The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
Renters (squatters) rights: tenants (landlord) are jerks
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.
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.
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.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
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.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
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.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
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 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.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
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.
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.