Also, this happened in California, but because for once we're actually the state of sanity (when does that ever happen in CA?), it was dealt with by the cops:
Woman trespassed and was arrested for trespassing. This is not convincing me we should risk kicking people out of their homes because of unscrupulous owners.
The more you guys argue, the more on SKFM's side I'm getting.
His scenario was: "If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing."
In this scenario, in NYC, if the trespasser had been there for 30 days*, he is now legally an "unpaying tenant" and SKFM must go through eviction proceedings to regain access to his own primary residency.
This is pants-on-head retarded, frankly.
* - It wouldn't actually matter if the trespasser had been there for 30 days or not. All that matters is if the house appears to have been lived in.
Again, you are confusing some stuff here.
The police can arrest anybody for anything. It just is not trespassing if they have obviously lived their for 30 days. That doesn't mean that they have obviously lived there for 30 days, it means that they have been obviously living there for 30 days. Big difference.
If I sneak into space's house every night then it isn't obvious that I was living there. Doesn't count. If I walk in the front door and put up a mail box that says rock's place it's obvious that I am living there so I counts. Usually it is receiving mail at the building because if full fills obvious and it is easy to tell the dates.
Short term sublets are very often made without leases. This is dumb for the tenant because it makes their rights harder to enforce, but it not an unheard of circumstance, nor is it of the same variety of shady dealings as being paid under the table.
Yo.
When I moved to Cali I rented a room from a couple for a couple months til I found my own place. Way cheaper and as far as I'm concerned smarter than signing a six month lease ASAP since I needed a place right away.
The more you guys argue, the more on SKFM's side I'm getting.
His scenario was: "If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing."
In this scenario, in NYC, if the trespasser had been there for 30 days, he is now legally an "unpaying tenant" and SKFM must go through eviction proceedings to regain access to his own primary residency.
That's not what he described or in New York though.
The guy who did that in Colorado didn't manage to hold on to the house because of squatting laws, but because he claimed he lived there when filing the bankruptcy which forced the police to back off.
I didn't know how specific you wanted to get.
You said "He also didn't show this having ever happened." and I took that to mean "He didn't show that somebody moving into an unabandoned house while the owners were out of town ever happened."
I've provided links that show, at the very least, that there are people who will move into unabandoned homes while their owners are out of town. The question then is: how do we deal with people who are accused of doing that?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Also yes my totp post was kind of hasty and I should have clarified that I don't think police shouldn't be expected to pass judgment on certain documents, etc.
Just that, in the case of eviction where the immediate consequence is "Somebody is thrown out on the street," we run things past the courts for a reason, and part of that reason is so both parties can get their shit together and present evidence to the judge. In this scenario it's highly likely that one or both parties to the dispute is unprepared for an adjudication on the spot, whether the scenario is "Surprise! Squatters!!" or "Who are you calling a squatter, I've been paying you cash rent for six months!"
Like, I recognize that space's nightmare scenario does actually occur (albeit in strikingly rare circumstances) but I see his solution carrying a much, much higher potential for harm and abuse than the current systems in place.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Also, this happened in California, but because for once we're actually the state of sanity (when does that ever happen in CA?), it was dealt with by the cops:
I hope you're drunk, or just trolling because that's only 2 weeks.. What I told you was the law, and if she had been there for 30 days, and held her composure and acted more in the right, he'd still need to go to court and convince a judge he was the lawful owner probably. Or the police would for him. The officers also have the discretion to arrest the other party if other laws are broken.
The more you guys argue, the more on SKFM's side I'm getting.
His scenario was: "If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing."
In this scenario, in NYC, if the trespasser had been there for 30 days, he is now legally an "unpaying tenant" and SKFM must go through eviction proceedings to regain access to his own primary residency.
That's not what he described or in New York though.
The guy who did that in Colorado didn't manage to hold on to the house because of squatting laws, but because he claimed he lived there when filing the bankruptcy which forced the police to back off.
I didn't know how specific you wanted to get.
You said "He also didn't show this having ever happened." and I took that to mean "He didn't show that somebody moving into an unabandoned house while the owners were out of town ever happened."
I mean that he didn't show that incredibly lengthy stays by unrightful owners can be caused by squatter's rights.
He has not shown the specific scenario he's describing exists.
Yes, people have moved in to people's houses while they are gone. They were either arrested for trespassing, had an understandable claim that meant they shouldn't be kicked out right away, or managed to stay using laws unrelated to squatter's rights.
The situation he thinks exists with squatter's rights simply isn't and he wants to solve it by making life worse for anyone renting or leasing. He's tilting at windmills he thinks are killing all the dragons.
Also, this happened in California, but because for once we're actually the state of sanity (when does that ever happen in CA?), it was dealt with by the cops:
I hope you're drunk, or just trolling because that's only 2 weeks.. What I told you was the law, and if he had been there for 30 days, he'd still need to go to court and convince a judge he was the lawful owner. Or the police would for him. The officers also have the discretion to arrest the other party if other laws are broken.
California has no such 30-day squatter's rights law.
Also, cops can't visually tell the difference between 14 days and 30 days of occupancy, so really that's a distinction without a difference.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Also, this happened in California, but because for once we're actually the state of sanity (when does that ever happen in CA?), it was dealt with by the cops:
I hope you're drunk, or just trolling because that's only 2 weeks.. What I told you was the law, and if he had been there for 30 days, he'd still need to go to court and convince a judge he was the lawful owner. Or the police would for him. The officers also have the discretion to arrest the other party if other laws are broken.
California has no such 30-day squatter's rights law.
Also, cops can't visually tell the difference between 14 days and 30 days of occupancy, so really that's a distinction without a difference.
Yea, I know, but I gave you other ways it could've been uglier. The officers wouldn't've been able to resolve it so easily if it weren't for the other charges, and locking herself in a bathroom, etc.
Like, I'm sure there is some nightmare scenario where that totally did happen one time and it was super inconvenient for whoever owned the home.
But there are thousands of situations where people would be screwed by their land lord if not for those protections and that strikes me as just a touch more important.
Short term sublets are very often made without leases. This is dumb for the tenant because it makes their rights harder to enforce, but it not an unheard of circumstance, nor is it of the same variety of shady dealings as being paid under the table.
Yo.
When I moved to Cali I rented a room from a couple for a couple months til I found my own place. Way cheaper and as far as I'm concerned smarter than signing a six month lease ASAP since I needed a place right away.
I absolutely would not do that without having at least a basic rental agreement.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Also, this happened in California, but because for once we're actually the state of sanity (when does that ever happen in CA?), it was dealt with by the cops:
I hope you're drunk, or just trolling because that's only 2 weeks.. What I told you was the law, and if he had been there for 30 days, he'd still need to go to court and convince a judge he was the lawful owner. Or the police would for him. The officers also have the discretion to arrest the other party if other laws are broken.
California has no such 30-day squatter's rights law.
Also, cops can't visually tell the difference between 14 days and 30 days of occupancy, so really that's a distinction without a difference.
Maybe you missed my earlier post but it isn't "look at the house, it obvious he has been here 30 days" it's "I asked the neighbors and they said he had been openly and obviously living here for 30 days".
Short term sublets are very often made without leases. This is dumb for the tenant because it makes their rights harder to enforce, but it not an unheard of circumstance, nor is it of the same variety of shady dealings as being paid under the table.
Yo.
When I moved to Cali I rented a room from a couple for a couple months til I found my own place. Way cheaper and as far as I'm concerned smarter than signing a six month lease ASAP since I needed a place right away.
I absolutely would not do that without having at least a basic rental agreement.
You absolutely would be spending a fuckton more money, then.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Short term sublets are very often made without leases. This is dumb for the tenant because it makes their rights harder to enforce, but it not an unheard of circumstance, nor is it of the same variety of shady dealings as being paid under the table.
Yo.
When I moved to Cali I rented a room from a couple for a couple months til I found my own place. Way cheaper and as far as I'm concerned smarter than signing a six month lease ASAP since I needed a place right away.
I absolutely would not do that without having at least a basic rental agreement.
And you are behaving the safest way possible.
But I don't believe we as a society should make people homeless for not behaving in the absolutest safest way or straying from the most legal methods. We do not immediately confiscate someone's car because they fail to have registration and therefore maybe it's been stolen while the owner's on an extended vacation.
Short term sublets are very often made without leases. This is dumb for the tenant because it makes their rights harder to enforce, but it not an unheard of circumstance, nor is it of the same variety of shady dealings as being paid under the table.
Yo.
When I moved to Cali I rented a room from a couple for a couple months til I found my own place. Way cheaper and as far as I'm concerned smarter than signing a six month lease ASAP since I needed a place right away.
I absolutely would not do that without having at least a basic rental agreement.
Why? Change your mail and your golden.
If I was renting with multiple people I wouldn't want to be on the lease. Most of them have it set up where each individual party is responsible for the entire back rent. Bad situation if you are the one left holding the bag.
That is not providing much wiggle room. Honestly if I'd been single I'd have gone with the barracks, but then I would have forfeited housing allowance with a fiancee on the way in a few months. Which just would have made matters more screwed up.
Yes, and if there's a dispute involving two parties over the proper ownership of a home, it would be very ugly and not be resolved by the police coming to the door, unless someone was clearly in the wrong. The officers could detain the parties, and the lot of them would be thrown in front of a judge. The 30 days thing was a tangent from other states that use that as a length to gain a tenure of sorts, and isn't applicable in California (nor many states from what I've seen, I dunno.) When i said I said the law, I meant my post before the 30 days one, when I said that the 30 days is something enforced by a municipality. It was my original reply; the big one.
Property owners rights are very localized, and I stand by my feelings of the post I make reference to.
We do not immediately confiscate someone's car because they fail to have registration and therefore maybe it's been stolen while the owner's on an extended vacation.
We might do so, though, if the owner declares the car stolen and it's being driven by somebody who isn't the rightful owner. :P
Self-defeating analogy is self-defeating.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
We do not immediately confiscate someone's car because they fail to have registration and therefore maybe it's been stolen while the owner's on an extended vacation.
We might do so, though, if the owner declares the car stolen and it's being driven by somebody who isn't the rightful owner. :P
Self-defeating analogy is self-defeating.
If subletting of cars were as common as subletting of housing, we might not though.
We do not immediately confiscate someone's car because they fail to have registration and therefore maybe it's been stolen while the owner's on an extended vacation.
We might do so, though, if the owner declares the car stolen and it's being driven by somebody who isn't the rightful owner. :P
Self-defeating analogy is self-defeating.
And who in those news articles did only that?
Who stole a house, said it was stolen, and then wasn't forced to move out solely because the law protects people who steal houses?
We do not immediately confiscate someone's car because they fail to have registration and therefore maybe it's been stolen while the owner's on an extended vacation.
We might do so, though, if the owner declares the car stolen and it's being driven by somebody who isn't the rightful owner. :P
Self-defeating analogy is self-defeating.
This is about the same as the boat analogy before. Homes and cars are not the same. You don't have to have a car. It's usually not illegal to be car less in a city. Cars are not exchanged without paperwork. Cars are registered with the government.
But you would still have rights to it if you had it for three years continuously without the owner reporting it stolen or paying for storage. (Illinois)
Of course nyc have landlords who do heinous shit far more often than these squatting incidents happen.
In cases where there's rent controlled tenants or the landlord wants to convert to condos if you gave them the power they'd evict people without cause at the drop of a hat.
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think there are a lot of co current discussions going on here, so I would like to just clarify my views, as there seems to be some confusion.
1. I believe that, as a general matter, we need to have an efficient process for determining disputes as to rights to occupy property. However, if we could magically determine who was legally entitled to live in the building, then I would absolutely support immediate eviction and arrest of the trespasser. I don't see why the fact that people need somewhere to live should argue in favor of letting a trespasser's trespass continue.
2. In the unusual situation where there is a dispute as to who has the right to occupy a primary residence, I think that showing a police officer legal documents showing your right to that residence should be enough to get the other party immediately evicted/arrested. I think the equities argue in favor of erring on the side of the owner, not any possible renter, when we are talking primary residence. I also this the immediate arrests important, because any squatter with half a brain will flee after the cops are called and then the owner will to have the opportunity to demand compensation for any damages or cleaning needed after the squatter fled.
3. On the distinct question of adverse possession, I think that it should only apply to things like fence disputes, never to situations where someone knowingly occupies an abandoned property. I feel the same about rights of way and similiar rights to cross or use someone's private property.
I think there are a lot of co current discussions going on here, so I would like to just clarify my views, as there seems to be some confusion.
1. I believe that, as a general matter, we need to have an efficient process for determining disputes as to rights to occupy property. However, if we could magically determine who was legally entitled to live in the building, then I would absolutely support immediate eviction and arrest of the trespasser. I don't see why the fact that people need somewhere to live should argue in favor of letting a trespasser's trespass continue.
2. In the unusual situation where there is a dispute as to who has the right to occupy a primary residence, I think that showing a police officer legal documents showing your right to that residence should be enough to get the other party immediately evicted/arrested. I think the equities argue in favor of erring on the side of the owner, not any possible renter, when we are talking primary residence. I also this the immediate arrests important, because any squatter with half a brain will flee after the cops are called and then the owner will to have the opportunity to demand compensation for any damages or cleaning needed after the squatter fled.
3. On the distinct question of adverse possession, I think that it should only apply to things like fence disputes, never to situations where someone knowingly occupies an abandoned property. I feel the same about rights of way and similiar rights to cross or use someone's private property.
So... If some rich fuckface abandons a building in the middle of a neighborhood, and lets it go to shit, and some people move in and improve it--making the neighborhood as a whole much better--and is granted possession of that property, you think that's theft, right? But if that same rich fuckface uses an accounting trick to make it so that all the money he made off of exploiting the infrastructure of the U.S. is legally made in Ireland so that he doesn't have to help pay for said infrastructure, well, then, that's just working the system?
Does anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?
I think there are a lot of co current discussions going on here, so I would like to just clarify my views, as there seems to be some confusion.
1. I believe that, as a general matter, we need to have an efficient process for determining disputes as to rights to occupy property. However, if we could magically determine who was legally entitled to live in the building, then I would absolutely support immediate eviction and arrest of the trespasser. I don't see why the fact that people need somewhere to live should argue in favor of letting a trespasser's trespass continue.
2. In the unusual situation where there is a dispute as to who has the right to occupy a primary residence, I think that showing a police officer legal documents showing your right to that residence should be enough to get the other party immediately evicted/arrested. I think the equities argue in favor of erring on the side of the owner, not any possible renter, when we are talking primary residence. I also this the immediate arrests important, because any squatter with half a brain will flee after the cops are called and then the owner will to have the opportunity to demand compensation for any damages or cleaning needed after the squatter fled.
3. On the distinct question of adverse possession, I think that it should only apply to things like fence disputes, never to situations where someone knowingly occupies an abandoned property. I feel the same about rights of way and similiar rights to cross or use someone's private property.
1. Sure magic, count me in.
2. Again, completely unworkable. People rent their primary residence all the time, usually without a lease. That is not to mention the mess it would make of couples living together. Before I got married my wife lived in the house I bought. Should she have asked me for a lease? How would that contract even work? Also, why would arrest make any difference in this case? The person is staying in your house, they aren't hard to find. If they did any damage you can take them to civil court.
3. Easements are really, really important to real estate. Without easements someone could buy a one foot strip of land around your property and then deny you access to it. Without easements our entire electric infrastructure would be impossible (Companies would have to buy the land outright.) Getting rid of easements would not be going back 100 years, it would be going back 1000 years.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
People who rent without a lease or without receiving receipts of payment from the landlord are p fucking dumb.
+3
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think there are a lot of co current discussions going on here, so I would like to just clarify my views, as there seems to be some confusion.
1. I believe that, as a general matter, we need to have an efficient process for determining disputes as to rights to occupy property. However, if we could magically determine who was legally entitled to live in the building, then I would absolutely support immediate eviction and arrest of the trespasser. I don't see why the fact that people need somewhere to live should argue in favor of letting a trespasser's trespass continue.
2. In the unusual situation where there is a dispute as to who has the right to occupy a primary residence, I think that showing a police officer legal documents showing your right to that residence should be enough to get the other party immediately evicted/arrested. I think the equities argue in favor of erring on the side of the owner, not any possible renter, when we are talking primary residence. I also this the immediate arrests important, because any squatter with half a brain will flee after the cops are called and then the owner will to have the opportunity to demand compensation for any damages or cleaning needed after the squatter fled.
3. On the distinct question of adverse possession, I think that it should only apply to things like fence disputes, never to situations where someone knowingly occupies an abandoned property. I feel the same about rights of way and similiar rights to cross or use someone's private property.
1. Sure magic, count me in.
2. Again, completely unworkable. People rent their primary residence all the time, usually without a lease. That is not to mention the mess it would make of couples living together. Before I got married my wife lived in the house I bought. Should she have asked me for a lease? How would that contract even work? Also, why would arrest make any difference in this case? The person is staying in your house, they aren't hard to find. If they did any damage you can take them to civil court.
3. Easements are really, really important to real estate. Without easements someone could buy a one foot strip of land around your property and then deny you access to it. Without easements our entire electric infrastructure would be impossible (Companies would have to buy the land outright.) Getting rid of easements would not be going back 100 years, it would be going back 1000 years.
If you rent your primary residence to someone, then I have no problem saying that they should have a lease, in writing. Failing that, if there is any duration to the lease, then their driver's license should reflect the new address, or else they are breaking the law. I have no problem saint that everyone who lives somewhere should document that they live there, including a live in gf. Arrest matters because someone who is really a squatter will leave after the police leave, I would think. They know they are going to be evicted anyway, so why stick around to go to court. You are explicitly a law breaking vagrant in this situation anyway, so hop a ride on the next train with your gunnysacks.
On easements, we were already over this. I said that I was happy with power line and similiar easements, and you clarified that you were interested in rights of passage. Those are the type I am opposed to.
The more you guys argue, the more on SKFM's side I'm getting.
His scenario was: "If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing."
In this scenario, in NYC, if the trespasser had been there for 30 days, he is now legally an "unpaying tenant" and SKFM must go through eviction proceedings to regain access to his own primary residency.
That's not what he described or in New York though.
The guy who did that in Colorado didn't manage to hold on to the house because of squatting laws, but because he claimed he lived there when filing the bankruptcy which forced the police to back off. He'd supposedly also believed he legitimately purchased the home, which makes it kind of important to protect him too even if he didn't.
Although I've heard the same defense on several possession of stolen property cases where the defendant was found in a stolen car, but it was totally okay because they bought it from a guy on the street for fifty bucks and totes believed it was a legitimate purchase of a vehicle. Judge was not amused.
The buying of the house for $5,000? That's Brooklyn Bridge level of "legitimate purchase."
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
People who rent without a lease or without receiving receipts of payment from the landlord are p fucking dumb.
MOST people don't get receipts from their landlords / supers.
Even when I was 1%ing it on the east side of manhattan, I never got receipts for my 3k/month rent.
Paying checks is just as good..
And I hate to think what would happen to the driveway issue in spacekungfumn's land.. Fuckers be buying out people's way off their property and charging them massive tolls or handling fees to get out of the 1 foot wide box I've bought around all my neighbors properties, or if I was the original owner, chose to sell to them.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
People who rent without a lease or without receiving receipts of payment from the landlord are p fucking dumb.
MOST people don't get receipts from their landlords / supers.
Even when I was 1%ing it on the east side of manhattan, I never got receipts for my 3k/month rent.
Paying checks is just as good..
And I hate to think what would happen to the driveway issue in spacekungfumn's land.. Fuckers be buying out people's way off their property and charging them massive tolls or handling fees to get out of the 1 foot wide box I've bought around all my neighbors properties, or if I was the original owner, chose to sell to them.
That would fall on zoning boards. They set the plots, and should do so in a way that makes sense and encourages good use of our land.
People who rent without a lease or without receiving receipts of payment from the landlord are p fucking dumb.
MOST people don't get receipts from their landlords / supers.
Even when I was 1%ing it on the east side of manhattan, I never got receipts for my 3k/month rent.
Paying checks is just as good..
And I hate to think what would happen to the driveway issue in spacekungfumn's land.. Fuckers be buying out people's way off their property and charging them massive tolls or handling fees to get out of the 1 foot wide box I've bought around all my neighbors properties, or if I was the original owner, chose to sell to them.
That would fall on zoning boards. They set the plots, and should do so in a way that makes sense and encourages good use of our land.
But what about those sales from before zoning boards? Your State sure does enjoy it's bureaucracy. You'd need to write about 30 statutes just to get it to this form of status quo and STILL have no cost savings. This is why it doesn't work your way.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
People who rent without a lease or without receiving receipts of payment from the landlord are p fucking dumb.
MOST people don't get receipts from their landlords / supers.
Even when I was 1%ing it on the east side of manhattan, I never got receipts for my 3k/month rent.
Paying checks is just as good..
And I hate to think what would happen to the driveway issue in spacekungfumn's land.. Fuckers be buying out people's way off their property and charging them massive tolls or handling fees to get out of the 1 foot wide box I've bought around all my neighbors properties, or if I was the original owner, chose to sell to them.
That would fall on zoning boards. They set the plots, and should do so in a way that makes sense and encourages good use of our land.
But what about those sales from before zoning boards? Your State sure does enjoy it's bureaucracy. You'd need to write about 30 statutes just to get it to this form of status quo and STILL have no cost savings. This is why it doesn't work your way.
This isn't just about cost. This is (to me, at least) an ethical issue about rights in the property that we acquire through our labor. It costs less to clean graffiti than to jail graffiti artists, but I favor the latter because what right did they have to deface someone else's property?
I think there are a lot of co current discussions going on here, so I would like to just clarify my views, as there seems to be some confusion.
1. I believe that, as a general matter, we need to have an efficient process for determining disputes as to rights to occupy property. However, if we could magically determine who was legally entitled to live in the building, then I would absolutely support immediate eviction and arrest of the trespasser. I don't see why the fact that people need somewhere to live should argue in favor of letting a trespasser's trespass continue.
2. In the unusual situation where there is a dispute as to who has the right to occupy a primary residence, I think that showing a police officer legal documents showing your right to that residence should be enough to get the other party immediately evicted/arrested. I think the equities argue in favor of erring on the side of the owner, not any possible renter, when we are talking primary residence. I also this the immediate arrests important, because any squatter with half a brain will flee after the cops are called and then the owner will to have the opportunity to demand compensation for any damages or cleaning needed after the squatter fled.
3. On the distinct question of adverse possession, I think that it should only apply to things like fence disputes, never to situations where someone knowingly occupies an abandoned property. I feel the same about rights of way and similiar rights to cross or use someone's private property.
1. Sure magic, count me in.
2. Again, completely unworkable. People rent their primary residence all the time, usually without a lease. That is not to mention the mess it would make of couples living together. Before I got married my wife lived in the house I bought. Should she have asked me for a lease? How would that contract even work? Also, why would arrest make any difference in this case? The person is staying in your house, they aren't hard to find. If they did any damage you can take them to civil court.
3. Easements are really, really important to real estate. Without easements someone could buy a one foot strip of land around your property and then deny you access to it. Without easements our entire electric infrastructure would be impossible (Companies would have to buy the land outright.) Getting rid of easements would not be going back 100 years, it would be going back 1000 years.
If you rent your primary residence to someone, then I have no problem saying that they should have a lease, in writing. Failing that, if there is any duration to the lease, then their driver's license should reflect the new address, or else they are breaking the law. I have no problem saint that everyone who lives somewhere should document that they live there, including a live in gf. Arrest matters because someone who is really a squatter will leave after the police leave, I would think. They know they are going to be evicted anyway, so why stick around to go to court. You are explicitly a law breaking vagrant in this situation anyway, so hop a ride on the next train with your gunnysacks.
On easements, we were already over this. I said that I was happy with power line and similiar easements, and you clarified that you were interested in rights of passage. Those are the type I am opposed to.
1) what does it matter to the home owner if they go to jail or just leave? Person is gone anyway. If they are invoking squatters rights they are trying to stay and haven't hurt anything or they would be getting arrested for destruction of property (and would not have squatters rights most places because you have to improve the property).
Everyone having a lease is unrealistic and complety unworkable even if you could get everyone to do it. Think of what it would mean for couples to treated as tenants. How would you even start to write that contract? You could do a month to month but then I would take at least 65 days to remove them, during which they could do pretty much whatever they want . Hell, you would be opening yourself to fair housing lawsuits!
2) So what happens when someone buys all the land around your property?
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Posts
Woman trespassed and was arrested for trespassing. This is not convincing me we should risk kicking people out of their homes because of unscrupulous owners.
Again, you are confusing some stuff here.
The police can arrest anybody for anything. It just is not trespassing if they have obviously lived their for 30 days. That doesn't mean that they have obviously lived there for 30 days, it means that they have been obviously living there for 30 days. Big difference.
If I sneak into space's house every night then it isn't obvious that I was living there. Doesn't count. If I walk in the front door and put up a mail box that says rock's place it's obvious that I am living there so I counts. Usually it is receiving mail at the building because if full fills obvious and it is easy to tell the dates.
Yo.
When I moved to Cali I rented a room from a couple for a couple months til I found my own place. Way cheaper and as far as I'm concerned smarter than signing a six month lease ASAP since I needed a place right away.
I didn't know how specific you wanted to get.
You said "He also didn't show this having ever happened." and I took that to mean "He didn't show that somebody moving into an unabandoned house while the owners were out of town ever happened."
I've provided links that show, at the very least, that there are people who will move into unabandoned homes while their owners are out of town. The question then is: how do we deal with people who are accused of doing that?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Just that, in the case of eviction where the immediate consequence is "Somebody is thrown out on the street," we run things past the courts for a reason, and part of that reason is so both parties can get their shit together and present evidence to the judge. In this scenario it's highly likely that one or both parties to the dispute is unprepared for an adjudication on the spot, whether the scenario is "Surprise! Squatters!!" or "Who are you calling a squatter, I've been paying you cash rent for six months!"
Like, I recognize that space's nightmare scenario does actually occur (albeit in strikingly rare circumstances) but I see his solution carrying a much, much higher potential for harm and abuse than the current systems in place.
I hope you're drunk, or just trolling because that's only 2 weeks.. What I told you was the law, and if she had been there for 30 days, and held her composure and acted more in the right, he'd still need to go to court and convince a judge he was the lawful owner probably. Or the police would for him. The officers also have the discretion to arrest the other party if other laws are broken.
I mean that he didn't show that incredibly lengthy stays by unrightful owners can be caused by squatter's rights.
He has not shown the specific scenario he's describing exists.
Yes, people have moved in to people's houses while they are gone. They were either arrested for trespassing, had an understandable claim that meant they shouldn't be kicked out right away, or managed to stay using laws unrelated to squatter's rights.
The situation he thinks exists with squatter's rights simply isn't and he wants to solve it by making life worse for anyone renting or leasing. He's tilting at windmills he thinks are killing all the dragons.
California has no such 30-day squatter's rights law.
Also, cops can't visually tell the difference between 14 days and 30 days of occupancy, so really that's a distinction without a difference.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yea, I know, but I gave you other ways it could've been uglier. The officers wouldn't've been able to resolve it so easily if it weren't for the other charges, and locking herself in a bathroom, etc.
But there are thousands of situations where people would be screwed by their land lord if not for those protections and that strikes me as just a touch more important.
I live in California, too
I absolutely would not do that without having at least a basic rental agreement.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Maybe you missed my earlier post but it isn't "look at the house, it obvious he has been here 30 days" it's "I asked the neighbors and they said he had been openly and obviously living here for 30 days".
Yes, after five years.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You absolutely would be spending a fuckton more money, then.
But it's still a thing that happens, and often.
And you are behaving the safest way possible.
But I don't believe we as a society should make people homeless for not behaving in the absolutest safest way or straying from the most legal methods. We do not immediately confiscate someone's car because they fail to have registration and therefore maybe it's been stolen while the owner's on an extended vacation.
If I was renting with multiple people I wouldn't want to be on the lease. Most of them have it set up where each individual party is responsible for the entire back rent. Bad situation if you are the one left holding the bag.
Yeah I was still getting E-4 pay.
That is not providing much wiggle room. Honestly if I'd been single I'd have gone with the barracks, but then I would have forfeited housing allowance with a fiancee on the way in a few months. Which just would have made matters more screwed up.
Property owners rights are very localized, and I stand by my feelings of the post I make reference to.
Fuck yeah I'd pay cash for a room with no deposit or contract. That'd get me three meals a day.
We might do so, though, if the owner declares the car stolen and it's being driven by somebody who isn't the rightful owner. :P
Self-defeating analogy is self-defeating.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If subletting of cars were as common as subletting of housing, we might not though.
And who in those news articles did only that?
Who stole a house, said it was stolen, and then wasn't forced to move out solely because the law protects people who steal houses?
But you would still have rights to it if you had it for three years continuously without the owner reporting it stolen or paying for storage. (Illinois)
In cases where there's rent controlled tenants or the landlord wants to convert to condos if you gave them the power they'd evict people without cause at the drop of a hat.
1. I believe that, as a general matter, we need to have an efficient process for determining disputes as to rights to occupy property. However, if we could magically determine who was legally entitled to live in the building, then I would absolutely support immediate eviction and arrest of the trespasser. I don't see why the fact that people need somewhere to live should argue in favor of letting a trespasser's trespass continue.
2. In the unusual situation where there is a dispute as to who has the right to occupy a primary residence, I think that showing a police officer legal documents showing your right to that residence should be enough to get the other party immediately evicted/arrested. I think the equities argue in favor of erring on the side of the owner, not any possible renter, when we are talking primary residence. I also this the immediate arrests important, because any squatter with half a brain will flee after the cops are called and then the owner will to have the opportunity to demand compensation for any damages or cleaning needed after the squatter fled.
3. On the distinct question of adverse possession, I think that it should only apply to things like fence disputes, never to situations where someone knowingly occupies an abandoned property. I feel the same about rights of way and similiar rights to cross or use someone's private property.
Does anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?
1. Sure magic, count me in.
2. Again, completely unworkable. People rent their primary residence all the time, usually without a lease. That is not to mention the mess it would make of couples living together. Before I got married my wife lived in the house I bought. Should she have asked me for a lease? How would that contract even work? Also, why would arrest make any difference in this case? The person is staying in your house, they aren't hard to find. If they did any damage you can take them to civil court.
3. Easements are really, really important to real estate. Without easements someone could buy a one foot strip of land around your property and then deny you access to it. Without easements our entire electric infrastructure would be impossible (Companies would have to buy the land outright.) Getting rid of easements would not be going back 100 years, it would be going back 1000 years.
If you rent your primary residence to someone, then I have no problem saying that they should have a lease, in writing. Failing that, if there is any duration to the lease, then their driver's license should reflect the new address, or else they are breaking the law. I have no problem saint that everyone who lives somewhere should document that they live there, including a live in gf. Arrest matters because someone who is really a squatter will leave after the police leave, I would think. They know they are going to be evicted anyway, so why stick around to go to court. You are explicitly a law breaking vagrant in this situation anyway, so hop a ride on the next train with your gunnysacks.
On easements, we were already over this. I said that I was happy with power line and similiar easements, and you clarified that you were interested in rights of passage. Those are the type I am opposed to.
Although I've heard the same defense on several possession of stolen property cases where the defendant was found in a stolen car, but it was totally okay because they bought it from a guy on the street for fifty bucks and totes believed it was a legitimate purchase of a vehicle. Judge was not amused.
The buying of the house for $5,000? That's Brooklyn Bridge level of "legitimate purchase."
Even when I was 1%ing it on the east side of manhattan, I never got receipts for my 3k/month rent.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Paying checks is just as good..
And I hate to think what would happen to the driveway issue in spacekungfumn's land.. Fuckers be buying out people's way off their property and charging them massive tolls or handling fees to get out of the 1 foot wide box I've bought around all my neighbors properties, or if I was the original owner, chose to sell to them.
That would fall on zoning boards. They set the plots, and should do so in a way that makes sense and encourages good use of our land.
But what about those sales from before zoning boards? Your State sure does enjoy it's bureaucracy. You'd need to write about 30 statutes just to get it to this form of status quo and STILL have no cost savings. This is why it doesn't work your way.
This isn't just about cost. This is (to me, at least) an ethical issue about rights in the property that we acquire through our labor. It costs less to clean graffiti than to jail graffiti artists, but I favor the latter because what right did they have to deface someone else's property?
1) what does it matter to the home owner if they go to jail or just leave? Person is gone anyway. If they are invoking squatters rights they are trying to stay and haven't hurt anything or they would be getting arrested for destruction of property (and would not have squatters rights most places because you have to improve the property).
Everyone having a lease is unrealistic and complety unworkable even if you could get everyone to do it. Think of what it would mean for couples to treated as tenants. How would you even start to write that contract? You could do a month to month but then I would take at least 65 days to remove them, during which they could do pretty much whatever they want . Hell, you would be opening yourself to fair housing lawsuits!
2) So what happens when someone buys all the land around your property?
I assume you had a lease, bro.
Waitaminute ~L V ~R --> D
nope, my prop logic was wrong. you're right.
Apologies and corrected: