
Inside the Philly DA’s side hustle –selling seized homes to speculators and cops - walterbell
http://planphilly.com/articles/2018/12/07/inside-the-philadelphia-da-s-side-hustle-selling-seized-homes-to-speculators-and-cops
======
NPMaxwell
Key element in the article: "The new Philadelphia DA, Larry Krasner, ran for
office as a critic of forfeiture. But even his office admits the practice of
law enforcement taking and selling homes will never be completely over. "'We
have not suspended all forfeiture, but we have aggressively narrowed the size
and scope,' said Krasner spokesperson Ben Waxman. 'You actually have to be
convicted and the property has to be connected to the crime or purchased with
proceeds connected to the crime. There could be very small exceptions to this
rule, but that's generally it.'"

Seizures were abused much more under the previous DA -- including people
losing homes without being convicted. Krasner has stopped the no-conviction
seizures, and is dialing the whole thing back.

It's not trivial that this article embarrassing the DA comes out less than 12
months after Krasner was sworn in. He's not loved by the Philly Police.

[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/philadelphia-
dis...](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/philadelphia-district-
attorney-larry-krasner-criminal-justice-reform.html)

~~~
aswanson
His predecessor is in jail on corruption charges. He was loved by the police
for his civil forfeiture pursuance. Makes sense.

~~~
bilbo0s
Wow.

Read a little about the previous DA. Seems like a piece of work. It's
surprising to me because I didn't think DA's in other states were quite as
corrupt as some of the DA's we've had in Wisconsin are, but apparently
Pennsylvania has the corrupt DA problem too.

------
mmanfrin
Asset seizure is a fucking blight. If a chunk of your budget comes from
selling seized property, then you are going to prioritize seizing property.
Especially when _property can be fucking seized without a conviction_.

~~~
nikanj
It's not completely black and white though. In this modern world of
ransomware, mail-order drug trade and other lucrative side jobs, invisible
crime is easier and more prevalent than ever.

Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no
known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions,
etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just that they've
got millions of dollars and no explanation on where it came from.

Alas, this theoretically decent idea has been completely fucked up in it's
execution. But the core idea of asset seizure, namely that obvious proceeds of
a crime can be seized even when the crimes were committed in private.

Historically, I believe it was used against people who magically had gained a
fortune overnight, without forcing every bank to go through their vaults and
count the cash. Bootleggers, too.

~~~
bdhess
> Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no
> known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars,
> mansions, etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just
> that they've got millions of dollars and no explanation on where it came
> from.

Why should seizing assets be okay under those circumstances?

> In this modern world of ransomware, mail-order drug trade and other
> lucrative side jobs, invisible crime is easier and more prevalent than ever.

In this modern world of internet-connected financial institutions and big
data, following large amounts of money through the system is easier and more
prevalent than ever.

~~~
nikanj
>> Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no
known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions,
etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just that they've
got millions of dollars and no explanation on where it came from.

> Why should seizing assets be okay under those circumstances?

That one is a value judgement, and there is no right answer. Personally, I
think the system should be biased to discourage crime, even if it's very
unlikely you'll get caught. I know others place the value of freedom higher
than the value of, well, fairness. I prefer a nation where crime doesn't pay,
or if it does, you lose the spoils.

~~~
abecedarius
Lower probability of conviction can be addressed by increased severity of
punishment _upon conviction_.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
If that were true then we should expect the US to have a significantly lower
rate of crime than other Western democracies given that:

 _the United States had by far the highest reported rate of incarceration in
the world. Today, adult incarceration rates of the Western European
democracies average around 100 per 100,000, and in the common law countries of
Australia and Canada, the rates are only slightly higher. The U.S. rate in
2012 was seven times higher, at 707 per 100,000._ [1]

For this to be possible the US must have been incarcerating more people, for
longer, than other countries, which by your logic would reduce the rate of
crime.

I was under the impression it was widely accepted that increased severity of
punishment had only a small effect on rates of crime. The report I've
referenced seems to agree.

1\. Refer page 335 here
[http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/nrc/NAS_report_on_incarceration...](http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/nrc/NAS_report_on_incarceration.pdf)

I found that PDF here [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-in-
question/2...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-in-
question/201509/harsh-justice)

------
forapurpose
Important context: A recent batch of city DA's in the U.S. (I know Krasner is
one of them but I can't name others off the top of my head) are
revolutionizing urban law enforcement. Krasner, for example, is a civil rights
attorney who won the DA office on a progressive platform, which IIRC is not
dissimilar to the others. It's a revolution, as I said, and of course that
means that many vested interests have lost power and many other people will be
uncomfortable with the change. There are targets on the DA's backs.

That doesn't mean these DA's shouldn't face scrutiny (they absolutely should),
that they can't do things wrong, or that they can't be corrupt. But the
context is an important part of this story.

------
peterwwillis
The police-acquired homes are a red herring. They represent a fraction of the
properties being rebuilt by developers for new, rich, white renters. Anything
that isn't nailed down in Fishtown, NoLibs, and Kensington is being bought up
and developed into condos and apartments. The development is even pushing its
way south down Broad Street, with multiple new complexes of apartments and
shopping coming online.

Even if this seizure bs was not going on, nobody in this area of town will be
able to afford to live there in 5 years. And there's no new public housing
going up anywhere, because all the contractors are bidding ridiculously
inflated prices to build them.

This is going to push everyone in the area into the streets, or jail, and push
crime into every other corner of the city it can spread to, because nothing is
being done to help the people who have to resort to drugs to survive. Philly
is still very much a dangerous, desperate place to live.

~~~
ralusek
Are they being rebuilt by developers for rich white renters? Are you sure
they're not being built for rich renters?

~~~
peterwwillis
They're being built for _predominately_ rich white renters, based on the
people moving in to these neighborhoods for the past few years. It's a classic
gentrification story. Before you would have had mostly black and latino
residents, and now on many blocks it's mostly white residents [and
businesses]. The marketing is basically "Can't afford Williamsburg? Move to
Fishtown."

------
tw04
Anyone associated with government and their families should be banned from
buying seized property and any proceeds should be going into a general fund.

------
aswanson
How was this never challenged constitutionally with violation of due process,
at a bare minimum?

~~~
gammateam
Supreme Court has upheld civil asset forfeiture so far

Of course this is based on the arguments presented

And there are plenty of arguments remaining

All it comes down to is that nobody rich enough, and sympathizable enough, has
been subject to this yet. No random police department has seized a bank’s
property due to suspected association with an unspecified crime.

Gamblers driving with cash and illiquid homeowners are the ones that
experience this.

------
citruspi
Slightly related, I was reading this[0] over the weekend and it left me
incensed.

Behind a paywall, so relevant bits

> Uri Rafaeli is an 83-year-old engineer and great-grandfather. He never
> expected the government to treat him like a drug dealer or gang banger. But
> last year the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a county government could
> use civil asset forfeiture—the same legal process used by police to
> confiscate drug lords’ mansions—to seize a modest rental property Mr.
> Rafaeli owned because he accidentally underpaid his property taxes by $8.41.

> Mr. Rafaeli bought the house through his business for $60,000 in 2011. Later
> that year he inadvertently underpaid his property’s taxes by $496. When he
> learned of his mistake in 2013, Mr. Rafaeli attempted to pay the debt in
> full but failed to account for the interest that had accumulated since he
> received the bill. He came up $8.41 short.

> Unaware of his error, Mr. Rafaeli went on to pay his taxes in a timely
> manner in subsequent years. Nevertheless, in February 2014 Oakland County
> foreclosed on the property to collect the tiny debt, along with $277 in
> penalties, additional interest and fees. Six months later the county sold
> the property at auction for $24,500 and refused to refund Mr. Rafaeli any of
> the profits.

> ....

> The elderly, sick or economically distressed are most at risk of losing
> property over tax debts. Henderson Hodgens lost his childhood home and farm
> in Geneva Township, Mich., in 2014 when a hospitalization left him
> unexpectedly unable to pay his $5,900 debt. Benjamin Coleman—who suffers
> from dementia—lost his Washington, D.C., home when he forgot to pay a $134
> tax bill. Public outrage over his story prompted District of Columbia
> officials to change a confiscatory law to protect property rights.

> The Michigan Supreme Court agreed last month to hear Mr. Rafaeli’s case and
> will decide whether the Court of Appeals erred in its ruling that Oakland
> County had violated neither the Takings Clause nor the Michigan
> Constitution’s “just compensation” requirement. Mr. Rafaeli is prepared to
> take his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if need be, to stop
> bureaucrats from turning property tax collection into an instrument of
> government theft.

Absolutely fucking appalling stuff.

[0] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-8-41-in-unpaid-taxes-the-
go...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-8-41-in-unpaid-taxes-the-government-
took-uri-rafaelis-house-1544227055)

------
covercash
This was discussed earlier today on the r/Philadelphia subreddit and this was
the top comment:
[https://reddit.com/r/philadelphia/comments/a4xseb/_/ebigt2b/...](https://reddit.com/r/philadelphia/comments/a4xseb/_/ebigt2b/?context=1)

