If you want to leave your land fallow, then why should you have it? You don't own it like a king, it wasn't granted to you by God Almighty, you didn't reclaim it from the sea. We give people rights to land because generally that works out better for everyone involved than having the government control all real property. But ownership is still a legal fiction. Part of our social contract. If what you're doing with the land you've been granted doesn't benefit our society, why should you get to keep it? If you have a house, unkept and unlived-in for years while another is homeless, why shouldn't they have it? Don't tell me because you spent your capital to buy that land. Capital and money are about as real as ownership, they are only useful in as much as they benefit the well-being of our society.
I can see this argument back in the 18th century but now? There's a whole mess of shit that doesn't seem useful to society but we don't see law proscribing remedy to that.
Also, who is the final arbiter of "useful for society"?
Like Dee said earlier, if you rented a jet ski you wouldn't be entitled to continue using it at all once the rental period expired. Why should a home be any different?
I only brought up the jetski thing to highlight the ridiculous way we were tossing around stakeholder like it was an important sounding word that's important.
I think we can all pretty much agree that tenant rights should greatly exceed recreational motor boat renter rights.
It's interesting that you used that analogy because it really shows the difference in the stake that a boat renter and a house renter has in their rental.
Boat renter hasn't rearranged their lives for the boat. Boat renter doesn't have pay people to move their stuff out of a boat. Boat renter doesn't have to rent a new boat (at a negotiating disadvantage) because boats aren't need to live. But a boat renter still has a stake in the boat and I don't think anyone would argue that the boat could be repossessed in the middle of the ocean.
The thing that no one seems to want to talk about is the fact that pretty much every legal and cultural institution we have is set up to benefit landlords and homeowners. Tenants Rights are basically a very tiny scrap bone tossed to renters to ever-so-slightly start to make up for those cultural and legal institutions.
If we want to talk about getting rid of things like the thirty-day pre-eviction grace period I'm happy to do that, just as soon as we also start talking about getting rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction, zoning limits on building heights and multi-occupancy buildings, and the obsession with maintaining property values as a priority when it comes to development.
Yeah, our entire society is basically based on Fuck Renters. Montana collected a nice fat budget surplus through property and income taxes, then elected to return that surplus through property taxes alone. Which even if your landlord would be kind enough to pass it through in reduced rent on your unit, they couldn't, because it was being returned on the taxes for primary residences only.
So the government was literally just taking money forcibly from renters, and handing it to their landlords.
Like Dee said earlier, if you rented a jet ski you wouldn't be entitled to continue using it at all once the rental period expired. Why should a home be any different?
I only brought up the jetski thing to highlight the ridiculous way we were tossing around stakeholder like it was an important sounding word that's important.
I think we can all pretty much agree that tenant rights should greatly exceed recreational motor boat renter rights.
It's interesting that you used that analogy because it really shows the difference in the stake that a boat renter and a house renter has in their rental.
Boat renter hasn't rearranged their lives for the boat. Boat renter doesn't have pay people to move their stuff out of a boat. Boat renter doesn't have to rent a new boat (at a negotiating disadvantage) because boats aren't need to live. But a boat renter still has a stake in the boat and I don't think anyone would argue that the boat could be repossessed in the middle of the ocean.
Ha, true. Even in the boat/jetski rental scenario the owner could not, legally, ride out in another vessel and repossess the property on the spot without at least providing the renter safe passage back to land.
If you want to leave your land fallow, then why should you have it? You don't own it like a king, it wasn't granted to you by God Almighty, you didn't reclaim it from the sea. We give people rights to land because generally that works out better for everyone involved than having the government control all real property. But ownership is still a legal fiction. Part of our social contract. If what you're doing with the land you've been granted doesn't benefit our society, why should you get to keep it? If you have a house, unkept and unlived-in for years while another is homeless, why shouldn't they have it? Don't tell me because you spent your capital to buy that land. Capital and money are about as real as ownership, they are only useful in as much as they benefit the well-being of our society.
I can see this argument back in the 18th century but now? There's a whole mess of shit that doesn't seem useful to society but we don't see law proscribing remedy to that.
Also, who is the final arbiter of "useful for society"?
No one is. I was just trying to disabuse SKFM of the notion ownership of property is anywhere near absolute.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Yeah, I find the idea of a public path through private property to be equally terrible. I just don't see why my rights as property owner should be anything less than sacrosanct with respect to chattels or real property.
I'd love to see you come up here to Montana and espouse this view. Mainly for the entertainment value of watching you flee for the state border afterwards. That's how serious we take our field and stream access laws here.
I'm just going to say that I don't expect a property owner to see their rights as anything less than sacrosanct. That's why we, as a society, had to reduce them through government action, backed by force of law (and threat of actual force as necessary).
And unless you purchased your property in 1673, you purchased it knowing your rights could be limited in various ways, and were not sacrosanct.
And as for the "why," it's easy...because not all property owners are as responsible and conscientious as you presumably think you are (and may well be). Also, because in some situations greater public good trumps private property rights.
Everyone is focused on the "poor" person who fails to pay his rent and shouldn't be made to live on the streets (conveniently, people are often referring to families and children when describing these heroic/tragic figures) but what of the property owner who is forced to allow someone to use his property uncompensated? If you had an apartment that was unoccupied, would you say that we ought to move a homeless family in there, without compensating people, since society has an interest in not having people be homeless? What difference between the homeless family in this example and the renter who lives in an apartment for months while the landlord goes through the proper legal process to get him evicted? Either way, the landlord is being harmed, in exchange for a benefit to a non-owner, and I just don't understand why we would think that anyone other than the lawful owner of a property ought to reap the benefits of said property.
I would be very interested in discovering in which locality it was actually the case that people were allowed to move, unknown, into an unoccupied property and were subsequently unable to be evicted. Because that isn't how adverse possession works basically anywhere, aside from maybe some uninhabited frontier somewhere.
(I'm also not sure what the problem is with society taking unoccupied rental space and using for, you know, something useful. Some frictional period of un-occupancy is natural, but if there were an entire apartment building somewhere which was vacant for an extended period I wouldn't have a problem with it being re-zoned as section 8 housing or something.)
In most U.S. localities the requirement is 30 days of notice for eviction (I think in a few states it's 60), which landlords typically issue the day after the rental due date. If the tenant pays then the rental agreement continues, or if the tenant is month to month they can simply be evicted on the basis of that notice. There is a reason the relatively standard required security deposit is the equivalent of one month's rent; the landlord is not "harmed" by this 30 days, because they hold a deposit which covers the liability for the period.
Taking property is very rare in the US, but not in other parts of the world. I know people who have travelled here from India and then returned to their homes months or years later to find someone else living there, with no way to remove them. But it doesn't need to be so dramatic. If you went on a 3 month long vacation and then came home to find someone squatting in your house, you could not just call the police and have them arrested in most jurisdictions, because living there for 30 days will have given them rights. In my mind, this is a criminal who should be arrested and jailed immeadiately, and then required to compensate the owner for the time, and damages, and the enotional harm of having their living space violated like that. Equally absurd, if you own commercial real estate which lies unused and someone lives there long enough, you must make sure the property complies with residential building codes!
If I want to leave my land fallow, what concern of yours? It is my land. But then I am the person who sympathized with the home and business owners who were put out by the OWS shanty town and believe that crimes against property like graffiti should be taken much more seriously, so I know I am extreme iny belief in property rights.
I'm not sure where you have gotten the idea that squatter's rights or adverse possession take affect after 30 days of occupancy. That isn't how it works in the U.S. or probably anywhere else in the western world. It just... isn't. If you returned from a vacation and found a trespasser in your house you'd call the police, because they'd be a trespasser (and also probably guilty of B&E and possibly other crimes.) Aside from some marginal cases where the title is in dispute or there is no legitimate owner (following a death, or recently following fucked up foreclosure practices), this kind of thing just doesn't happen, and when it does it can be quickly resolved.
It's possible that some jurisdictions may suffer from a lack of municipal enforcement and maybe it's a big enough problem to be worth being concerned about, but that's a considerable walkback from the "one day late, get the fuck out" position you held at the start of this thread.
The 30 day period of possible delinquency is exactly what a security deposit is meant to cover. That's why it's the equivalent of one month's rent, and not some other arbitrary amount (and also why landlords levy additional cleaning or furniture related charges.) And if a landlord feels one month is an inadequate amount, they can ask for a larger deposit in the regular course of negotiation.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm just going to say that I don't expect a property owner to see their rights as anything less than sacrosanct. That's why we, as a society, had to reduce them through government action, backed by force of law (and threat of actual force as necessary).
And unless you purchased your property in 1673, you purchased it knowing your rights could be limited in various ways, and were not sacrosanct.
And as for the "why," it's easy...because not all property owners are as responsible and conscientious as you presumably think you are (and may well be). Also, because in some situations greater public good trumps private property rights.
I always get a laugh out of the attitude that property rights are some kind of natural, sacrosanct thing. You know what the vikings did when they wanted to live where you lived? They put an axe in your head, threw your body in the river, and moved on in.
Everybody recognized that arrangement kind of sucked, and so (to paraphrase 500 years of world political history) we have the modern state. The modern state provides administration of property transactions, commissions courts to adjudicate property owners' disputes, and employs police to protect property from damage. None of this is "natural" and until (historically) recently there were gigantic societies that didn't even recognize the concept of say, privately owned land. But when the public extracts some sort of relatively minor concession from property owners in exchange for all the largesse of protecting them and ensuring their livelihood, it's treated as though it's some kind of afront.
the modern state is a bargain we make with each other. If you don't like it you're welcome to lobby your legislator. Alternatively, get the fuck out.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The thing that no one seems to want to talk about is the fact that pretty much every legal and cultural institution we have is set up to benefit landlords and homeowners. Tenants Rights are basically a very tiny scrap bone tossed to renters to ever-so-slightly start to make up for those cultural and legal institutions.
If we want to talk about getting rid of things like the thirty-day pre-eviction grace period I'm happy to do that, just as soon as we also start talking about getting rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction, zoning limits on building heights and multi-occupancy buildings, and the obsession with maintaining property values as a priority when it comes to development.
Yeah, our entire society is basically based on Fuck Renters. Montana collected a nice fat budget surplus through property and income taxes, then elected to return that surplus through property taxes alone. Which even if your landlord would be kind enough to pass it through in reduced rent on your unit, they couldn't, because it was being returned on the taxes for primary residences only.
So the government was literally just taking money forcibly from renters, and handing it to their landlords.
My favorite pro-landlord law:
In WA state, if the landlord enters the renter's property without being invited or giving proper notice, they owe the renter $100 for each violation. (This is actually good, of course.) EXCEPT, this law is only applicable after the landlord has trespassed once already and the tenant has given written notice complaining of such and warning they will pursue the fine against the landlord.
So, in effect, the landlord is actually allowed to to trespass without penalty as much as they want, until the renter sends them a letter asking for them to knock it off. Assuming the renter even knows about this law.
It's doubly fucked up because the whole reason for such an exemption would be to give grace to someone who is not expected to have a thorough understanding of the law. Except landlords absolutely should know ALL applicable law before they begin renting,. To give them grace is just absurd.
Aioua on
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
The thing that no one seems to want to talk about is the fact that pretty much every legal and cultural institution we have is set up to benefit landlords and homeowners. Tenants Rights are basically a very tiny scrap bone tossed to renters to ever-so-slightly start to make up for those cultural and legal institutions.
If we want to talk about getting rid of things like the thirty-day pre-eviction grace period I'm happy to do that, just as soon as we also start talking about getting rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction, zoning limits on building heights and multi-occupancy buildings, and the obsession with maintaining property values as a priority when it comes to development.
Yeah, our entire society is basically based on Fuck Renters. Montana collected a nice fat budget surplus through property and income taxes, then elected to return that surplus through property taxes alone. Which even if your landlord would be kind enough to pass it through in reduced rent on your unit, they couldn't, because it was being returned on the taxes for primary residences only.
So the government was literally just taking money forcibly from renters, and handing it to their landlords.
My favorite pro-landlord law:
In WA state, if the landlord enters the renter's property without being invited or giving proper notice, they owe the renter $100 for each violation. (This is actually good, of course.) EXCEPT, this law is only applicable after the landlord has trespassed once already and the tenant has given written notice complaining of such and warning they will pursue the fine against the landlord.
So, in effect, the landlord is actually allowed to to trespass without penalty as much as they want, until the renter sends them a letter asking for them to knock it off. Assuming the renter even knows about this law.
It's doubly fucked up because the whole reason for such an exemption would be to give grace to someone who is not expected to have a thorough understanding of the law. Except landlords absolutely should know ALL applicable law before they begin renting,. To give them grace is just absurd.
I could see how something like this could be misused without the letter.
Like if I had a water leak, or more likely an overrunning bath tub and couldn't get a hold of the tenant. That could be a lot of damage. Or the one I really hate, a tenant who skips town without notice. Technically I am supposed to give them five day notice before staring eviction proceedings but it has to be in person so how do I do that when I don't know where they are? So just get behind on your rent, set up some cameras and leave town for a few days. 100 bucks every time I show your apartment I guess.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
The thing that no one seems to want to talk about is the fact that pretty much every legal and cultural institution we have is set up to benefit landlords and homeowners. Tenants Rights are basically a very tiny scrap bone tossed to renters to ever-so-slightly start to make up for those cultural and legal institutions.
If we want to talk about getting rid of things like the thirty-day pre-eviction grace period I'm happy to do that, just as soon as we also start talking about getting rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction, zoning limits on building heights and multi-occupancy buildings, and the obsession with maintaining property values as a priority when it comes to development.
Yeah, our entire society is basically based on Fuck Renters. Montana collected a nice fat budget surplus through property and income taxes, then elected to return that surplus through property taxes alone. Which even if your landlord would be kind enough to pass it through in reduced rent on your unit, they couldn't, because it was being returned on the taxes for primary residences only.
So the government was literally just taking money forcibly from renters, and handing it to their landlords.
My favorite pro-landlord law:
In WA state, if the landlord enters the renter's property without being invited or giving proper notice, they owe the renter $100 for each violation. (This is actually good, of course.) EXCEPT, this law is only applicable after the landlord has trespassed once already and the tenant has given written notice complaining of such and warning they will pursue the fine against the landlord.
So, in effect, the landlord is actually allowed to to trespass without penalty as much as they want, until the renter sends them a letter asking for them to knock it off. Assuming the renter even knows about this law.
It's doubly fucked up because the whole reason for such an exemption would be to give grace to someone who is not expected to have a thorough understanding of the law. Except landlords absolutely should know ALL applicable law before they begin renting,. To give them grace is just absurd.
I could see how something like this could be misused without the letter.
Like if I had a water leak, or more likely an overrunning bath tub and couldn't get a hold of the tenant. That could be a lot of damage. Or the one I really hate, a tenant who skips town without notice. Technically I am supposed to give them five day notice before staring eviction proceedings but it has to be in person so how do I do that when I don't know where they are? So just get behind on your rent, set up some cameras and leave town for a few days. 100 bucks every time I show your apartment I guess.
Is there a rider about emergency situations in there?
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
In most states, if not all, you're allowed to enter property you're renting out for an emergency, which includes stuff like water overflowing and damaging the place.
+2
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Everyone is focused on the "poor" person who fails to pay his rent and shouldn't be made to live on the streets (conveniently, people are often referring to families and children when describing these heroic/tragic figures) but what of the property owner who is forced to allow someone to use his property uncompensated? If you had an apartment that was unoccupied, would you say that we ought to move a homeless family in there, without compensating people, since society has an interest in not having people be homeless? What difference between the homeless family in this example and the renter who lives in an apartment for months while the landlord goes through the proper legal process to get him evicted? Either way, the landlord is being harmed, in exchange for a benefit to a non-owner, and I just don't understand why we would think that anyone other than the lawful owner of a property ought to reap the benefits of said property.
I would be very interested in discovering in which locality it was actually the case that people were allowed to move, unknown, into an unoccupied property and were subsequently unable to be evicted. Because that isn't how adverse possession works basically anywhere, aside from maybe some uninhabited frontier somewhere.
(I'm also not sure what the problem is with society taking unoccupied rental space and using for, you know, something useful. Some frictional period of un-occupancy is natural, but if there were an entire apartment building somewhere which was vacant for an extended period I wouldn't have a problem with it being re-zoned as section 8 housing or something.)
In most U.S. localities the requirement is 30 days of notice for eviction (I think in a few states it's 60), which landlords typically issue the day after the rental due date. If the tenant pays then the rental agreement continues, or if the tenant is month to month they can simply be evicted on the basis of that notice. There is a reason the relatively standard required security deposit is the equivalent of one month's rent; the landlord is not "harmed" by this 30 days, because they hold a deposit which covers the liability for the period.
Taking property is very rare in the US, but not in other parts of the world. I know people who have travelled here from India and then returned to their homes months or years later to find someone else living there, with no way to remove them. But it doesn't need to be so dramatic. If you went on a 3 month long vacation and then came home to find someone squatting in your house, you could not just call the police and have them arrested in most jurisdictions, because living there for 30 days will have given them rights. In my mind, this is a criminal who should be arrested and jailed immeadiately, and then required to compensate the owner for the time, and damages, and the enotional harm of having their living space violated like that. Equally absurd, if you own commercial real estate which lies unused and someone lives there long enough, you must make sure the property complies with residential building codes!
If I want to leave my land fallow, what concern of yours? It is my land. But then I am the person who sympathized with the home and business owners who were put out by the OWS shanty town and believe that crimes against property like graffiti should be taken much more seriously, so I know I am extreme iny belief in property rights.
I'm not sure where you have gotten the idea that squatter's rights or adverse possession take affect after 30 days of occupancy. That isn't how it works in the U.S. or probably anywhere else in the western world. It just... isn't. If you returned from a vacation and found a trespasser in your house you'd call the police, because they'd be a trespasser (and also probably guilty of B&E and possibly other crimes.) Aside from some marginal cases where the title is in dispute or there is no legitimate owner (following a death, or recently following fucked up foreclosure practices), this kind of thing just doesn't happen, and when it does it can be quickly resolved.
It's possible that some jurisdictions may suffer from a lack of municipal enforcement and maybe it's a big enough problem to be worth being concerned about, but that's a considerable walkback from the "one day late, get the fuck out" position you held at the start of this thread.
The 30 day period of possible delinquency is exactly what a security deposit is meant to cover. That's why it's the equivalent of one month's rent, and not some other arbitrary amount (and also why landlords levy additional cleaning or furniture related charges.) And if a landlord feels one month is an inadequate amount, they can ask for a larger deposit in the regular course of negotiation.
Not to be too cynical but if landlords, en masse, started asking for larger deposits im sure 90% of this thread would complain about that.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
In most states, if not all, you're allowed to enter property you're renting out for an emergency, which includes stuff like water overflowing and damaging the place.
Yeah, it turns out the law isn't written to enable sitcom plots as much as TV would like us to believe.
asking for first and last in advance isn't uncommon here; it's the kind of price determination that can easily be left to the market. Hell ask for a six month deposit up front if you want, although I doubt you'll get many renters.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The thing that no one seems to want to talk about is the fact that pretty much every legal and cultural institution we have is set up to benefit landlords and homeowners. Tenants Rights are basically a very tiny scrap bone tossed to renters to ever-so-slightly start to make up for those cultural and legal institutions.
If we want to talk about getting rid of things like the thirty-day pre-eviction grace period I'm happy to do that, just as soon as we also start talking about getting rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction, zoning limits on building heights and multi-occupancy buildings, and the obsession with maintaining property values as a priority when it comes to development.
Yeah, our entire society is basically based on Fuck Renters. Montana collected a nice fat budget surplus through property and income taxes, then elected to return that surplus through property taxes alone. Which even if your landlord would be kind enough to pass it through in reduced rent on your unit, they couldn't, because it was being returned on the taxes for primary residences only.
So the government was literally just taking money forcibly from renters, and handing it to their landlords.
My favorite pro-landlord law:
In WA state, if the landlord enters the renter's property without being invited or giving proper notice, they owe the renter $100 for each violation. (This is actually good, of course.) EXCEPT, this law is only applicable after the landlord has trespassed once already and the tenant has given written notice complaining of such and warning they will pursue the fine against the landlord.
So, in effect, the landlord is actually allowed to to trespass without penalty as much as they want, until the renter sends them a letter asking for them to knock it off. Assuming the renter even knows about this law.
It's doubly fucked up because the whole reason for such an exemption would be to give grace to someone who is not expected to have a thorough understanding of the law. Except landlords absolutely should know ALL applicable law before they begin renting,. To give them grace is just absurd.
I could see how something like this could be misused without the letter.
Like if I had a water leak, or more likely an overrunning bath tub and couldn't get a hold of the tenant. That could be a lot of damage. Or the one I really hate, a tenant who skips town without notice. Technically I am supposed to give them five day notice before staring eviction proceedings but it has to be in person so how do I do that when I don't know where they are? So just get behind on your rent, set up some cameras and leave town for a few days. 100 bucks every time I show your apartment I guess.
Yeah WA has exceptions for emergencies. Also it's written notice, so a letter or posting something on the door.
You're actually required to give in person notice, subpoena style? I haven't heard of that required before.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
The thing that no one seems to want to talk about is the fact that pretty much every legal and cultural institution we have is set up to benefit landlords and homeowners. Tenants Rights are basically a very tiny scrap bone tossed to renters to ever-so-slightly start to make up for those cultural and legal institutions.
If we want to talk about getting rid of things like the thirty-day pre-eviction grace period I'm happy to do that, just as soon as we also start talking about getting rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction, zoning limits on building heights and multi-occupancy buildings, and the obsession with maintaining property values as a priority when it comes to development.
Yeah, our entire society is basically based on Fuck Renters. Montana collected a nice fat budget surplus through property and income taxes, then elected to return that surplus through property taxes alone. Which even if your landlord would be kind enough to pass it through in reduced rent on your unit, they couldn't, because it was being returned on the taxes for primary residences only.
So the government was literally just taking money forcibly from renters, and handing it to their landlords.
My favorite pro-landlord law:
In WA state, if the landlord enters the renter's property without being invited or giving proper notice, they owe the renter $100 for each violation. (This is actually good, of course.) EXCEPT, this law is only applicable after the landlord has trespassed once already and the tenant has given written notice complaining of such and warning they will pursue the fine against the landlord.
So, in effect, the landlord is actually allowed to to trespass without penalty as much as they want, until the renter sends them a letter asking for them to knock it off. Assuming the renter even knows about this law.
It's doubly fucked up because the whole reason for such an exemption would be to give grace to someone who is not expected to have a thorough understanding of the law. Except landlords absolutely should know ALL applicable law before they begin renting,. To give them grace is just absurd.
I could see how something like this could be misused without the letter.
Like if I had a water leak, or more likely an overrunning bath tub and couldn't get a hold of the tenant. That could be a lot of damage. Or the one I really hate, a tenant who skips town without notice. Technically I am supposed to give them five day notice before staring eviction proceedings but it has to be in person so how do I do that when I don't know where they are? So just get behind on your rent, set up some cameras and leave town for a few days. 100 bucks every time I show your apartment I guess.
Like everyone else says, there are exceptions for emergencies. Hell, if you see a complete fucking stranger's house on fire and run in to help, you are not going to be prosecuted for breaking and entering.
In addition, there are ways to serve people in abstentia, so it's not like it puts a landlord in an impossible situation. In fact, it's not even that much more difficult, especially if you're their landlord.
And I'm again having to question why we're talking about what horrible violations of property rights these super-minor protections of renters are, when our society is constructed on a foundation of "fuck renters, huge amounts of welfare for landowners."
In most states, if not all, you're allowed to enter property you're renting out for an emergency, which includes stuff like water overflowing and damaging the place.
I would have to imagine this is common to most if not all states. It would be silly if the landlord could not enter a property in an emergency situation. Mine has entered my apartment a couple times unannounced prior to doing it because the there was a plumbing problem in the unit below me and some of the stuff he needed to get at to fix it was up in my apartment. But he is always good about giving me a call to let me know it happened and why.
As long as I am kept in the loop I don't have any problems with landlords doing necessary maintenance that pops up unexpectedly.
kaid on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm just going to say that I don't expect a property owner to see their rights as anything less than sacrosanct. That's why we, as a society, had to reduce them through government action, backed by force of law (and threat of actual force as necessary).
And unless you purchased your property in 1673, you purchased it knowing your rights could be limited in various ways, and were not sacrosanct.
And as for the "why," it's easy...because not all property owners are as responsible and conscientious as you presumably think you are (and may well be). Also, because in some situations greater public good trumps private property rights.
I always get a laugh out of the attitude that property rights are some kind of natural, sacrosanct thing. You know what the vikings did when they wanted to live where you lived? They put an axe in your head, threw your body in the river, and moved on in.
Everybody recognized that arrangement kind of sucked, and so (to paraphrase 500 years of world political history) we have the modern state. The modern state provides administration of property transactions, commissions courts to adjudicate property owners' disputes, and employs police to protect property from damage. None of this is "natural" and until (historically) recently there were gigantic societies that didn't even recognize the concept of say, privately owned land. But when the public extracts some sort of relatively minor concession from property owners in exchange for all the largesse of protecting them and ensuring their livelihood, it's treated as though it's some kind of afront.
the modern state is a bargain we make with each other. If you don't like it you're welcome to lobby your legislator. Alternatively, get the fuck out.
I don't believe in natural rights, but I do believe that when I invest my labor into something, or exchange money I receive for a thing, my right should be absolute, subordinate only to great, pressing public needs. I equate taking someone's property with a theft of their labor, and I know no name for the forced appropriation of someone's labor without compensation but slavery. This is why I take such a hard line on property rights.
I think that a just system of laws would provide a tenant with absolute protections during the term of the lease, and no rights at all once that lease had expired or been breached (with appropriate due process protections and a speedy process for adjudicating claims, and back damages). I don't think we are far off the mark with our current laws, although I think we could do much better on the adjudication front.
Adverse possession on the other hand. . . That I don't believe in under any circumstances. If land is unused and becomes a problem, letter government intervene. I see no reason for this to be a matter for private parties to resolve.
If you went on a 3 month long vacation and then came home to find someone squatting in your house, you could not just call the police and have them arrested in most jurisdictions, because living there for 30 days will have given them rights. In my mind, this is a criminal who should be arrested and jailed immeadiately, and then required to compensate the owner for the time, and damages, and the enotional harm of having their living space violated like that. Equally absurd, if you own commercial real estate which lies unused and someone lives there long enough, you must make sure the property complies with residential building codes!
I know you've been to law school and all, but I need citations for this stuff because I'm calling shenanigans. It takes years to assert adverse possession, and once somebody does, it's no longer the responsibility of the owner to adhere to residential building codes. You're describing a state of affairs that is, as far as I understand, a complete fiction.
If I want to leave my land fallow, what concern of yours?
Abandoned buildings attract pests, present fire hazards, depress property values, promote broken window effects, and cause undesirable urban sprawl.
...to say nothing of the social injustice of having unused buildings and homeless people in the same city.
The alternative to adverse possession is urban renewal via eminent domain. An absolutist view of property rights is not a viable alternative - it is also a fiction. How you use (or do not use) your property has direct effects on your neighbors and the outlying community; it is within the public and state interest to define how your property may or may not be used.
Like Dee said earlier, if you rented a jet ski you wouldn't be entitled to continue using it at all once the rental period expired. Why should a home be any different?
I only brought up the jetski thing to highlight the ridiculous way we were tossing around stakeholder like it was an important sounding word that's important.
I think we can all pretty much agree that tenant rights should greatly exceed recreational motor boat renter rights.
The way we're using the word 'stakeholder' is completely in line with how it is used in public policy. I don't see why this is an issue.
The 30 day period of possible delinquency is exactly what a security deposit is meant to cover. That's why it's the equivalent of one month's rent, and not some other arbitrary amount (and also why landlords levy additional cleaning or furniture related charges.) And if a landlord feels one month is an inadequate amount, they can ask for a larger deposit in the regular course of negotiation.
Not to be too cynical but if landlords, en masse, started asking for larger deposits im sure 90% of this thread would complain about that.
California law allows 2 months' rent. I could stomach up to 3 months' rent. Any higher than that, and yes I would absolutely complain.
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.
The thing that no one seems to want to talk about is the fact that pretty much every legal and cultural institution we have is set up to benefit landlords and homeowners. Tenants Rights are basically a very tiny scrap bone tossed to renters to ever-so-slightly start to make up for those cultural and legal institutions.
If we want to talk about getting rid of things like the thirty-day pre-eviction grace period I'm happy to do that, just as soon as we also start talking about getting rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction, zoning limits on building heights and multi-occupancy buildings, and the obsession with maintaining property values as a priority when it comes to development.
Yeah, our entire society is basically based on Fuck Renters. Montana collected a nice fat budget surplus through property and income taxes, then elected to return that surplus through property taxes alone. Which even if your landlord would be kind enough to pass it through in reduced rent on your unit, they couldn't, because it was being returned on the taxes for primary residences only.
So the government was literally just taking money forcibly from renters, and handing it to their landlords.
My favorite pro-landlord law:
In WA state, if the landlord enters the renter's property without being invited or giving proper notice, they owe the renter $100 for each violation. (This is actually good, of course.) EXCEPT, this law is only applicable after the landlord has trespassed once already and the tenant has given written notice complaining of such and warning they will pursue the fine against the landlord.
So, in effect, the landlord is actually allowed to to trespass without penalty as much as they want, until the renter sends them a letter asking for them to knock it off. Assuming the renter even knows about this law.
It's doubly fucked up because the whole reason for such an exemption would be to give grace to someone who is not expected to have a thorough understanding of the law. Except landlords absolutely should know ALL applicable law before they begin renting,. To give them grace is just absurd.
I could see how something like this could be misused without the letter.
Like if I had a water leak, or more likely an overrunning bath tub and couldn't get a hold of the tenant. That could be a lot of damage. Or the one I really hate, a tenant who skips town without notice. Technically I am supposed to give them five day notice before staring eviction proceedings but it has to be in person so how do I do that when I don't know where they are? So just get behind on your rent, set up some cameras and leave town for a few days. 100 bucks every time I show your apartment I guess.
Like everyone else says, there are exceptions for emergencies. Hell, if you see a complete fucking stranger's house on fire and run in to help, you are not going to be prosecuted for breaking and entering.
In addition, there are ways to serve people in abstentia, so it's not like it puts a landlord in an impossible situation. In fact, it's not even that much more difficult, especially if you're their landlord.
And I'm again having to question why we're talking about what horrible violations of property rights these super-minor protections of renters are, when our society is constructed on a foundation of "fuck renters, huge amounts of welfare for landowners."
Well us, emergencies would be covered. I'm just saying that laws like that can cut both ways and let scammers hurt otherwise well meaning people.
I'm just going to say that I don't expect a property owner to see their rights as anything less than sacrosanct. That's why we, as a society, had to reduce them through government action, backed by force of law (and threat of actual force as necessary).
And unless you purchased your property in 1673, you purchased it knowing your rights could be limited in various ways, and were not sacrosanct.
And as for the "why," it's easy...because not all property owners are as responsible and conscientious as you presumably think you are (and may well be). Also, because in some situations greater public good trumps private property rights.
I always get a laugh out of the attitude that property rights are some kind of natural, sacrosanct thing. You know what the vikings did when they wanted to live where you lived? They put an axe in your head, threw your body in the river, and moved on in.
Everybody recognized that arrangement kind of sucked, and so (to paraphrase 500 years of world political history) we have the modern state. The modern state provides administration of property transactions, commissions courts to adjudicate property owners' disputes, and employs police to protect property from damage. None of this is "natural" and until (historically) recently there were gigantic societies that didn't even recognize the concept of say, privately owned land. But when the public extracts some sort of relatively minor concession from property owners in exchange for all the largesse of protecting them and ensuring their livelihood, it's treated as though it's some kind of afront.
the modern state is a bargain we make with each other. If you don't like it you're welcome to lobby your legislator. Alternatively, get the fuck out.
I don't believe in natural rights, but I do believe that when I invest my labor into something, or exchange money I receive for a thing, my right should be absolute, subordinate only to great, pressing public needs. I equate taking someone's property with a theft of their labor, and I know no name for the forced appropriation of someone's labor without compensation but slavery. This is why I take such a hard line on property rights.
The thing is, I'm pretty sure centuries of jurisprudence disagree with you. No personal right needs enormous justification for abridgement, not even property.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Ok, yeah, when you get to the point where you're saying "I don't believe in natural rights" I no longer believe you're interested in having a substantive discussion regarding western, and specifically American law.
there's nothing wrong with adverse possession in actual practice; it's just a means of codifying the use that exists anyway without the need for parties to go through the formality of keeping records updated (and like, auditing or something to make sure no pre-dating records exist.) It's only a problem with it if we pretend that it happens after somebody invades a home and squats there for a month.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
@spacekungfuman do not fucking equate theft of labor with slavery. Just don't. Theft of labor is when you don't pay your contractor for remodeling your kitchen.
Slavery is depriving a person of their autonomy and removing their humanity. There are few acts as evil.
Aioua on
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
All it takes is an episode of Hoarders to realize that, even though you may own the property completely, you still don't have absolute rights when it comes to it and the city.
You see these houses that look fine on the outside, but are packed literally to the ceiling with junk. And you might be tempted to say "Well that's sad, but it's their house and land that they own, they can do whatever they want on it". Except that these places are insanely large fire and disease hazards that will affect the surrounding areas. So despite it being the resident's house and land, the city has every right to tell them to fix it up or else they'll be kicked to the street and the place demolished.
So yeah, it's your land, and if you want to leave it fallow and attracting all manner of bugs and pests and otherwise lowering the quality of the area around it, it is within your rights as the owner. It's also within the city's rights to tell you you're a goose and to get it fixed up pronto, lest they take it away from you by force.
If you want land that is utterly 100% yours to do, or not do with as you please, your only option is a patch in the middle of complete nowhere.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
In most states, if not all, you're allowed to enter property you're renting out for an emergency, which includes stuff like water overflowing and damaging the place.
I would have to imagine this is common to most if not all states. It would be silly if the landlord could not enter a property in an emergency situation. Mine has entered my apartment a couple times unannounced prior to doing it because the there was a plumbing problem in the unit below me and some of the stuff he needed to get at to fix it was up in my apartment. But he is always good about giving me a call to let me know it happened and why.
As long as I am kept in the loop I don't have any problems with landlords doing necessary maintenance that pops up unexpectedly.
Even a home owner isn't so secure in his claim that he has a right to exclude emergency personal from his home. You can't store dangerous things like giant water tanks on your property either. Public safety has to win out in the end.
In the talk about squatters vs owners the story of my neighborhood and home might be relevant in an anecdotal way.
My house lies in what was once a slum, it was working-class or poverty level people that lived here. Most of the homes where owned by the city and those there privately owned where owned by slum lords. The City in their great wisdom decided to tear the entire street down and turn it into a motor way, because 5 minute shorter commute was totally worth it. They stopped doing maintenance beyond the bare minimum and the slum lords stopped entirely.
Thing is my neighborhood is close to the city center and close to the university and you know what that means: Students looking for a cheap place to live! They fought the eviction order and occupied several derelict buildings. They started repairing them and making them fit for human habitation again. They city tried evicting them via a court of law, but lost mostly due to them not being good landlords to begin with.
The motorway plan was shelved and most of the houses where refurbished by the city. My neighborhood is no one of the most desired places to live and the prices match. My 40 m2 apartment was recently adjusted to commercial rent by the city: 1800$(heating included) a month. The entire neighborhood has turned into a cash cow for the city and I could probably not get an apartment here in the private market.
Just because you own a property doesn't mean your judgment is the best on what to do with it and just because Squatters break the law doesn't meant they are the bad guys.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Ok, yeah, when you get to the point where you're saying "I don't believe in natural rights" I no longer believe you're interested in having a substantive discussion regarding western, and specifically American law.
I was surprised to learn that Washington doesn't have a law pertaining to the testing and/or removal of molds.
So....I emailed my legislators about it.
It's probably covered by a blanket requirement that rentals be suitable for residence. If the mold is the landlord's fault (it isn't always) and it poses a health risk then it's the landlord's responsibility to fix whatever caused the mold in the first place.
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.
I was surprised to learn that Washington doesn't have a law pertaining to the testing and/or removal of molds.
So....I emailed my legislators about it.
It's probably covered by a blanket requirement that rentals be suitable for residence. If the mold is the landlord's fault (it isn't always) and it poses a health risk then it's the landlord's responsibility to fix whatever caused the mold in the first place.
The blanket requirement is "water leaks," which may cause mold to grow.
There is no requirement to specifically have the mold tested and removed by the landlord.
My friend's landlord just painted over the mold. This isn't something you should do.
Slider on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If you went on a 3 month long vacation and then came home to find someone squatting in your house, you could not just call the police and have them arrested in most jurisdictions, because living there for 30 days will have given them rights. In my mind, this is a criminal who should be arrested and jailed immeadiately, and then required to compensate the owner for the time, and damages, and the enotional harm of having their living space violated like that. Equally absurd, if you own commercial real estate which lies unused and someone lives there long enough, you must make sure the property complies with residential building codes!
I know you've been to law school and all, but I need citations for this stuff because I'm calling shenanigans. It takes years to assert adverse possession, and once somebody does, it's no longer the responsibility of the owner to adhere to residential building codes. You're describing a state of affairs that is, as far as I understand, a complete fiction.
If I want to leave my land fallow, what concern of yours?
Abandoned buildings attract pests, present fire hazards, depress property values, promote broken window effects, and cause undesirable urban sprawl.
...to say nothing of the social injustice of having unused buildings and homeless people in the same city.
The alternative to adverse possession is urban renewal via eminent domain. An absolutist view of property rights is not a viable alternative - it is also a fiction. How you use (or do not use) your property has direct effects on your neighbors and the outlying community; it is within the public and state interest to define how your property may or may not be used.
Like Dee said earlier, if you rented a jet ski you wouldn't be entitled to continue using it at all once the rental period expired. Why should a home be any different?
I only brought up the jetski thing to highlight the ridiculous way we were tossing around stakeholder like it was an important sounding word that's important.
I think we can all pretty much agree that tenant rights should greatly exceed recreational motor boat renter rights.
The way we're using the word 'stakeholder' is completely in line with how it is used in public policy. I don't see why this is an issue.
The 30 day period of possible delinquency is exactly what a security deposit is meant to cover. That's why it's the equivalent of one month's rent, and not some other arbitrary amount (and also why landlords levy additional cleaning or furniture related charges.) And if a landlord feels one month is an inadequate amount, they can ask for a larger deposit in the regular course of negotiation.
Not to be too cynical but if landlords, en masse, started asking for larger deposits im sure 90% of this thread would complain about that.
California law allows 2 months' rent. I could stomach up to 3 months' rent. Any higher than that, and yes I would absolutely complain.
Squatters rights are distinct from adverse possession. In NY state, you need a court order to evict someone who has occupied a space for 30 days. You would certainly get it in the case I outlined, but I don't think you should need a court order at all.
The 12 month commercial space thing is similiar. 12 months is nowhere near adverse possession, but if you own a warehouse which lies empty and people move in, under so called "loft" laws, you are required to insure things like the provision of heat and hot water (you can require them to pay for it, I think). I think it is absurd that someone who takes up residence in your building without your permission should be able to have any interactions with the law outside of being arrested for trespassing.
I absolutely think that the adverse possession model is inferior to eminent domain. If property lies empty and it becomes a hazard, why should private parties take it on themselves to do something about it? The state is better equipped to find and compensate the land owner, is able to actually reflect the change in ownership in the title records, and is more deserving of the windfall (since it will serve the public good) than some random thief is.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Ok, yeah, when you get to the point where you're saying "I don't believe in natural rights" I no longer believe you're interested in having a substantive discussion regarding western, and specifically American law.
I mean, damn dude.
For a very long time, almost no credible thinkers in western philosophy of law believed in natural law at all. It is only since Dworkin that a form of naturalmlaw and rights has made a resurgance. You know I am a legal positivist, and I fail to see why standing with HLA Hart (one of the most influential thinkers in the philosophy of law in history) would mean I am not "serious" about discussing American law.
@spacekungfuman do not fucking equate theft of labor with slavery. Just don't. Theft of labor is when you don't pay your contractor for remodeling your kitchen.
Slavery is depriving a person of their autonomy and removing their humanity. There are few acts as evil.
I think your definition is much too narrow, but that is off topic.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
In the talk about squatters vs owners the story of my neighborhood and home might be relevant in an anecdotal way.
My house lies in what was once a slum, it was working-class or poverty level people that lived here. Most of the homes where owned by the city and those there privately owned where owned by slum lords. The City in their great wisdom decided to tear the entire street down and turn it into a motor way, because 5 minute shorter commute was totally worth it. They stopped doing maintenance beyond the bare minimum and the slum lords stopped entirely.
Thing is my neighborhood is close to the city center and close to the university and you know what that means: Students looking for a cheap place to live! They fought the eviction order and occupied several derelict buildings. They started repairing them and making them fit for human habitation again. They city tried evicting them via a court of law, but lost mostly due to them not being good landlords to begin with.
The motorway plan was shelved and most of the houses where refurbished by the city. My neighborhood is no one of the most desired places to live and the prices match. My 40 m2 apartment was recently adjusted to commercial rent by the city: 1800$(heating included) a month. The entire neighborhood has turned into a cash cow for the city and I could probably not get an apartment here in the private market.
Just because you own a property doesn't mean your judgment is the best on what to do with it and just because Squatters break the law doesn't meant they are the bad guys.
And maybe the highway plan would have spurred development further from the city centre, in places with more abundant and cheaper land. Regardless, why should the squatters get a windfall for being enterprising thieves, instead of having the value of the land accrue to the public good via the government? If this was really property owned by the city, then private actors have appropriated a public resource to themselves, the same as if they stole tax dollars or built a private house in a public park.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Posts
I can see this argument back in the 18th century but now? There's a whole mess of shit that doesn't seem useful to society but we don't see law proscribing remedy to that.
Also, who is the final arbiter of "useful for society"?
Boat renter hasn't rearranged their lives for the boat. Boat renter doesn't have pay people to move their stuff out of a boat. Boat renter doesn't have to rent a new boat (at a negotiating disadvantage) because boats aren't need to live. But a boat renter still has a stake in the boat and I don't think anyone would argue that the boat could be repossessed in the middle of the ocean.
Yeah, our entire society is basically based on Fuck Renters. Montana collected a nice fat budget surplus through property and income taxes, then elected to return that surplus through property taxes alone. Which even if your landlord would be kind enough to pass it through in reduced rent on your unit, they couldn't, because it was being returned on the taxes for primary residences only.
So the government was literally just taking money forcibly from renters, and handing it to their landlords.
Ha, true. Even in the boat/jetski rental scenario the owner could not, legally, ride out in another vessel and repossess the property on the spot without at least providing the renter safe passage back to land.
No one is. I was just trying to disabuse SKFM of the notion ownership of property is anywhere near absolute.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I'd love to see you come up here to Montana and espouse this view. Mainly for the entertainment value of watching you flee for the state border afterwards. That's how serious we take our field and stream access laws here.
And unless you purchased your property in 1673, you purchased it knowing your rights could be limited in various ways, and were not sacrosanct.
And as for the "why," it's easy...because not all property owners are as responsible and conscientious as you presumably think you are (and may well be). Also, because in some situations greater public good trumps private property rights.
I'm not sure where you have gotten the idea that squatter's rights or adverse possession take affect after 30 days of occupancy. That isn't how it works in the U.S. or probably anywhere else in the western world. It just... isn't. If you returned from a vacation and found a trespasser in your house you'd call the police, because they'd be a trespasser (and also probably guilty of B&E and possibly other crimes.) Aside from some marginal cases where the title is in dispute or there is no legitimate owner (following a death, or recently following fucked up foreclosure practices), this kind of thing just doesn't happen, and when it does it can be quickly resolved.
It's possible that some jurisdictions may suffer from a lack of municipal enforcement and maybe it's a big enough problem to be worth being concerned about, but that's a considerable walkback from the "one day late, get the fuck out" position you held at the start of this thread.
The 30 day period of possible delinquency is exactly what a security deposit is meant to cover. That's why it's the equivalent of one month's rent, and not some other arbitrary amount (and also why landlords levy additional cleaning or furniture related charges.) And if a landlord feels one month is an inadequate amount, they can ask for a larger deposit in the regular course of negotiation.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I always get a laugh out of the attitude that property rights are some kind of natural, sacrosanct thing. You know what the vikings did when they wanted to live where you lived? They put an axe in your head, threw your body in the river, and moved on in.
Everybody recognized that arrangement kind of sucked, and so (to paraphrase 500 years of world political history) we have the modern state. The modern state provides administration of property transactions, commissions courts to adjudicate property owners' disputes, and employs police to protect property from damage. None of this is "natural" and until (historically) recently there were gigantic societies that didn't even recognize the concept of say, privately owned land. But when the public extracts some sort of relatively minor concession from property owners in exchange for all the largesse of protecting them and ensuring their livelihood, it's treated as though it's some kind of afront.
the modern state is a bargain we make with each other. If you don't like it you're welcome to lobby your legislator. Alternatively, get the fuck out.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
My favorite pro-landlord law:
In WA state, if the landlord enters the renter's property without being invited or giving proper notice, they owe the renter $100 for each violation. (This is actually good, of course.) EXCEPT, this law is only applicable after the landlord has trespassed once already and the tenant has given written notice complaining of such and warning they will pursue the fine against the landlord.
So, in effect, the landlord is actually allowed to to trespass without penalty as much as they want, until the renter sends them a letter asking for them to knock it off. Assuming the renter even knows about this law.
It's doubly fucked up because the whole reason for such an exemption would be to give grace to someone who is not expected to have a thorough understanding of the law. Except landlords absolutely should know ALL applicable law before they begin renting,. To give them grace is just absurd.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Like if I had a water leak, or more likely an overrunning bath tub and couldn't get a hold of the tenant. That could be a lot of damage. Or the one I really hate, a tenant who skips town without notice. Technically I am supposed to give them five day notice before staring eviction proceedings but it has to be in person so how do I do that when I don't know where they are? So just get behind on your rent, set up some cameras and leave town for a few days. 100 bucks every time I show your apartment I guess.
Is there a rider about emergency situations in there?
Not to be too cynical but if landlords, en masse, started asking for larger deposits im sure 90% of this thread would complain about that.
Yeah, it turns out the law isn't written to enable sitcom plots as much as TV would like us to believe.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Yeah WA has exceptions for emergencies. Also it's written notice, so a letter or posting something on the door.
You're actually required to give in person notice, subpoena style? I haven't heard of that required before.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
In addition, there are ways to serve people in abstentia, so it's not like it puts a landlord in an impossible situation. In fact, it's not even that much more difficult, especially if you're their landlord.
And I'm again having to question why we're talking about what horrible violations of property rights these super-minor protections of renters are, when our society is constructed on a foundation of "fuck renters, huge amounts of welfare for landowners."
I would have to imagine this is common to most if not all states. It would be silly if the landlord could not enter a property in an emergency situation. Mine has entered my apartment a couple times unannounced prior to doing it because the there was a plumbing problem in the unit below me and some of the stuff he needed to get at to fix it was up in my apartment. But he is always good about giving me a call to let me know it happened and why.
As long as I am kept in the loop I don't have any problems with landlords doing necessary maintenance that pops up unexpectedly.
I don't believe in natural rights, but I do believe that when I invest my labor into something, or exchange money I receive for a thing, my right should be absolute, subordinate only to great, pressing public needs. I equate taking someone's property with a theft of their labor, and I know no name for the forced appropriation of someone's labor without compensation but slavery. This is why I take such a hard line on property rights.
I think that a just system of laws would provide a tenant with absolute protections during the term of the lease, and no rights at all once that lease had expired or been breached (with appropriate due process protections and a speedy process for adjudicating claims, and back damages). I don't think we are far off the mark with our current laws, although I think we could do much better on the adjudication front.
Adverse possession on the other hand. . . That I don't believe in under any circumstances. If land is unused and becomes a problem, letter government intervene. I see no reason for this to be a matter for private parties to resolve.
I know you've been to law school and all, but I need citations for this stuff because I'm calling shenanigans. It takes years to assert adverse possession, and once somebody does, it's no longer the responsibility of the owner to adhere to residential building codes. You're describing a state of affairs that is, as far as I understand, a complete fiction.
Abandoned buildings attract pests, present fire hazards, depress property values, promote broken window effects, and cause undesirable urban sprawl.
...to say nothing of the social injustice of having unused buildings and homeless people in the same city.
The alternative to adverse possession is urban renewal via eminent domain. An absolutist view of property rights is not a viable alternative - it is also a fiction. How you use (or do not use) your property has direct effects on your neighbors and the outlying community; it is within the public and state interest to define how your property may or may not be used.
The way we're using the word 'stakeholder' is completely in line with how it is used in public policy. I don't see why this is an issue.
California law allows 2 months' rent. I could stomach up to 3 months' rent. Any higher than that, and yes I would absolutely complain.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I mean, damn dude.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Slavery is depriving a person of their autonomy and removing their humanity. There are few acts as evil.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
You see these houses that look fine on the outside, but are packed literally to the ceiling with junk. And you might be tempted to say "Well that's sad, but it's their house and land that they own, they can do whatever they want on it". Except that these places are insanely large fire and disease hazards that will affect the surrounding areas. So despite it being the resident's house and land, the city has every right to tell them to fix it up or else they'll be kicked to the street and the place demolished.
So yeah, it's your land, and if you want to leave it fallow and attracting all manner of bugs and pests and otherwise lowering the quality of the area around it, it is within your rights as the owner. It's also within the city's rights to tell you you're a goose and to get it fixed up pronto, lest they take it away from you by force.
If you want land that is utterly 100% yours to do, or not do with as you please, your only option is a patch in the middle of complete nowhere.
Even a home owner isn't so secure in his claim that he has a right to exclude emergency personal from his home. You can't store dangerous things like giant water tanks on your property either. Public safety has to win out in the end.
My house lies in what was once a slum, it was working-class or poverty level people that lived here. Most of the homes where owned by the city and those there privately owned where owned by slum lords. The City in their great wisdom decided to tear the entire street down and turn it into a motor way, because 5 minute shorter commute was totally worth it. They stopped doing maintenance beyond the bare minimum and the slum lords stopped entirely.
Thing is my neighborhood is close to the city center and close to the university and you know what that means: Students looking for a cheap place to live! They fought the eviction order and occupied several derelict buildings. They started repairing them and making them fit for human habitation again. They city tried evicting them via a court of law, but lost mostly due to them not being good landlords to begin with.
The motorway plan was shelved and most of the houses where refurbished by the city. My neighborhood is no one of the most desired places to live and the prices match. My 40 m2 apartment was recently adjusted to commercial rent by the city: 1800$(heating included) a month. The entire neighborhood has turned into a cash cow for the city and I could probably not get an apartment here in the private market.
Just because you own a property doesn't mean your judgment is the best on what to do with it and just because Squatters break the law doesn't meant they are the bad guys.
But i dont believe in natural rights....
Coincidentally, Oakland CA has one of the most active organized squatter communities in the US.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So....I emailed my legislators about it.
And theres a pittsburgh nearby.
It's probably covered by a blanket requirement that rentals be suitable for residence. If the mold is the landlord's fault (it isn't always) and it poses a health risk then it's the landlord's responsibility to fix whatever caused the mold in the first place.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The blanket requirement is "water leaks," which may cause mold to grow.
There is no requirement to specifically have the mold tested and removed by the landlord.
My friend's landlord just painted over the mold. This isn't something you should do.
Squatters rights are distinct from adverse possession. In NY state, you need a court order to evict someone who has occupied a space for 30 days. You would certainly get it in the case I outlined, but I don't think you should need a court order at all.
The 12 month commercial space thing is similiar. 12 months is nowhere near adverse possession, but if you own a warehouse which lies empty and people move in, under so called "loft" laws, you are required to insure things like the provision of heat and hot water (you can require them to pay for it, I think). I think it is absurd that someone who takes up residence in your building without your permission should be able to have any interactions with the law outside of being arrested for trespassing.
I absolutely think that the adverse possession model is inferior to eminent domain. If property lies empty and it becomes a hazard, why should private parties take it on themselves to do something about it? The state is better equipped to find and compensate the land owner, is able to actually reflect the change in ownership in the title records, and is more deserving of the windfall (since it will serve the public good) than some random thief is.
For a very long time, almost no credible thinkers in western philosophy of law believed in natural law at all. It is only since Dworkin that a form of naturalmlaw and rights has made a resurgance. You know I am a legal positivist, and I fail to see why standing with HLA Hart (one of the most influential thinkers in the philosophy of law in history) would mean I am not "serious" about discussing American law.
I think your definition is much too narrow, but that is off topic.
And maybe the highway plan would have spurred development further from the city centre, in places with more abundant and cheaper land. Regardless, why should the squatters get a windfall for being enterprising thieves, instead of having the value of the land accrue to the public good via the government? If this was really property owned by the city, then private actors have appropriated a public resource to themselves, the same as if they stole tax dollars or built a private house in a public park.
And this is a good thing because?