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 understand desire for perfection, and have no problem with the law you've proposed with regards to graffiti; my biggest concerns are with dismissal of all due process, and a gross enlargement or fascism within of the federal, state, or local government. Property rights are in a pretty good place, imho, don't get me started on copyright, but with regards to this thread, I feel that tenancy laws are as they should be; heavily influenced by their municipality.
Checks are good enough for receipt, though. I doubt anyone's dropping 3k in cash. Even so, unless you cash your entire check and deposit it, there's still a regular "withdrawal" near the beginning of a month that could be construed as a rent payment.
Basically you have to be a real retard with your money to not have a way to track down rent payments.
Like If I take $200 out one week, then $124.54 the next, then $600.56 the next.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
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.
They do what now?
I have never even heard of zoning boards having anything to do with land sales?
0
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.
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?
If someone had been living in my house, I would need to bring in some serious cleaning services, replace all the linens, etc. it would be really expensive even if there was no damage or theft (something I can't know until the squatters are gone anyway). Also, I don't just want them gone. I want them punished, severely. This is one of the few cases where I would even go so far as to call prison rapw a feature, not a bug. Fuck them for even stepping in my house without my permission, let alone violating my life like that.
I don't think the couple thing is so hard. You just have a rider that lists everyone entitled to dwell there, and the leaseholder(s) can remove names.
We should not permit these slice and dice sales. That eliminates the problem.
Squatters don't typically have rights in a house where you have linens. That shows you've been living there.
Squatters typically have rights if someone buys a plot of land and sits on it for two decades doing nothing (the unfortunate case in Colorado where a couple was planning to build their dream house and a judge and some lawyers used it as a camping spot).
Or, if you buy a building in midtown and let it fall apart and some people move in because they can't find who owns the building, and then fix it up.
You're equating squatters with tenants/house guests.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
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?
If someone had been living in my house, I would need to bring in some serious cleaning services, replace all the linens, etc. it would be really expensive even if there was no damage or theft (something I can't know until the squatters are gone anyway). Also, I don't just want them gone. I want them punished, severely. This is one of the few cases where I would even go so far as to call prison rapw a feature, not a bug. Fuck them for even stepping in my house without my permission, let alone violating my life like that.
I don't think the couple thing is so hard. You just have a rider that lists everyone entitled to dwell there, and the leaseholder(s) can remove names.
We should not permit these slice and dice sales. That eliminates the problem.
Where did the bad man touch you? You want squatters to be punished severely? What if there was no malice? I thought you were a lawyer, i don't understand how that's even possible with this view of the law.
I love how spacekungfuman's proposals are always, "It's easy, we just take away 10 of your rights, and make the state agency over this issue at least twice as large, with no more oversight, taxes.. Can't trust you to know how to manage your own life, filthy hippies. Can't let you have live in girlfriends without rental contracts because of invasion squatters!" I also like that I completely nailed his line of debate before he knew what it was.
If someone had been living in my house, I would need to bring in some serious cleaning services, replace all the linens, etc. it would be really expensive even if there was no damage or theft (something I can't know until the squatters are gone anyway).
Squatter rights doesn't let anyone move in to your house and claim it. Stop acting like it does.
Also, I don't just want them gone. I want them punished, severely. This is one of the few cases where I would even go so far as to call prison rapw a feature, not a bug. Fuck them for even stepping in my house without my permission, let alone violating my life like that.
And this part right here? This part is you being fucked up wrong.
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?
If someone had been living in my house, I would need to bring in some serious cleaning services, replace all the linens, etc. it would be really expensive even if there was no damage or theft (something I can't know until the squatters are gone anyway). Also, I don't just want them gone. I want them punished, severely. This is one of the few cases where I would even go so far as to call prison rapw a feature, not a bug. Fuck them for even stepping in my house without my permission, let alone violating my life like that.
I don't think the couple thing is so hard. You just have a rider that lists everyone entitled to dwell there, and the leaseholder(s) can remove names.
We should not permit these slice and dice sales. That eliminates the problem.
1) if you had stuff there squatters rights don't work. If you have to clean more than you would anyway squatters rights don't work.
2)you will have to explain this further.
3) America comes pre spliced and diced. Look at your local scavavager sale sometime. But what if its a 100 miles?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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?
You want to jail graffiti artists?
Jesus Christ you've lost it, man.
You don't have to jail everyone who breaks the law.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
@feral presented a case were a family returned from an extended out of state trip to find people living in their house. They were able to get an evicition order (and the whole disaster was caused by other laws) but I am taking issue with the need to get the order at all.
In many states, it is not mandatory to have all property claims and contingent contracts centrally recognized by the state (as with a Torrens title system, say). Many American states have a history of actively opposing such land registration. The inevitable impact is that there will be land for which the identity or even existence of any legitimate owner is non-obvious.
Hence why American states have the systems of squatter's rights that they do. It's not just squatters, remember; it also includes the case of purchasers who are tricked into buying a fictitious or erroneous claim. If you want to have a system where someone's grandfather can promise someone else's grandfather a parcel of land and have this be a legally-enforceable promise, as Americans apparently do, then by the same token contracts will keep vanishing from the title system, e.g., when grandfather's contract is locked in a chest in the attic and forgotten.
And of course, for the sake of the reasonable squatter's rights, any legal system that heavily weights rights necessarily also grants these rights to unreasonable squatters who broke into one of your rural properties and manage to evade detection for the required years.
You can only dispose of squatter's rights if you bundle it with jurisprudential changes that make the due-diligence burden, placed on purchasers, a reasonable burden to undertake. As a practical argument, it is simply the statute of limitations as applied to title chain law.
If you want a more philosophical argument, consider instead that the rights to land included in fee simple simply fail to include the right to shield you against adverse possessors, and the onus was always upon you to pursue civil actions against such possessors - i.e., you never owned the right for the state to pro-actively shield you against squatters. The rights bundled in the title were like that when you bought it, et cetera.
@feral save me, and argue this terrible argument for me!
Fixed that for you, and yea, invasion squatters are shitty, but so are people that pretend to own property and rent/lease it to less than sharp individuals (they just want a home, and want to believe it's true, in most instances.). I agree with the person who said invasion squatters are like felony voter fraud.. Usually the instances of them are just honest mistakes, or the real criminal isn't even around anymore to be held liable.
@feral presented a case were a family returned from an extended out of state trip to find people living in their house. They were able to get an evicition order (and the whole disaster was caused by other laws) but I am taking issue with the need to get the order at all.
The extended stay was caused by bankruptcy laws, not squatter's rights.
The eviction notice should be necessary since the people who were living there believed they'd purchased the home legally and quite possibly even had documents showing them as the owners.
So again,
Squatter rights doesn't let anyone move in to your house and claim it. Stop acting like it does.
But it would be interesting to think about what changes would be required to completely abolish any form of adverse possession, and permit states to actively enforce claims on behalf of landowners. This would be highly attractive in societies where property is going to lie legitimately empty for extended periods, e.g., where extensive land reclamation or ambitious earthworks require that the unoccupied soil settle for an extended period of time, or where we would like to reward landowners for permitting some measure of non-permanent public use (without putting the onus on them to ensure said non-permanence), or where the local government desires investment in second homes, long-term speculative investment, or otherwise lightly-occupied land.
My only knowledge of actual legislation in this regard, which I suspect @spacekungfuman may be interested in, was where Singapore abolished adverse possession in the 1994 Land Titles Act. But Singapore had already begun adopting the Torrens system decades earlier and there was no morass of existing submerged claims to untangle.
Common-law squatter's rights does permit anyone who successfully evades or delays action to evict them for a sufficiently long period to claim the home.
My only concern is over people who buy property with the intent to fix it up over a period of decades.
Like the couple that bought a parcel of land and were saving money to build their dream house and lost it to a judge who liked to camp on the property. As if even casual browsing of the land would've been able to catch those people squatting.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
feral presented a case were a family returned from an extended out of state trip to find people living in their house. They were able to get an evicition order (and the whole disaster was caused by other laws) but I am taking issue with the need to get the order at all.
I submit to you, @Spacekungfuman, that you are taking issue with living in a society of laws and due process then.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
In many states, it is not mandatory to have all property claims and contingent contracts centrally recognized by the state (as with a Torrens title system, say). Many American states have a history of actively opposing such land registration. The inevitable impact is that there will be land for which the identity or even existence of any legitimate owner is non-obvious.
Hence why American states have the systems of squatter's rights that they do. It's not just squatters, remember; it also includes the case of purchasers who are tricked into buying a fictitious or erroneous claim. If you want to have a system where someone's grandfather can promise someone else's grandfather a parcel of land and have this be a legally-enforceable promise, as Americans apparently do, then by the same token contracts will keep vanishing from the title system, e.g., when grandfather's contract is locked in a chest in the attic and forgotten.
And of course, for the sake of the reasonable squatter's rights, any legal system that heavily weights rights necessarily also grants these rights to unreasonable squatters who broke into one of your rural properties and manage to evade detection for the required years.
You can only dispose of squatter's rights if you bundle it with jurisprudential changes that make the due-diligence burden, placed on purchasers, a reasonable burden to undertake. As a practical argument, it is simply the statute of limitations as applied to title chain law.
If you want a more philosophical argument, consider instead that the rights to land included in fee simple simply fail to include the right to shield you against adverse possessors, and the onus was always upon you to pursue civil actions against such possessors - i.e., you never owned the right for the state to pro-actively shield you against squatters. The rights bundled in the title were like that when you bought it, et cetera.
I think that this is all reasonable and correct, and I don't want to drag this discussion even more far afield by talking about a complete overhaul of the Anerican property system. Suffice to say that despite my moral outrage, I recognize that these are not simple matters, and so an generally ok with procedural protections, as long as the system actually moves quickly (this is not the case in NY). This is a position I have taken from the beginning of this thread, and I think it is the only practical solution.
That said, in the case where I come home from a long absence and find someone in my house, if I have title, a history of mortgage payments, a drivers liscensed with that address, etc. and the guy in my house has nothing but some mail, I really do think the right answer is to remove him as a trespasser until the courts have worked it through. If one side is going to be disadvantaged during the adjudicative process (this is neccesarily the case) then I think it should be the one with the claim that is obviously weaker on its face. And if the short term renter wants to avoid this? A written agreement is not so hard to produce, is it?
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?
You want to jail graffiti artists?
Jesus Christ you've lost it, man.
You don't have to jail everyone who breaks the law.
OT (perhaps a new thread?) but I view graffiti as one of the worst crimes against property, because there is no purpose behind it. It is just a calous disregard for property rights, and it sickens me. Would that Thor saw fit to strike down all graffiti artists where they stand.
My only concern is over people who buy property with the intent to fix it up over a period of decades.
Like the couple that bought a parcel of land and were saving money to build their dream house and lost it to a judge who liked to camp on the property. As if even casual browsing of the land would've been able to catch those people squatting.
Unfortunately you cannot construct law solely around cases which you can empathize with. Shielding yourself against common-law squatters actively requires that you successfully detect squatters - there is no requirement that this be sufficiently easy or cheap to achieve, and jurisprudence cannot set any arbitrary standards here without rewarding an arm's race between owners and would-be adverse possessors. If the law dictates that camping is a trivial pursuit and dream houses are worthy aims, suddenly all adverse possessors will have their own dream houses and all owners will have their own dream sky-castles.
(which is a real phenomenon: assorted American states have had to limit the reach of adverse possession when suddenly besieged by squatters who make nominal "improvements" to the property, like paving over the grass. It is hard to quantify good faith.)
feral presented a case were a family returned from an extended out of state trip to find people living in their house. They were able to get an evicition order (and the whole disaster was caused by other laws) but I am taking issue with the need to get the order at all.
I submit to you, @Spacekungfuman, that you are taking issue with living in a society of laws and due process then.
I am taking issue with the way a particular law is drafted. There is no inconsistency between support of the system and opposition ro one law within it. Otherwise civil disobedience is a fools errand.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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?
You want to jail graffiti artists?
Jesus Christ you've lost it, man.
You don't have to jail everyone who breaks the law.
OT (perhaps a new thread?) but I view graffiti as one of the worst crimes against property, because there is no purpose behind it. It is just a calous disregard for property rights, and it sickens me. Would that Thor saw fit to strike down all graffiti artists where they stand.
No, I think we've had enough threads about your crazy ass hyperbolic statements of late.
Graffiti also takes very little effort to get rid of. Fine the fucker, give them community service to clean up their little art project.
My only concern is over people who buy property with the intent to fix it up over a period of decades.
Like the couple that bought a parcel of land and were saving money to build their dream house and lost it to a judge who liked to camp on the property. As if even casual browsing of the land would've been able to catch those people squatting.
Unfortunately you cannot construct law solely around cases which you can empathize with. Shielding yourself against common-law squatters actively requires that you successfully detect squatters - there is no requirement that this be sufficiently easy or cheap to achieve, and jurisprudence cannot set any arbitrary standards here without rewarding an arm's race between owners and would-be adverse possessors. If the law dictates that camping is a trivial pursuit and dream houses are worthy aims, suddenly all adverse possessors will have their own dream houses and all owners will have their own dream sky-castles.
(which is a real phenomenon: assorted American states have had to limit the reach of adverse possession when suddenly besieged by squatters who make nominal "improvements" to the property, like paving over the grass. It is hard to quantify good faith.)
Then in non urban areas we might be better off not encouraging possession in any case, or, not without a suitably long term (20 years).
No one is going to be hurt over the loss of a few acres of land here and there, assuming taxes are paid. I would assume taxes paid should be enough.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
A written agreement is not so hard to produce, is it?
It can be if the agreement is verbal.
Which sometimes it is.
Deal.
I am proposing a solution to a problem, and your answer is "that is not how things work because of the problem?". I am saying all such contracts should be in writing. Pointing out that they are not now does not refute my position. If anything it supports it.
feral presented a case were a family returned from an extended out of state trip to find people living in their house. They were able to get an evicition order (and the whole disaster was caused by other laws) but I am taking issue with the need to get the order at all.
I submit to you, @Spacekungfuman, that you are taking issue with living in a society of laws and due process then.
I am taking issue with the way a particular law is drafted. There is no inconsistency between support of the system and opposition ro one law within it. Otherwise civil disobedience is a fools errand.
What issue do you have with the way it's written?
The way that it doesn't cause the nonexistent, mythical situation you described?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
feral presented a case were a family returned from an extended out of state trip to find people living in their house. They were able to get an evicition order (and the whole disaster was caused by other laws) but I am taking issue with the need to get the order at all.
I submit to you, @Spacekungfuman, that you are taking issue with living in a society of laws and due process then.
I am taking issue with the way a particular law is drafted. There is no inconsistency between support of the system and opposition ro one law within it. Otherwise civil disobedience is a fools errand.
That's a nice sentiment, but off base.
You stand against a process we have created that secures the rights of both tenant and landlord. You suggest a system wherein property owners can have any and all comers dismissed by the police at the drop of a phonecall.
You are, by definition, taking issue with due process.
In many states, it is not mandatory to have all property claims and contingent contracts centrally recognized by the state (as with a Torrens title system, say). Many American states have a history of actively opposing such land registration. The inevitable impact is that there will be land for which the identity or even existence of any legitimate owner is non-obvious.
Hence why American states have the systems of squatter's rights that they do. It's not just squatters, remember; it also includes the case of purchasers who are tricked into buying a fictitious or erroneous claim. If you want to have a system where someone's grandfather can promise someone else's grandfather a parcel of land and have this be a legally-enforceable promise, as Americans apparently do, then by the same token contracts will keep vanishing from the title system, e.g., when grandfather's contract is locked in a chest in the attic and forgotten.
And of course, for the sake of the reasonable squatter's rights, any legal system that heavily weights rights necessarily also grants these rights to unreasonable squatters who broke into one of your rural properties and manage to evade detection for the required years.
You can only dispose of squatter's rights if you bundle it with jurisprudential changes that make the due-diligence burden, placed on purchasers, a reasonable burden to undertake. As a practical argument, it is simply the statute of limitations as applied to title chain law.
If you want a more philosophical argument, consider instead that the rights to land included in fee simple simply fail to include the right to shield you against adverse possessors, and the onus was always upon you to pursue civil actions against such possessors - i.e., you never owned the right for the state to pro-actively shield you against squatters. The rights bundled in the title were like that when you bought it, et cetera.
I think that this is all reasonable and correct, and I don't want to drag this discussion even more far afield by talking about a complete overhaul of the Anerican property system. Suffice to say that despite my moral outrage, I recognize that these are not simple matters, and so an generally ok with procedural protections, as long as the system actually moves quickly (this is not the case in NY). This is a position I have taken from the beginning of this thread, and I think it is the only practical solution.
That said, in the case where I come home from a long absence and find someone in my house, if I have title, a history of mortgage payments, a drivers liscensed with that address, etc. and the guy in my house has nothing but some mail, I really do think the right answer is to remove him as a trespasser until the courts have worked it through. If one side is going to be disadvantaged during the adjudicative process (this is neccesarily the case) then I think it should be the one with the claim that is obviously weaker on its face. And if the short term renter wants to avoid this? A written agreement is not so hard to produce, is it?
In this instance, i agree, and you are protected by current law. This is a big walk back, and a lot more specific than some of the initial claims. A written agreement of rental is a hard barrier of entry to produce for a police officer, but in a court of law, I agree. My only issues with your property rights claims have been the denial of due process, or broadening the issue at hand to one for the federal, instead of local, government.
Again, forcing individuals to always have written agreements for their rental agreements would do nothing, but add bueracracy and open the system to manipulation by clever criminals. Making the state on the hook for an individuals personal property is just non-preferrable to the current status quo for a plethora of reasons; most of which have been touched on in the thread.
feral presented a case were a family returned from an extended out of state trip to find people living in their house. They were able to get an evicition order (and the whole disaster was caused by other laws) but I am taking issue with the need to get the order at all.
I submit to you, @Spacekungfuman, that you are taking issue with living in a society of laws and due process then.
I am taking issue with the way a particular law is drafted. There is no inconsistency between support of the system and opposition ro one law within it. Otherwise civil disobedience is a fools errand.
That's a nice sentiment, but off base.
You stand against a process we have created that secures the rights of both tenant and landlord. You suggest a system wherein property owners can have any and all comers dismissed by the police at the drop of a phonecall.
You are, by definition, taking issue with due process.
But what if a dragon eats his house?
You want him to have to go to court with a dragon, AMFE? Is that what you want?
In many states, it is not mandatory to have all property claims and contingent contracts centrally recognized by the state (as with a Torrens title system, say). Many American states have a history of actively opposing such land registration. The inevitable impact is that there will be land for which the identity or even existence of any legitimate owner is non-obvious.
Hence why American states have the systems of squatter's rights that they do. It's not just squatters, remember; it also includes the case of purchasers who are tricked into buying a fictitious or erroneous claim. If you want to have a system where someone's grandfather can promise someone else's grandfather a parcel of land and have this be a legally-enforceable promise, as Americans apparently do, then by the same token contracts will keep vanishing from the title system, e.g., when grandfather's contract is locked in a chest in the attic and forgotten.
And of course, for the sake of the reasonable squatter's rights, any legal system that heavily weights rights necessarily also grants these rights to unreasonable squatters who broke into one of your rural properties and manage to evade detection for the required years.
You can only dispose of squatter's rights if you bundle it with jurisprudential changes that make the due-diligence burden, placed on purchasers, a reasonable burden to undertake. As a practical argument, it is simply the statute of limitations as applied to title chain law.
If you want a more philosophical argument, consider instead that the rights to land included in fee simple simply fail to include the right to shield you against adverse possessors, and the onus was always upon you to pursue civil actions against such possessors - i.e., you never owned the right for the state to pro-actively shield you against squatters. The rights bundled in the title were like that when you bought it, et cetera.
I think that this is all reasonable and correct, and I don't want to drag this discussion even more far afield by talking about a complete overhaul of the Anerican property system. Suffice to say that despite my moral outrage, I recognize that these are not simple matters, and so an generally ok with procedural protections, as long as the system actually moves quickly (this is not the case in NY). This is a position I have taken from the beginning of this thread, and I think it is the only practical solution.
That said, in the case where I come home from a long absence and find someone in my house, if I have title, a history of mortgage payments, a drivers licensed with that address, etc. and the guy in my house has nothing but some mail, I really do think the right answer is to remove him as a trespasser until the courts have worked it through. If one side is going to be disadvantaged during the adjudicative process (this is necessarily the case) then I think it should be the one with the claim that is obviously weaker on its face. And if the short term renter wants to avoid this? A written agreement is not so hard to produce, is it?
Well, possession is nine-tenths of the law, is it not? And you do not appear to, ah, possess the land. You can file to evict the guy in the house, of course, and it will be civil trespass - this is already generally the case, although bits of the former British Empire may have altered that part of the law since. But you cannot have the guy summarily evicted, since this will permit speculative claimants to keep forcing the Court to identify real owners and create a de facto Torrens system. Wikipedia has a fascinating description of the legal manoeuvre (basically: how does the Court know that your own claim is, in fact, the real one? Generally it is obvious, because modern archival technology is expansive, but acknowledging as much would drastically change the legal terrain. For the non-Torrens system to work, buyers need to perform their own due diligence, not bait the Court into doing it for them).
Now, I do in fact think that Torrens titles are superior, but courts don't actually have the power to legislate their existence.
I should point out that the adverse-possession cases are generally boundary disputes rather than wholesale property transfers. It can be things as trivial as a fence being built a foot into another property, etc. Removing the trespasser would be... difficult.
My only concern is over people who buy property with the intent to fix it up over a period of decades.
Like the couple that bought a parcel of land and were saving money to build their dream house and lost it to a judge who liked to camp on the property. As if even casual browsing of the land would've been able to catch those people squatting.
Unfortunately you cannot construct law solely around cases which you can empathize with. Shielding yourself against common-law squatters actively requires that you successfully detect squatters - there is no requirement that this be sufficiently easy or cheap to achieve, and jurisprudence cannot set any arbitrary standards here without rewarding an arm's race between owners and would-be adverse possessors. If the law dictates that camping is a trivial pursuit and dream houses are worthy aims, suddenly all adverse possessors will have their own dream houses and all owners will have their own dream sky-castles.
(which is a real phenomenon: assorted American states have had to limit the reach of adverse possession when suddenly besieged by squatters who make nominal "improvements" to the property, like paving over the grass. It is hard to quantify good faith.)
Then in non urban areas we might be better off not encouraging possession in any case, or, not without a suitably long term (20 years).
No one is going to be hurt over the loss of a few acres of land here and there, assuming taxes are paid. I would assume taxes paid should be enough.
The distinction between urban and rural areas is rather fuzzy. Middle-class people may only locate their dream houses in the countryside, but working-class people can put their dream houses in white-picket-fence suburbia. If you desire one, why not the other?
And taxes paid cannot be used as a criterion, for the obvious reason that it massively incentivizes creating fictitious claims by simply paying the taxes, which are generally much less than the value of the land.
Thank you @ronya for coming into the thread.. I didn't know how it's held internationally well at all.
it's actually pretty fascinating. it turns up in economic history via the successive innovations created to support a system of property titles. Torrens-like systems are highly favored under modern technology and approaches to how people live in housing, but there are a whole pile of different systems in the past, interacting with inheritance law and such.
Thank you @ronya for coming into the thread.. I didn't know how it's held internationally well at all.
it's actually pretty fascinating. it turns up in economic history via the successive innovations created to support a system of property titles. Torrens-like systems are highly favored under modern technology and approaches to how people live in housing, but there are a whole pile of different systems in the past, interacting with inheritance law and such.
Yea, I can see the advantages to it, but it's a little totalitarian without some of the reforms, and I'm all about privatized equity/assets, but I can see how great it is for management in tradional monarchies.
Thank you @ronya for coming into the thread.. I didn't know how it's held internationally well at all.
it's actually pretty fascinating. it turns up in economic history via the successive innovations created to support a system of property titles. Torrens-like systems are highly favored under modern technology and approaches to how people live in housing, but there are a whole pile of different systems in the past, interacting with inheritance law and such.
Yea, I can see the advantages to it, but it's a little totalitarian without some of the reforms, and I'm all about privatized equity/assets, but I can see how great it is for management in tradional monarchies.
monarchies invented the land patent and chain of title; I assure you that the US has very much kept these ideas.
Torrens systems are good for centralized bureaucracies in societies with other large institutional non-state actors, since it makes all ownership highly legible to all actors rather than just local, close-to-the-ground actors. And that's very important for economic use of the assets!
I would not be the first to argue that prudential financial regulation should actively force even more financial assets and contingent claims into such systems, so that the world economy doesn't again undergo two years of contraction while regulators and banks and bankruptcy courts sort out the simple matter of who, exactly, owns what.
Posts
I understand desire for perfection, and have no problem with the law you've proposed with regards to graffiti; my biggest concerns are with dismissal of all due process, and a gross enlargement or fascism within of the federal, state, or local government. Property rights are in a pretty good place, imho, don't get me started on copyright, but with regards to this thread, I feel that tenancy laws are as they should be; heavily influenced by their municipality.
Basically you have to be a real retard with your money to not have a way to track down rent payments.
Like If I take $200 out one week, then $124.54 the next, then $600.56 the next.
I have never even heard of zoning boards having anything to do with land sales?
If someone had been living in my house, I would need to bring in some serious cleaning services, replace all the linens, etc. it would be really expensive even if there was no damage or theft (something I can't know until the squatters are gone anyway). Also, I don't just want them gone. I want them punished, severely. This is one of the few cases where I would even go so far as to call prison rapw a feature, not a bug. Fuck them for even stepping in my house without my permission, let alone violating my life like that.
I don't think the couple thing is so hard. You just have a rider that lists everyone entitled to dwell there, and the leaseholder(s) can remove names.
We should not permit these slice and dice sales. That eliminates the problem.
Squatters typically have rights if someone buys a plot of land and sits on it for two decades doing nothing (the unfortunate case in Colorado where a couple was planning to build their dream house and a judge and some lawyers used it as a camping spot).
Or, if you buy a building in midtown and let it fall apart and some people move in because they can't find who owns the building, and then fix it up.
You're equating squatters with tenants/house guests.
Where did the bad man touch you? You want squatters to be punished severely? What if there was no malice? I thought you were a lawyer, i don't understand how that's even possible with this view of the law.
And this part right here? This part is you being fucked up wrong.
2)you will have to explain this further.
3) America comes pre spliced and diced. Look at your local scavavager sale sometime. But what if its a 100 miles?
You want to jail graffiti artists?
Jesus Christ you've lost it, man.
You don't have to jail everyone who breaks the law.
Hence why American states have the systems of squatter's rights that they do. It's not just squatters, remember; it also includes the case of purchasers who are tricked into buying a fictitious or erroneous claim. If you want to have a system where someone's grandfather can promise someone else's grandfather a parcel of land and have this be a legally-enforceable promise, as Americans apparently do, then by the same token contracts will keep vanishing from the title system, e.g., when grandfather's contract is locked in a chest in the attic and forgotten.
And of course, for the sake of the reasonable squatter's rights, any legal system that heavily weights rights necessarily also grants these rights to unreasonable squatters who broke into one of your rural properties and manage to evade detection for the required years.
You can only dispose of squatter's rights if you bundle it with jurisprudential changes that make the due-diligence burden, placed on purchasers, a reasonable burden to undertake. As a practical argument, it is simply the statute of limitations as applied to title chain law.
If you want a more philosophical argument, consider instead that the rights to land included in fee simple simply fail to include the right to shield you against adverse possessors, and the onus was always upon you to pursue civil actions against such possessors - i.e., you never owned the right for the state to pro-actively shield you against squatters. The rights bundled in the title were like that when you bought it, et cetera.
Fixed that for you, and yea, invasion squatters are shitty, but so are people that pretend to own property and rent/lease it to less than sharp individuals (they just want a home, and want to believe it's true, in most instances.). I agree with the person who said invasion squatters are like felony voter fraud.. Usually the instances of them are just honest mistakes, or the real criminal isn't even around anymore to be held liable.
The extended stay was caused by bankruptcy laws, not squatter's rights.
The eviction notice should be necessary since the people who were living there believed they'd purchased the home legally and quite possibly even had documents showing them as the owners.
So again,
My only knowledge of actual legislation in this regard, which I suspect @spacekungfuman may be interested in, was where Singapore abolished adverse possession in the 1994 Land Titles Act. But Singapore had already begun adopting the Torrens system decades earlier and there was no morass of existing submerged claims to untangle.
Like the couple that bought a parcel of land and were saving money to build their dream house and lost it to a judge who liked to camp on the property. As if even casual browsing of the land would've been able to catch those people squatting.
I submit to you, @Spacekungfuman, that you are taking issue with living in a society of laws and due process then.
I think that this is all reasonable and correct, and I don't want to drag this discussion even more far afield by talking about a complete overhaul of the Anerican property system. Suffice to say that despite my moral outrage, I recognize that these are not simple matters, and so an generally ok with procedural protections, as long as the system actually moves quickly (this is not the case in NY). This is a position I have taken from the beginning of this thread, and I think it is the only practical solution.
That said, in the case where I come home from a long absence and find someone in my house, if I have title, a history of mortgage payments, a drivers liscensed with that address, etc. and the guy in my house has nothing but some mail, I really do think the right answer is to remove him as a trespasser until the courts have worked it through. If one side is going to be disadvantaged during the adjudicative process (this is neccesarily the case) then I think it should be the one with the claim that is obviously weaker on its face. And if the short term renter wants to avoid this? A written agreement is not so hard to produce, is it?
Which sometimes it is.
Deal.
OT (perhaps a new thread?) but I view graffiti as one of the worst crimes against property, because there is no purpose behind it. It is just a calous disregard for property rights, and it sickens me. Would that Thor saw fit to strike down all graffiti artists where they stand.
"Long-term speculative investment", hence :rotate:
Unfortunately you cannot construct law solely around cases which you can empathize with. Shielding yourself against common-law squatters actively requires that you successfully detect squatters - there is no requirement that this be sufficiently easy or cheap to achieve, and jurisprudence cannot set any arbitrary standards here without rewarding an arm's race between owners and would-be adverse possessors. If the law dictates that camping is a trivial pursuit and dream houses are worthy aims, suddenly all adverse possessors will have their own dream houses and all owners will have their own dream sky-castles.
(which is a real phenomenon: assorted American states have had to limit the reach of adverse possession when suddenly besieged by squatters who make nominal "improvements" to the property, like paving over the grass. It is hard to quantify good faith.)
I am taking issue with the way a particular law is drafted. There is no inconsistency between support of the system and opposition ro one law within it. Otherwise civil disobedience is a fools errand.
No, I think we've had enough threads about your crazy ass hyperbolic statements of late.
Graffiti also takes very little effort to get rid of. Fine the fucker, give them community service to clean up their little art project.
Jail, jesus.
Then in non urban areas we might be better off not encouraging possession in any case, or, not without a suitably long term (20 years).
No one is going to be hurt over the loss of a few acres of land here and there, assuming taxes are paid. I would assume taxes paid should be enough.
I am proposing a solution to a problem, and your answer is "that is not how things work because of the problem?". I am saying all such contracts should be in writing. Pointing out that they are not now does not refute my position. If anything it supports it.
What issue do you have with the way it's written?
The way that it doesn't cause the nonexistent, mythical situation you described?
That's a nice sentiment, but off base.
You stand against a process we have created that secures the rights of both tenant and landlord. You suggest a system wherein property owners can have any and all comers dismissed by the police at the drop of a phonecall.
You are, by definition, taking issue with due process.
In this instance, i agree, and you are protected by current law. This is a big walk back, and a lot more specific than some of the initial claims. A written agreement of rental is a hard barrier of entry to produce for a police officer, but in a court of law, I agree. My only issues with your property rights claims have been the denial of due process, or broadening the issue at hand to one for the federal, instead of local, government.
Again, forcing individuals to always have written agreements for their rental agreements would do nothing, but add bueracracy and open the system to manipulation by clever criminals. Making the state on the hook for an individuals personal property is just non-preferrable to the current status quo for a plethora of reasons; most of which have been touched on in the thread.
But what if a dragon eats his house?
You want him to have to go to court with a dragon, AMFE? Is that what you want?
Well, possession is nine-tenths of the law, is it not? And you do not appear to, ah, possess the land. You can file to evict the guy in the house, of course, and it will be civil trespass - this is already generally the case, although bits of the former British Empire may have altered that part of the law since. But you cannot have the guy summarily evicted, since this will permit speculative claimants to keep forcing the Court to identify real owners and create a de facto Torrens system. Wikipedia has a fascinating description of the legal manoeuvre (basically: how does the Court know that your own claim is, in fact, the real one? Generally it is obvious, because modern archival technology is expansive, but acknowledging as much would drastically change the legal terrain. For the non-Torrens system to work, buyers need to perform their own due diligence, not bait the Court into doing it for them).
Now, I do in fact think that Torrens titles are superior, but courts don't actually have the power to legislate their existence.
I should point out that the adverse-possession cases are generally boundary disputes rather than wholesale property transfers. It can be things as trivial as a fence being built a foot into another property, etc. Removing the trespasser would be... difficult.
The distinction between urban and rural areas is rather fuzzy. Middle-class people may only locate their dream houses in the countryside, but working-class people can put their dream houses in white-picket-fence suburbia. If you desire one, why not the other?
And taxes paid cannot be used as a criterion, for the obvious reason that it massively incentivizes creating fictitious claims by simply paying the taxes, which are generally much less than the value of the land.
it's actually pretty fascinating. it turns up in economic history via the successive innovations created to support a system of property titles. Torrens-like systems are highly favored under modern technology and approaches to how people live in housing, but there are a whole pile of different systems in the past, interacting with inheritance law and such.
Yea, I can see the advantages to it, but it's a little totalitarian without some of the reforms, and I'm all about privatized equity/assets, but I can see how great it is for management in tradional monarchies.
monarchies invented the land patent and chain of title; I assure you that the US has very much kept these ideas.
Torrens systems are good for centralized bureaucracies in societies with other large institutional non-state actors, since it makes all ownership highly legible to all actors rather than just local, close-to-the-ground actors. And that's very important for economic use of the assets!
I would not be the first to argue that prudential financial regulation should actively force even more financial assets and contingent claims into such systems, so that the world economy doesn't again undergo two years of contraction while regulators and banks and bankruptcy courts sort out the simple matter of who, exactly, owns what.
that just spreads out the costs of land disputes onto a lot more people; they don't actually avoid them