Demonstrating that laws are written to protect the interests of the wealthy, on July 27, 2000, Superior Court Judge David Garcia dismissed HNJ's 2 year old lawsuit claiming title of a former squat at 715 Page Street. Although ruling on a procedural motion, Garcia announced many of his opinions as if they were facts which had been addressed at trial. In fact, the trial on the case was set for August and Garcia reefly gave his opinions on this procedural motion as if he had actually heard testimony and reviewed evidence.

HNJ members recognized at the outset that the courts were likely to do whatever they could to make sure a valuable piece of property did not wind up in the hands of previously homeless squatters (or poor people in general), even if the squatters paid the taxes and fixed up a building the owner neglected.

715 Page will now be sold to real estate speculators. Those who once lived there are homeless again.
 
 

715-717 Page Street has been continually squatted by Homes Not Jails since February, 1993. In the five years since, over 14 people (including two children!) who were previously homeless lived at Page Street anywhere between six months and five years. Page Street provided temporary housing (ranging from a few weeks to a few months) to about another dozen or so people.

As a model of a direct action approach to house people who are homeless, Page Street has been a phenomenal success. Once it was identified as vacant and abandoned, Homes Not Jails volunteers promptly entered the building and began living there. Since day one,  Page Street has been operated as a Homes Not Jails squat.

The organization provided logistical and support but the squatters ran their own household, deciding on house rules, deciding who would live there and deciding how household bills for utilities, food, etc. would be shared. The squatters fixed up Page Street considerably, cleaning it (it had been empty for some years), painting and doing minor repairs.

The people who lived at Page Street all moved in directly from the streets or shelters; all had extremely low income, receiving General Assistance (about $325 a month) and food stamps, at best. Ironically, most were "too poor" for available affordable housing units. Squatting at Page Street required only that each pay a nominal amount each month for electric, gas, and telephone bills, plus for shared household food.

For the first time in years, people had an address, telephone, a kitchen, and rooms of their own. Having such basics enabled many of the squatters to ultimately find jobs and, when they left, it was to an even more stable housing situation.

How Has Homes Not Jails Acquired Ownership
Under California state law, title to real property can be claimed via "adverse possession." Occupancy for five or more years which is open, notorious and adverse or hostile coupled with payment of the property taxes for the five year period results in the adverse possessors acquiring title.

Homes Not Jails has open, notoriously and adversely occupied 715-717 Page Street since February of 1993, a period greater than five years. On December 29, 1998, Homes Not Jails paid all the property taxes on the property from 1993 to present. Homes Not Jails now lawfully owns 715-717 Page Street.

To formalize that ownership, on December 31, 1998, Homes Not Jails filed a Complaint To Quiet Title To Real Property , the final stage in acquisition via adverse possession in which any and all other claims of ownership will be dismissed and Homes Not Jails will be awarded the deed.

Squatting & Adverse Possession
Squatting is the utilization of unused land or housing by a person who does so without the owner's consent. The history of squatting goes back thousands of years, Through history, squatters have been looked at as both good and evil_squatters, for example, were encouraged in the development of the American West, but are often seen in a bad light today.

The bad image which squatters have today, in fact, resulted in the United Nations affirming that squatting is a legitimate means to combat inequities in the allocation of housing and land.  The UN Commission on Human Rights in a report , "Twelve Misconceptions and Misinterpretations of the Right to Housing," sought to dispel the notion that "squatters are criminals." The Report found that generally an "impression is created that pavement dwellers are anti-social elements, and that a majority of them are criminally inclined, unemployed and not interested in working." However, the UN found that many squatters contribute to local economies and summarized "squatters and squatters' movements must be recognized for their noble and courageous efforts in developing efficient uses of property and alleviating one of society's ills."

Generally speaking, throughout history squatting has generally been seen as a positive force to effectively counter property inequalities whenever the availability of land and housing is insufficient but at the same time land and housing resources remain un-utilized by the legal owners. In other words, whenever there are people without housing and house not being used or whenever there have been people without food and farmland unused.

Because squatting was and remains a positive and efficient way to utilize unused property for people who do not have property, the legal concept of adverse possession was born_essentially to reward a squatter's continued productive use of land and housing by providing a mechanism to transfer the title to the property from the person who abandoned it to the person who has productively used it.

Adverse possession's roots lie as far back as the Roman Empire and the Code of Hammurabi. Preventing the waste of land resources and promoting owners to monitor their lands were goals of 16th century England when the first European adverse possession law appeared and these same motives led to the creation of adverse possession laws and procedures in 17th century colonial America. The basic premise of these laws was that land sitting unused when there were people willing to build, improve, cultivate and utilize the land was harmful to society's interests.