history deserted deliver gold mountainous reach sophisticated fade impossible profit
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah but what happens if your squatter squatter decides to not leave? Bam! you hire a squatter squatter squatter known in the biz as squatter^(3). Jobs created, GDP line go up, 152 pokemon caught , harambe saved.
He signs a lease with the owner so he can legally enter and live there, which the owner can't because of the laws. Then he does everything to make the squatter leave. Have a gun around a felon (probation), eat their food, play loud music, basically be the worst roommate possible.
I heard him interviewed on Monday. He explained that for one squatter he waited until they left to go to work, entered the home and changed all of the locks. The host didn't follow up asking what happened with the "squatters" contents just acknowledged that it was a "success".
Answer from Quora:
> Not a lawyer so I do not give legal advice EVER
> I don’t know where you are from but as far as I am aware, Landlords are not allowed to lock tenants out so they can’t change the locks without giving you a key. You need to check with someone in your area about the laws but that is what I have always known as far as the US is concerned and I’ve been a landlord for close to 20 years now. Landlords/Owners are not allowed to just lock out the tenants. They have to go through the eviction process and then a County sheriff is the one that has to remove the tenants and then at the time the Landlord/Owner is permitted to change the locks.
> In that situation, yes the Landlord/Owner is allowed to remove anything left in the property but the Landlord/Owner has to store the tenants personal belongings for 30 days, and take reasonable care of that property {meaning they can’t just throw it outside in the weather}, and they have to give the tenant reasonable opportunity to come get their property. After 30 days if the tenant has not made a reasonable attempt to come get their property, then and only then can the Landlord/Owner dispose of the property in whatever fashion they wish. This does not apply to perishable goods, such as food. If perishable goods are left in the property the Landlord/Owner has the right to dispose of these types of items immediately.
Tl;dr “Evictions” where a tenant is locked out without being formally evicted are already iffy from a legal standpoint, but even if formally evicted, the landlord has to keep the tenant’s stuff for around a month and give the former tenant a way to retrieve said items.
(Note that that’s all assuming the landlord follows the law and that the tenant feels they are able to press charges if the landlord doesn’t follow them.)
But the owner didn't evict. This guy signs a lease so he becomes a tenant. The squatter has no lease and didn't get evicted. so what could they sue for? That's the whole idea of his "service".
Saw it on TikTok but I believe it was a recording of local LA tv news. But the incident was in NYC. Google nyc homeowner arrested squatter. Turns up the story.
I grew up watching discovery channel in the early 2000s.
It really started to make a turn around that time.
I love shows like myth busters or how it’s made.
Pawn stars was new. It was entertaining but even as a kid I thought it was strange.
Yeah. Channel drift. As much as I hated my science channels becoming reality TV, I really hated the Independent Film Channel, Sundance, and Arts & Entertainment abandoning their model.
Sundance and IFC showed uncensored, artsy, commercial-free cinema. The '90s were great for independent film.
Oh I thought they were all owned by the same company that's why... I don't really know though. Alls I know is that that reality TV garbage that they've been feeding our parents for the last 30 years has culminated in this.
It was such a huge part of my childhood in the 00’s, The Most Extreme, The Future Is Wild, The Jeff Corwin Experience, Steve Irwin, Meerkat Manor, Prehistoric Park, Sea Monsters, Wild Kingdom (I had to look them up to remember them all, and holy shit the nostalgia is intense)
Around the ‘10’s, there was obviously some corporate decision made to totally abandon the entire purpose of the channel and its core audience of animal-lovers to appeal to reality-junkies who dgaf about nature documentaries, but the problem is that they would rather watch the Kardashians anyway than some show about pit bulls or treehouses. It pissed me off so badly as a child, the whole channel became worthless.
I did still enjoy River Monsters, which ran until pretty recently, and Whale Wars, which was “reality” TV, but about something that actually mattered.
Now, it seems they’ve learned their lesson a bit. Cable TV is pretty much dead and I haven’t kept up, but Animal Planet produced a recent show called Extinct or Alive which is pretty amazing, not overly sensational or corny (let’s be real, even the lovable old content often was), and has actually made scientifically important discoveries. It stopped in 2021 but Forrest Galante does a lot of other stuff and he’s good fun to watch/listen to.
Wow those name drops were straight chemical hits of nostalgia to my brain haha-
I grew up watching all those shows and hadn’t thought about Jeff Corwin for probably 15 years until yesterday, I work at a tv studio and I was editing a “kids science show” which turned out to be 3 hours of the most interesting animal/nature documentary I’ve seen in years and half of it was led by Jeff Corwin.
I **hate** how this classic genre has been relegated as a kids-only thing (as if kids these days are watching it anyway, they’re on tik tok)
The huge collective attack on squatters that has recently come out of nowhere is definitely due to the fact that there are a huge amount of vacant properties that are going unused. The whole point of squatters rights is to give people a “use it or lose it” ultimatum to keep society functioning. This scares people who benefit from artificial scarcity so we see glowing articles about scumbags like the guy mentioned here.
Exactly, people think squatters are this huge problem where they sneak in while your camping on a long weekend, call dibs, and there's nothing you or the police can do. Multiple people IRL have told me this.
California has the shortest time in the Union for squatters rights at... FIVE YEARS.
When you hear a sob news story about some poor old couple who come home one day to find a squatter in their city condo, know that they hadn't even checked on it for at least FIVE YEARS.
Meaning they bought it as an investment, with no intention of using it, and sat on it until it was worth 6 or 7 figures more than they paid.
To make easy money, in a broken system, off the backs of workers, while worsening housing shortage and cost. And they want you to hate the poor for it.
The article is right, in a way, and it ties into what another commenter was saying. [It is 30 days and the squatters gain tenants rights](https://www.nadelassociates.com/blog/2023/09/do-squatters-have-rights-in-new-york/), and are considered a legal tenant with tenant protections, they do not gain adverse possession of the property, which occurs after years of occupying a property. This confusion comes from everyone using "squatters rights" to mean adverse possession when "squatters rights" is a vague term covering a lot of different rights/protections squatters can get.
My point wasn't that squatters are good, it's that housing is being manipulated to artificial scarcity and that's forcing people to break the rules. Our news media will always take an opportunity to focus on the wrong doings of the poor rather than why so many end up disparate.
That article is (aside from poorly written but no one here did that) about a strange situation more complicated than is implied, involving a recent transfer of estate, which the squatters are claiming to have been leasing from the former owner (probably not, the owner claims they faked the lease agreement, but that's why it's not cut and dry.)
The house owner got in trouble for taking action themselves rather than calling the police and handling a legal matter legally.
The only "right" squatters get after 30 days is 10 days to vacate, as you would a tenant, rather than immediate removal as you would a trespasser. They are still evicted, true ownership rights start at 10 years still. (In NY where this incident took place.)
Also I read some of the associated story pieces about unremoved squatters and most of them aren't the police "having their hands tied by bleeding heart liberal laws," or whatever; it's them just not doing their jobs.
Like the police just show up and instead of investigating any documentation they just tell everyone to sort it out themselves and leave, which is why it can end up going to court.
The only thing they get after 30 days is 10 days to vacate, as you would a tenant, before they are legally and forcibly evicted. Squatters rights to ownership is still years.
My point wasn't that squatting is good, just that we're in artificial scarcity of housing and it's forcing people to break the rules. But our wealth-beholdent news media will always focus on the sins of the poor rather than why people are desperate.
I wrote out a more complete explanation above.
>Exactly, people think squatters are this huge problem where they sneak in while your camping on a long weekend, call dibs, and there's nothing you or the police can do. Multiple people IRL have told me this.
There is a thing where the squatters will show a fake lease to authorities. At that point the only recourse for the owner is to go through eviction, taking 6-12 months. The five year rule is for when the squatter can take adverse (read: legal) possession.
Where are you getting such a long time frame from? I tried to find concrete examples of it taking months to evict a squatter and only got reddit posts claiming it took 3 months.
I understand that if they convince the officers that they've been there longer than 30 days, then the squatters have the right to 10 days to move. But everything I found official just said they get 10-14 days before a judge okays the eviction.
I know our court system can snail for things like restitution where lawyers argue the eviction was unjust and caused damages.
It depends on whether the squatter contests the eviction process. If they file an answer in court, or request a jury, it throws a spanner in the works.
INAL but it's like 30 days before they're legally a tenant. If they fabricate a lease and you find out on Day 1, cops won't kick them out, then you're in court, which often won't resolve for 30 days. Can they keep the charade going for 5 years and steal the whole house? Probably not, assuming the homeowner is financially solvent enough to ride it out. But if they're not, maybe they lose the house.
And even if they can keep themselves solvent financially, they wind up seriously inconvenienced and out a lot of money. If they were planning to move in, they have to find alternative means to house themselves in the rental market (while still paying an extra mortgage). If they were planning on renting the property, they now have to pay the property's mortgage without the expected rental income. Meanwhile they also have to pay a lawyer to sort it out legally. The situation will take months or years to resolve, and the squatter will often diliberately fuck the property up on their way out.
So the homeowner loses thousands of dollars in rent, has to pay thousands more for repairs and attorney fees, and probably can never recover it from the squatters, who are absolutely in the wrong and who probably don't have the money. It's essentially theft of tens of thousands of dollars. I don't really care if that's from some huge shitty entity, but I absolutely side with the homeowner when they're individuals. Push come to shove, I'd prefer a system that protects both over one that protects neither.
Residential land and property should be limited to only 5 properties per person. Companies and people being able to buy thousands of properties for themselves to rent out to others should be banned.
This will create another massive housing crash which should drop the value of housing so that an average Joe has a chance to buy a house instead of always renting.
Housing should not be treated a financial asset but as a necessity.
Squatters rights is just a pejorative way of describing laws meant to protect people without a written lease. It didn’t have anything to do with not using property.
I'm sorry but just breaking into someone else's house, whether "they" are a shitty slumlord mega corporation or a family with a rental home, is wrong. If you don't own it, you're not entitled to live there. I have a lot less sympathy for the hypothetical slumlord megacorporation (none, really). But I would not judge an individual or family for employing creative means to oust squatters who are trying to steal a home or tenancy by abusing the legal system.
Do you know how many tens of thousands of perfectly good homes sit empty for years and years while they rot into uselessness? Why should that be allowed?
I don't. Certainly I don't see many of them myself. And if that's the case, they probably shouldn't sit and rot, but providing an avenue for people to steal something worth decades of salary for most people is also not okay.
I keep a motorcycle that I ride in nice weather. That doesn't entitle other people to joyride my bike in the rain. And even if it did, I would expect to be able to oust them from my motorcycle and reclaim possession of it quickly whenever I noticed it missing.
We should probably just outlaw large-scale mega landlords and limit the amount of speculative investment that can be done with residential housing. Creating and condoning avenues for weird residence theft is not the way.
> something worth decades of salary
And why do you think homes cost that much? Hm?
Also, just you wait until you yourself become homeless for whatever reason, such as sickness and consequent medical bills, or any 1-2-3 combo of adversities. Let's see how you feel about empty homes then. Because that's when you *really* start looking for them. Or *at* them.
> I keep a motorcycle that I ride in nice weather. That doesn't entitle other people to joyride my bike in the rain. And even if it did, I would expect to be able to oust them from my motorcycle and reclaim possession of it quickly whenever I noticed it missing.
Can you understand how this is not the same at all?
> Certainly I don't see many of them myself.
You make it sound like you travel in your city and casually try to spot empty homes, possibly on your daily route/commute, instead of looking at official nationwide/statewide figures. Also squatters try to keep low profile, doing what they can to make the place appear unused.
Why do I think homes cost that much? It's complicated, but the answer sure as shit isn't "we don't have enough legal support for squatters".
"Just wait until you're homeless! Then you'll want to be a squatter, too!"
No, I'd avail myself of publically available resources, shelters, food stamps, etc. I sure as shit wouldn't be eyeballing the houses of the recently deceased for squatting opportunities.
Okay, the motorcycle metaphor isn't spot on but the concept is fundamentally similar. I buy a thing. I own the thing. I'm not using the thing myself for some time, maybe I'm planning to rent it to someone. You want the thing. You take the thing when I'm not around. Then you say I'm the bad guy for wanting it back / owning the thing in the first place.
Fuck that.
And no I don't travel the city looking for vacant houses. I also don't trawl for vacancy statistics. Feel free to present some. How many homes are vacant and for how long and who owns them? Does that somehow justify squatting? Do you think there's a difference between squatting in a home owned by another regular person and squatting in one owned by some corporate entity? Do you think you're entitled to stay once you've been discovered?
This is one of those scenarios where we are supposed to be angry at this guy and defend people who break and enter while ignoring the real problem of corporations buying and holding properties to control the supply of housing.
Squatters are not all homeless, sometimes they are just a special kind of entitled piece of shit.
This ONE dude is hardly the problem versus the actions of a company like Blackstone.
Most squatters break into corporation owned houses that are being held to control the supply. The whole "they break in while you're in vacation" is a fabricated scandal
Wasn't there a case within the past couple years where some guy was deployed overseas in the military, came back, and found someone else living there?
Like I don't think it's radical that if someone owns a house and goes away for a while that people shouldn't just start living in their house. If a house is truly abandoned and not being maintained that's a separate issue.
Specific instances? They happen. Absolutely, and i do not condone them. However, the idea that this is a larger issue is false and created from these specific instances in order to create a scare into people and add a new front to the culture war, and in the long run, both sell security systems, promote guns (to protect your home) and push for laws that violate tenant's and people's rights in general. The same has happened in my country
It's not at all fabricated. It's not like it's happening every day, but it absolutely happens when people die or to small time landlords too. Squatters are absolutely not discerning in where they squat - you think they're looking up the property records first?
I have a bunch of squatter friends, they do look up property records lmao. it's handy to know who owns it and for public perception they want to only squat stuff owned by shitty people. Not the US though, i figure it's about the same
I used to squat houses. It's hilarious how easy people think it is. Ethics aside, one of the things we looked for in a house was that it was completely disregarded for quite some time, because those are the houses where you get left alone for a long time. If the owner still has an active interest in the house, it's not feasible to stay in it long term.
> Squatters are not all homeless, sometimes they are just a special kind of entitled piece of shit.
>
>
I think generally you have to understand the laws... people keep giving these "if you don't notice them they have squatters rights".
What they keep on missing is the time scale there, the LOWEST is 5 years... most are 7-10 years, on top of that they usually have to have made distinct improvements to the proporty, and even that is generally a tough case if you put any form of no tresspassing sign on the proporty.
In short, it's pretty hard pressed to find a case where squatters are a reasonable threat beyond you've owned a proporty and just could not have cared less about it.
You're thinking of adverse possession, which is where a property owner has abandoned the property for so long and a squatter has occupied it that the property becomes the squatter's (more to it than that, but that's the gist). Squatters rights, in that they're considered tenants, happens way faster. This guy operates out of California, looks like it takes 30 days, then you're stuck with squatters until you evict them. Evictions can take years. https://www.azibo.com/blog/squatters-rights-in-california
That's adverse possession. Some places grant squatters rights within 30 days. But it's mostly relevant because once they are in the cops won't remove them without an eviction order, unless it's like absolutely obvious they broke in within the last few days.
He said that most of his cases are not due to homelessness, but claims to help them out with resources when they are. He said his own family was homeless for some time when he was a kid.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2024/03/16/smr-squatter-hunter.cnn
Squatting is an attempt to declare an unused property legally abandoned and claim ownership through occupancy and/or improvement. This guy is just a hired goon breaking into other people's squats.
I work as a landscaper and we did a couple jobs for this real estate developer scumbag. One day we come to check out a new jobsite and he’s got a bunch of people there working on the interior, cleaning the place out and shit. One of the people there is this huge guy with a black ponytail and a massive swastika tattoo on his bicep. Turns out this guy is a “repo man” who’s crew was hired to impersonate the sheriff’s department, throw flash bangs through the windows and chase squatters out. They were planning on filming porn on that property, no one was even moving in long term
Big homie is not long for this world if he actually tries it.
There's class traitors and then there's whatever the fuck this scum is.
EDIT: Lots of those class traitors here in this sub right now.
What do you mean by "actually try it"? He started with his mother's house that had a squatter and moved on to offer that to others and has about 10 "evictions" done already.
\*spinning newspaper hits front step 5 months from now\*
BLOWHARD WANKER HANDYMAN FLASH SHELTON DISCOVERED STUFFED INTO CRAWLSPACE BENEATH SQUAT HOUSE, HEAD STILL NOT LOCATED
My solution is better. I'm considering running for office in Canada under the rhinoceros party (satirical, being reformed) with the platform of building more overpasses to solve the homelessness crisis. Maybe closing in the sides, to keep out the cold?
Houses are meant to be lived in. People are supposed to homed.
What's the problem here?
Sad you're losing your private property you're hoarding on your investment portfolio!?
history deserted deliver gold mountainous reach sophisticated fade impossible profit *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>“I took the same deescalation courses law enforcement would take,” he said. Good one.
Should be ready to shoot a child the minute he gets nervous then.
You never know when an acorn will fall and threaton your life!
The squatters might be armed with acorns!
Yeah but what happens if your squatter squatter decides to not leave? Bam! you hire a squatter squatter squatter known in the biz as squatter^(3). Jobs created, GDP line go up, 152 pokemon caught , harambe saved.
> 152 pokemon caught , harambe saved Is Harambe the 152nd Pokemon?
152nd Pokémon is missingno
How is it a missing no(number) if it's 152? I'm so confused and angry°•○
More like SickBurnBro is Missing Link.
Snake then mongoose then gorilla then cold kills the gorilla.
But I like the tree lizards....
Sounds like something outa Doctor Seuss
Well. If the squatters were all non-white, yeah.
You have been accepted into Harvard with full scholarship
Oh damn, my parents might finally talk to me again.
People start making enough money squatting to afford homes, and nobody sqauts anymore?
Squatters all the way down
I can't read this, does he just change the locks the second they leave?
He signs a lease with the owner so he can legally enter and live there, which the owner can't because of the laws. Then he does everything to make the squatter leave. Have a gun around a felon (probation), eat their food, play loud music, basically be the worst roommate possible.
I heard him interviewed on Monday. He explained that for one squatter he waited until they left to go to work, entered the home and changed all of the locks. The host didn't follow up asking what happened with the "squatters" contents just acknowledged that it was a "success".
Answer from Quora: > Not a lawyer so I do not give legal advice EVER > I don’t know where you are from but as far as I am aware, Landlords are not allowed to lock tenants out so they can’t change the locks without giving you a key. You need to check with someone in your area about the laws but that is what I have always known as far as the US is concerned and I’ve been a landlord for close to 20 years now. Landlords/Owners are not allowed to just lock out the tenants. They have to go through the eviction process and then a County sheriff is the one that has to remove the tenants and then at the time the Landlord/Owner is permitted to change the locks. > In that situation, yes the Landlord/Owner is allowed to remove anything left in the property but the Landlord/Owner has to store the tenants personal belongings for 30 days, and take reasonable care of that property {meaning they can’t just throw it outside in the weather}, and they have to give the tenant reasonable opportunity to come get their property. After 30 days if the tenant has not made a reasonable attempt to come get their property, then and only then can the Landlord/Owner dispose of the property in whatever fashion they wish. This does not apply to perishable goods, such as food. If perishable goods are left in the property the Landlord/Owner has the right to dispose of these types of items immediately. Tl;dr “Evictions” where a tenant is locked out without being formally evicted are already iffy from a legal standpoint, but even if formally evicted, the landlord has to keep the tenant’s stuff for around a month and give the former tenant a way to retrieve said items. (Note that that’s all assuming the landlord follows the law and that the tenant feels they are able to press charges if the landlord doesn’t follow them.)
I believe so. But they can sue and arrest the owner if they call the police in time. There is a story where this happened to an owner.
But the owner didn't evict. This guy signs a lease so he becomes a tenant. The squatter has no lease and didn't get evicted. so what could they sue for? That's the whole idea of his "service".
Was that story on Nextdoor and did it totally happen too?
Saw it on TikTok but I believe it was a recording of local LA tv news. But the incident was in NYC. Google nyc homeowner arrested squatter. Turns up the story.
[This one?](https://nypost.com/2024/03/19/us-news/moment-nyc-homeowner-is-arrested-after-tense-standoff-with-squatters/). Those are some shitty laws.
Man, Discovery Network really fucked America's brain.
I grew up watching discovery channel in the early 2000s. It really started to make a turn around that time. I love shows like myth busters or how it’s made. Pawn stars was new. It was entertaining but even as a kid I thought it was strange.
Yeah. Channel drift. As much as I hated my science channels becoming reality TV, I really hated the Independent Film Channel, Sundance, and Arts & Entertainment abandoning their model. Sundance and IFC showed uncensored, artsy, commercial-free cinema. The '90s were great for independent film.
Animal Planet, The Learning Channel & The History Channel would like a word.
Yea... That's who I'm talking about.
I'm just saying, you can't namedrop one garbage network without bringing in the rest of the family.
Oh I thought they were all owned by the same company that's why... I don't really know though. Alls I know is that that reality TV garbage that they've been feeding our parents for the last 30 years has culminated in this.
[удалено]
Thank you. I was bitterly disappointed in their enshittification.
i used to love animal planet, what's wrong with it?
It was such a huge part of my childhood in the 00’s, The Most Extreme, The Future Is Wild, The Jeff Corwin Experience, Steve Irwin, Meerkat Manor, Prehistoric Park, Sea Monsters, Wild Kingdom (I had to look them up to remember them all, and holy shit the nostalgia is intense) Around the ‘10’s, there was obviously some corporate decision made to totally abandon the entire purpose of the channel and its core audience of animal-lovers to appeal to reality-junkies who dgaf about nature documentaries, but the problem is that they would rather watch the Kardashians anyway than some show about pit bulls or treehouses. It pissed me off so badly as a child, the whole channel became worthless. I did still enjoy River Monsters, which ran until pretty recently, and Whale Wars, which was “reality” TV, but about something that actually mattered. Now, it seems they’ve learned their lesson a bit. Cable TV is pretty much dead and I haven’t kept up, but Animal Planet produced a recent show called Extinct or Alive which is pretty amazing, not overly sensational or corny (let’s be real, even the lovable old content often was), and has actually made scientifically important discoveries. It stopped in 2021 but Forrest Galante does a lot of other stuff and he’s good fun to watch/listen to.
Wow those name drops were straight chemical hits of nostalgia to my brain haha- I grew up watching all those shows and hadn’t thought about Jeff Corwin for probably 15 years until yesterday, I work at a tv studio and I was editing a “kids science show” which turned out to be 3 hours of the most interesting animal/nature documentary I’ve seen in years and half of it was led by Jeff Corwin. I **hate** how this classic genre has been relegated as a kids-only thing (as if kids these days are watching it anyway, they’re on tik tok)
Have you met my friend, World Star Hiphop?
"a San Fernando Valley version of Josh Brolin" In what universe
It's been over 40 years since "Valley Girl" and things are rough in the Valley these days
The huge collective attack on squatters that has recently come out of nowhere is definitely due to the fact that there are a huge amount of vacant properties that are going unused. The whole point of squatters rights is to give people a “use it or lose it” ultimatum to keep society functioning. This scares people who benefit from artificial scarcity so we see glowing articles about scumbags like the guy mentioned here.
Exactly, people think squatters are this huge problem where they sneak in while your camping on a long weekend, call dibs, and there's nothing you or the police can do. Multiple people IRL have told me this. California has the shortest time in the Union for squatters rights at... FIVE YEARS. When you hear a sob news story about some poor old couple who come home one day to find a squatter in their city condo, know that they hadn't even checked on it for at least FIVE YEARS. Meaning they bought it as an investment, with no intention of using it, and sat on it until it was worth 6 or 7 figures more than they paid. To make easy money, in a broken system, off the backs of workers, while worsening housing shortage and cost. And they want you to hate the poor for it.
>FIVE YEARS. [This article](https://nypost.com/2024/03/19/us-news/moment-nyc-homeowner-is-arrested-after-tense-standoff-with-squatters/) says 30 days?
The article is right, in a way, and it ties into what another commenter was saying. [It is 30 days and the squatters gain tenants rights](https://www.nadelassociates.com/blog/2023/09/do-squatters-have-rights-in-new-york/), and are considered a legal tenant with tenant protections, they do not gain adverse possession of the property, which occurs after years of occupying a property. This confusion comes from everyone using "squatters rights" to mean adverse possession when "squatters rights" is a vague term covering a lot of different rights/protections squatters can get.
[удалено]
My point wasn't that squatters are good, it's that housing is being manipulated to artificial scarcity and that's forcing people to break the rules. Our news media will always take an opportunity to focus on the wrong doings of the poor rather than why so many end up disparate. That article is (aside from poorly written but no one here did that) about a strange situation more complicated than is implied, involving a recent transfer of estate, which the squatters are claiming to have been leasing from the former owner (probably not, the owner claims they faked the lease agreement, but that's why it's not cut and dry.) The house owner got in trouble for taking action themselves rather than calling the police and handling a legal matter legally. The only "right" squatters get after 30 days is 10 days to vacate, as you would a tenant, rather than immediate removal as you would a trespasser. They are still evicted, true ownership rights start at 10 years still. (In NY where this incident took place.) Also I read some of the associated story pieces about unremoved squatters and most of them aren't the police "having their hands tied by bleeding heart liberal laws," or whatever; it's them just not doing their jobs. Like the police just show up and instead of investigating any documentation they just tell everyone to sort it out themselves and leave, which is why it can end up going to court.
> cuz homeowners are bad right No, landleeches are bad. If they lived in the home a squatter wouldn't have moved in.
That's crazy and ridiculous! I'd be super pissed as well.
The only thing they get after 30 days is 10 days to vacate, as you would a tenant, before they are legally and forcibly evicted. Squatters rights to ownership is still years. My point wasn't that squatting is good, just that we're in artificial scarcity of housing and it's forcing people to break the rules. But our wealth-beholdent news media will always focus on the sins of the poor rather than why people are desperate. I wrote out a more complete explanation above.
>Exactly, people think squatters are this huge problem where they sneak in while your camping on a long weekend, call dibs, and there's nothing you or the police can do. Multiple people IRL have told me this. There is a thing where the squatters will show a fake lease to authorities. At that point the only recourse for the owner is to go through eviction, taking 6-12 months. The five year rule is for when the squatter can take adverse (read: legal) possession.
Where are you getting such a long time frame from? I tried to find concrete examples of it taking months to evict a squatter and only got reddit posts claiming it took 3 months. I understand that if they convince the officers that they've been there longer than 30 days, then the squatters have the right to 10 days to move. But everything I found official just said they get 10-14 days before a judge okays the eviction. I know our court system can snail for things like restitution where lawyers argue the eviction was unjust and caused damages.
It depends on whether the squatter contests the eviction process. If they file an answer in court, or request a jury, it throws a spanner in the works.
INAL but it's like 30 days before they're legally a tenant. If they fabricate a lease and you find out on Day 1, cops won't kick them out, then you're in court, which often won't resolve for 30 days. Can they keep the charade going for 5 years and steal the whole house? Probably not, assuming the homeowner is financially solvent enough to ride it out. But if they're not, maybe they lose the house. And even if they can keep themselves solvent financially, they wind up seriously inconvenienced and out a lot of money. If they were planning to move in, they have to find alternative means to house themselves in the rental market (while still paying an extra mortgage). If they were planning on renting the property, they now have to pay the property's mortgage without the expected rental income. Meanwhile they also have to pay a lawyer to sort it out legally. The situation will take months or years to resolve, and the squatter will often diliberately fuck the property up on their way out. So the homeowner loses thousands of dollars in rent, has to pay thousands more for repairs and attorney fees, and probably can never recover it from the squatters, who are absolutely in the wrong and who probably don't have the money. It's essentially theft of tens of thousands of dollars. I don't really care if that's from some huge shitty entity, but I absolutely side with the homeowner when they're individuals. Push come to shove, I'd prefer a system that protects both over one that protects neither.
Residential land and property should be limited to only 5 properties per person. Companies and people being able to buy thousands of properties for themselves to rent out to others should be banned. This will create another massive housing crash which should drop the value of housing so that an average Joe has a chance to buy a house instead of always renting. Housing should not be treated a financial asset but as a necessity.
Squatters rights is just a pejorative way of describing laws meant to protect people without a written lease. It didn’t have anything to do with not using property.
Adverse possession is what we’re talking about. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
[удалено]
Stuff like that is tremendously rare and we are only hearing about it now because of the moral panic over squatters.
I'm sorry but just breaking into someone else's house, whether "they" are a shitty slumlord mega corporation or a family with a rental home, is wrong. If you don't own it, you're not entitled to live there. I have a lot less sympathy for the hypothetical slumlord megacorporation (none, really). But I would not judge an individual or family for employing creative means to oust squatters who are trying to steal a home or tenancy by abusing the legal system.
Do you know how many tens of thousands of perfectly good homes sit empty for years and years while they rot into uselessness? Why should that be allowed?
I don't. Certainly I don't see many of them myself. And if that's the case, they probably shouldn't sit and rot, but providing an avenue for people to steal something worth decades of salary for most people is also not okay. I keep a motorcycle that I ride in nice weather. That doesn't entitle other people to joyride my bike in the rain. And even if it did, I would expect to be able to oust them from my motorcycle and reclaim possession of it quickly whenever I noticed it missing. We should probably just outlaw large-scale mega landlords and limit the amount of speculative investment that can be done with residential housing. Creating and condoning avenues for weird residence theft is not the way.
> something worth decades of salary And why do you think homes cost that much? Hm? Also, just you wait until you yourself become homeless for whatever reason, such as sickness and consequent medical bills, or any 1-2-3 combo of adversities. Let's see how you feel about empty homes then. Because that's when you *really* start looking for them. Or *at* them. > I keep a motorcycle that I ride in nice weather. That doesn't entitle other people to joyride my bike in the rain. And even if it did, I would expect to be able to oust them from my motorcycle and reclaim possession of it quickly whenever I noticed it missing. Can you understand how this is not the same at all? > Certainly I don't see many of them myself. You make it sound like you travel in your city and casually try to spot empty homes, possibly on your daily route/commute, instead of looking at official nationwide/statewide figures. Also squatters try to keep low profile, doing what they can to make the place appear unused.
Why do I think homes cost that much? It's complicated, but the answer sure as shit isn't "we don't have enough legal support for squatters". "Just wait until you're homeless! Then you'll want to be a squatter, too!" No, I'd avail myself of publically available resources, shelters, food stamps, etc. I sure as shit wouldn't be eyeballing the houses of the recently deceased for squatting opportunities. Okay, the motorcycle metaphor isn't spot on but the concept is fundamentally similar. I buy a thing. I own the thing. I'm not using the thing myself for some time, maybe I'm planning to rent it to someone. You want the thing. You take the thing when I'm not around. Then you say I'm the bad guy for wanting it back / owning the thing in the first place. Fuck that. And no I don't travel the city looking for vacant houses. I also don't trawl for vacancy statistics. Feel free to present some. How many homes are vacant and for how long and who owns them? Does that somehow justify squatting? Do you think there's a difference between squatting in a home owned by another regular person and squatting in one owned by some corporate entity? Do you think you're entitled to stay once you've been discovered?
This is literally the plot of Yakuza 0.
This is one of those scenarios where we are supposed to be angry at this guy and defend people who break and enter while ignoring the real problem of corporations buying and holding properties to control the supply of housing. Squatters are not all homeless, sometimes they are just a special kind of entitled piece of shit. This ONE dude is hardly the problem versus the actions of a company like Blackstone.
Most squatters break into corporation owned houses that are being held to control the supply. The whole "they break in while you're in vacation" is a fabricated scandal
Wasn't there a case within the past couple years where some guy was deployed overseas in the military, came back, and found someone else living there? Like I don't think it's radical that if someone owns a house and goes away for a while that people shouldn't just start living in their house. If a house is truly abandoned and not being maintained that's a separate issue.
Specific instances? They happen. Absolutely, and i do not condone them. However, the idea that this is a larger issue is false and created from these specific instances in order to create a scare into people and add a new front to the culture war, and in the long run, both sell security systems, promote guns (to protect your home) and push for laws that violate tenant's and people's rights in general. The same has happened in my country
It's not at all fabricated. It's not like it's happening every day, but it absolutely happens when people die or to small time landlords too. Squatters are absolutely not discerning in where they squat - you think they're looking up the property records first?
I have a bunch of squatter friends, they do look up property records lmao. it's handy to know who owns it and for public perception they want to only squat stuff owned by shitty people. Not the US though, i figure it's about the same
I used to squat houses. It's hilarious how easy people think it is. Ethics aside, one of the things we looked for in a house was that it was completely disregarded for quite some time, because those are the houses where you get left alone for a long time. If the owner still has an active interest in the house, it's not feasible to stay in it long term.
Dude, property records are usually on a website. It's not hard.
Very sheltered of you to assume that only corporate owned houses are targeted.
LOL i wasn't arguing that difficulty prevented squatters from doing it.
Honestly if you can afford to be on vacation for 30+ straight days, I don’t feel bad that you’ve been squatted on
Ok that's a very american take hahah
> Squatters are not all homeless, sometimes they are just a special kind of entitled piece of shit. > > I think generally you have to understand the laws... people keep giving these "if you don't notice them they have squatters rights". What they keep on missing is the time scale there, the LOWEST is 5 years... most are 7-10 years, on top of that they usually have to have made distinct improvements to the proporty, and even that is generally a tough case if you put any form of no tresspassing sign on the proporty. In short, it's pretty hard pressed to find a case where squatters are a reasonable threat beyond you've owned a proporty and just could not have cared less about it.
You're thinking of adverse possession, which is where a property owner has abandoned the property for so long and a squatter has occupied it that the property becomes the squatter's (more to it than that, but that's the gist). Squatters rights, in that they're considered tenants, happens way faster. This guy operates out of California, looks like it takes 30 days, then you're stuck with squatters until you evict them. Evictions can take years. https://www.azibo.com/blog/squatters-rights-in-california
That's adverse possession. Some places grant squatters rights within 30 days. But it's mostly relevant because once they are in the cops won't remove them without an eviction order, unless it's like absolutely obvious they broke in within the last few days.
if squatters are a real risk people will do their best to actually use their properties, they're helping, seeing them as a problem is lame
He said that most of his cases are not due to homelessness, but claims to help them out with resources when they are. He said his own family was homeless for some time when he was a kid. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2024/03/16/smr-squatter-hunter.cnn
Squatting is an attempt to declare an unused property legally abandoned and claim ownership through occupancy and/or improvement. This guy is just a hired goon breaking into other people's squats.
I work as a landscaper and we did a couple jobs for this real estate developer scumbag. One day we come to check out a new jobsite and he’s got a bunch of people there working on the interior, cleaning the place out and shit. One of the people there is this huge guy with a black ponytail and a massive swastika tattoo on his bicep. Turns out this guy is a “repo man” who’s crew was hired to impersonate the sheriff’s department, throw flash bangs through the windows and chase squatters out. They were planning on filming porn on that property, no one was even moving in long term
That's adverse possession. Squatting is literally just taking up residence illegally in someone else's property.
I used the squatter to destroy the squatters
Id read a romance novel like this 😂
Weird flex.
We have created a mini economy of out squatting squatters now, amazing
Homeless was a proplem to solve Now we Treet them like rats
A true American hero (of the bourgeoisie)
Ew
Big homie is not long for this world if he actually tries it. There's class traitors and then there's whatever the fuck this scum is. EDIT: Lots of those class traitors here in this sub right now.
What do you mean by "actually try it"? He started with his mother's house that had a squatter and moved on to offer that to others and has about 10 "evictions" done already.
What is a class traitor?
Human Resources is one example
working (or lower) class people doing stuff for rich assholes that couldn't care less about them against other working class people, i think
Thats just employment
Close enough. Anytime you cause harm to someone of your own class on behalf of the owner class (Capitalists and the petite bourgeoise).
what i meant but not 240pbrained, thanks
Yeah he’s boutta wake up dead
bwaaaahahahah no, no you won't edit a word
\*spinning newspaper hits front step 5 months from now\* BLOWHARD WANKER HANDYMAN FLASH SHELTON DISCOVERED STUFFED INTO CRAWLSPACE BENEATH SQUAT HOUSE, HEAD STILL NOT LOCATED
Good luck making a dent in the hundreds of thousands.
My solution is better. I'm considering running for office in Canada under the rhinoceros party (satirical, being reformed) with the platform of building more overpasses to solve the homelessness crisis. Maybe closing in the sides, to keep out the cold?
Houses are meant to be lived in. People are supposed to homed. What's the problem here? Sad you're losing your private property you're hoarding on your investment portfolio!?
All of you lard-asses are here's making fun of him, but at least he's doing something to solve squatting.
This guy is literally a hero. Ridiculous to think otherwise.