No, this is not a storage container, but a stripped AC unit on a bank-owned multi-unit property in Sacramento. Why do you think REO properties are such easy targets for theft? I gave some thoughts to this a few days back in an audio post. Obviously the properties are vacant, so it makes it easier to give the “five finger discount”, but is there something more sociological to consider here. Is it deemed more “acceptable” to take things that belong to a faceless bank as opposed to an actual person? Your insight and thoughts are welcome in comments below.
A real estate agent that was listing a REO property for sale recently told me that once the house went under contract, she removed the for sale sign because of the vandalism and theft. “Is it deemed more “acceptable” to take things that belong to a faceless bank as opposed to an actual person?” I always thought these vacant homes were just an easier target and the thieves really don’t care who they take from, a faceless bank or an actual person. But it is an interesting question.
That makes really good sense for the agent to remove the sign. I think you’re right about the stealing part. An easy target is an easy target and it’s surely not about taking from the banks in most cases (though at times a disgruntled owner can certainly take out frustration on the property because of the loan situation or whatnot – as we have both seen). With all that being said, I think there is some interesting conversation to be had still in this regard. There is something more easily digestable in society about stealing from the rich instead of the poor (sort of like Robin Hood). It’s funny how work and circumstances we run into can prod us to ponder certain things.