a program?

I'll give you 3 guesses. Conservatives, that's who.

Right-wing websites are screaming to holy high bejeepers about the program. They whine because the homeless are "trespassing" on bank-owned property.

When you think of trespassing on bank property, you think of lingering in the bank lobby for 3 hours and pestering the tellers about the lollipop dish running low. But it's hard for me to sympathize with a bank when someone who desperately needs a home moves into a house the bank has foreclosed on.

Are we supposed to put corporate "rights" ahead of human needs?

Maybe the poor, poor, poor banks shouldn't have foreclosed on so many houses, if they didn't want people moving into them without permission.

It's like what happens when you leave perfectly good belongings out on the curb for the trash collector to take. If you abandon a brand-new armchair in the dumpster, you have no business complaining if someone comes along and takes it. If a bank abandons a perfectly good house, what business does the bank have to stop a person from claiming it?

The wingnutosphere's reaction to this story proves where their allegiances lie. They care more about big banks than about families who don't even have roofs over their heads.

(Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/02/national/main4642403.shtml)