HOMELESS WHO TAKE-OVER/DWELL IN VACANT BUILDINGS=> WOULD THIS BE OK WITH 'LANDMARK AUTHORITY,' LOUISVILLE KY???

 I am following Websites that proffer information about homelessness, in especial, sites that either ADVOCATE for the rights of the un-homed, and too those Websites that allude to resources that the homeless may use to further themselves for providing shelter. There are a lot of sites which have this function, .orgs, .govs and a few but evidently OK .coms. I just found a link that has folks un-homed in Eastern Los Angeles rather 'taking over' vacant properties which (for some odd-seeming reason) are owned by the California Transit Authority (which seems similar to our Louisville Transit Authority of River City TARC). From where I sit now, these in-dwellings have a semi-glow of "burglary" of a sort that might even be acceptable under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at its introit,

". . . it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights  should be protected by the rule of law. . ."

Not everything about Common Law of Ownership jibes perfectly with natural law, as even Blackstone's Commentary seems to admit=> this is almost a right conceded when I for one sit on stairsteps in front of houses in this Louisville "without asking the owner," yet I do recognize that 'property' in a town with our heritage of English rather-Feudal traditions does virtually in every case assert that "this is MY place, on the basis of surveys that go back to the Colonization of this Place at The Falls of the Ohio" (and had 'we' lost the Revolutionary War, different, likeliest more-Englished people would then claim "Mine" to the real estates are 'real' only in Euclidian dimensionless line projected between equally dimensionless points, whose assay then is posted as 'real' in the Courthouse).

Yet even in Louisville, there are some twinkling hints that the-homeless have some hope of finding a rooved shelter, 'theirs' and 'home' as I shall try to give-point=> THERE IS A GOVERNMENTAL 'LANDMARK AUTHORITY' IN THIS METRO, WHICH HAS NOW SOVEREIGN ABILITY TO SELL 'VACANT' AND 'ABANDONED' HOUSES; these structures, albeit often in less-than-perfect condition as 'fixer-uppers,' number about 600 places. Substantial but do-able changes in this Landmark system might, in my view, accommodate the great number of families live in tents, or 'shelter-shocked' in rather suspect-- much below the St. Vince de Paul place in which I huddle-- domiciles.

LET ME PRAY THAT THE LANDMARK AUTHORITY TAKES THIS MY HINT THAT-- AS LIVEABLE PLACES AVAIL FOR FAMILIES IN WHICH LIVING IS POSSIBLE-- AND BETTER THAN STAYING IN A TENT AT THE OVERPASS OF I-65 AND JEFFERSON STREET ETC.-- GIVEN THAT ADJUSTMENTS OF POLICY AND HUMAN DISCERNMENT WOULD OBTAIN.

I am not interested in this form of 'urban homesteading' because I work primarily with the-keyboard as say directed by brain-- I am a klutz for home repairs, dislike mowing and cleaning gutters as necessary, so in all ways I would prefer abiding in a place where others-- like a landlord more congenial in all ways that did for-no-stated-reason evict me-- take care of the maintaining that must be done in all such places that could be HOME. Nevertheless, there are probably numbers of homeless families who could use the Landmark Authority Homestead Option and then GET OFF THE STREETS, GET OUT OF THE WAY OF COPS, AVOID THE GAG-RESPONSE OF PASSERSBY FROM THE SUBURBS WHO WOULD PREFER AN-OUT-OF-SIGHT-OUT-OF-MIND FOR THE LIKES OF 'US.'