Yea, that's a pretty common issue, especially near college towns with sufficient brain-drain. Pittsburgh's Oakland is a good microcosm of this.
Coincidentally, Oakland CA has one of the most active organized squatter communities in the US.
And this is a good thing because?
Encourages the sale or at least the use of un, or under, utilised land/buildings; discourages land banking; can be an influence that resists urban decay. Take your pick.
Squatting has little to do with tenancy though. Generally former tenants or tenants in arrears are specifically excluded from squatting laws.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Yea, that's a pretty common issue, especially near college towns with sufficient brain-drain. Pittsburgh's Oakland is a good microcosm of this.
Coincidentally, Oakland CA has one of the most active organized squatter communities in the US.
And this is a good thing because?
Encourages the sale or at least the use of un, or under, utilised land/buildings; discourages land banking; can be an influence that resists urban decay. Take your pick.
Squatting has little to do with tenancy though. Generally former tenants or tenants in arrears are specifically excluded from squatting laws.
Squatters rights are part of the thread title, so I think they are fair game.
It is debatable whether they encourage the sale or the land long term, since adverse possession (distinct from squatters rights btw) creates a very messy title.
But on the broader point of social equities, I repeat my question from a few posts in this thread. Why should a private actor be able to take it on themselves to take another private actor's property? Why shouldn't it be the state which takes the property and reaps the benefit, instead of creating a windfall for hard working thieves?
Yea, that's a pretty common issue, especially near college towns with sufficient brain-drain. Pittsburgh's Oakland is a good microcosm of this.
Coincidentally, Oakland CA has one of the most active organized squatter communities in the US.
And this is a good thing because?
Encourages the sale or at least the use of un, or under, utilised land/buildings; discourages land banking; can be an influence that resists urban decay. Take your pick.
Squatting has little to do with tenancy though. Generally former tenants or tenants in arrears are specifically excluded from squatting laws.
Squatters rights are part of the thread title, so I think they are fair game.
It is debatable whether they encourage the sale or the land long term, since adverse possession (distinct from squatters rights btw) creates a very messy title.
But on the broader point of social equities, I repeat my question from a few posts in this thread. Why should a private actor be able to take it on themselves to take another private actor's property? Why shouldn't it be the state which takes the property and reaps the benefit, instead of creating a windfall for hard working thieves?
Generally because squatter's rights are used to formalise arrangements that already satisfactorily exist de facto, and to which nobody has objected yet. They're a legal fudge that generally seems to work.
There generally are processes where the state can take possession of land and property for development or other reasons. I don't see that there's a conflict between the existence of the two, particularly.
Yea, that's a pretty common issue, especially near college towns with sufficient brain-drain. Pittsburgh's Oakland is a good microcosm of this.
Coincidentally, Oakland CA has one of the most active organized squatter communities in the US.
And this is a good thing because?
Encourages the sale or at least the use of un, or under, utilised land/buildings; discourages land banking; can be an influence that resists urban decay. Take your pick.
Squatting has little to do with tenancy though. Generally former tenants or tenants in arrears are specifically excluded from squatting laws.
Squatters rights are part of the thread title, so I think they are fair game.
It is debatable whether they encourage the sale or the land long term, since adverse possession (distinct from squatters rights btw) creates a very messy title.
But on the broader point of social equities, I repeat my question from a few posts in this thread. Why should a private actor be able to take it on themselves to take another private actor's property? Why shouldn't it be the state which takes the property and reaps the benefit, instead of creating a windfall for hard working thieves?
I don't get why you are using the word thieves here. They are by definition operating under the law.
Anyway, these laws are on the books because real estate isn't like any other business. When you own real estate you are holding a monopoly (with all the power that implies) so the state has an interest in how you use it. We don't want people to use real estate to store wealth and waste it's practical use and we don't want disinterested owner to hurt other landowners.
Why do we use private parties instead of the state? Well mostly we don't but when we do it is because that is what has worked the best in the past, not just recent past but going back hundreds of years.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Yea, that's a pretty common issue, especially near college towns with sufficient brain-drain. Pittsburgh's Oakland is a good microcosm of this.
Coincidentally, Oakland CA has one of the most active organized squatter communities in the US.
And this is a good thing because?
Encourages the sale or at least the use of un, or under, utilised land/buildings; discourages land banking; can be an influence that resists urban decay. Take your pick.
Squatting has little to do with tenancy though. Generally former tenants or tenants in arrears are specifically excluded from squatting laws.
Squatters rights are part of the thread title, so I think they are fair game.
It is debatable whether they encourage the sale or the land long term, since adverse possession (distinct from squatters rights btw) creates a very messy title.
But on the broader point of social equities, I repeat my question from a few posts in this thread. Why should a private actor be able to take it on themselves to take another private actor's property? Why shouldn't it be the state which takes the property and reaps the benefit, instead of creating a windfall for hard working thieves?
Generally because squatter's rights are used to formalise arrangements that already satisfactorily exist de facto, and to which nobody has objected yet. They're a legal fudge that generally seems to work.
There generally are processes where the state can take possession of land and property for development or other reasons. I don't see that there's a conflict between the existence of the two, particularly.
We really need to distinguish squatters rights from adverse possession. Squatters rights are a pastiche of judicially created and statutory rights which you acquire in someone else's property just by living there withou their permission. Squatters rights may include the right to occupy until a court order is issued to remove the squatter, or may impose affirmative duties on the land owners.
Adverse possession is a process through which you can acquire title to property by behaving in all respects like you are the owner for a sufficiently long period of time. This is really what you seem to be referring to when you say it is a recognition of an existing arrangement.
My objection to the first is pretty straight forward. I don't see why being a determined trespasser should give you any rights. The latter is a rare situation, but I just don't understand why we would permit private individuals to seize property which is being unused and collect a windfall, vs having the government take the property and selling it.
Yea, that's a pretty common issue, especially near college towns with sufficient brain-drain. Pittsburgh's Oakland is a good microcosm of this.
Coincidentally, Oakland CA has one of the most active organized squatter communities in the US.
And this is a good thing because?
Encourages the sale or at least the use of un, or under, utilised land/buildings; discourages land banking; can be an influence that resists urban decay. Take your pick.
Squatting has little to do with tenancy though. Generally former tenants or tenants in arrears are specifically excluded from squatting laws.
Squatters rights are part of the thread title, so I think they are fair game.
It is debatable whether they encourage the sale or the land long term, since adverse possession (distinct from squatters rights btw) creates a very messy title.
But on the broader point of social equities, I repeat my question from a few posts in this thread. Why should a private actor be able to take it on themselves to take another private actor's property? Why shouldn't it be the state which takes the property and reaps the benefit, instead of creating a windfall for hard working thieves?
Generally because squatter's rights are used to formalise arrangements that already satisfactorily exist de facto, and to which nobody has objected yet. They're a legal fudge that generally seems to work.
There generally are processes where the state can take possession of land and property for development or other reasons. I don't see that there's a conflict between the existence of the two, particularly.
We really need to distinguish squatters rights from adverse possession. Squatters rights are a pastiche of judicially created and statutory rights which you acquire in someone else's property just by living there withou their permission. Squatters rights may include the right to occupy until a court order is issued to remove the squatter, or may impose affirmative duties on the land owners.
Adverse possession is a process through which you can acquire title to property by behaving in all respects like you are the owner for a sufficiently long period of time. This is really what you seem to be referring to when you say it is a recognition of an existing arrangement.
My objection to the first is pretty straight forward. I don't see why being a determined trespasser should give you any rights. The latter is a rare situation, but I just don't understand why we would permit private individuals to seize property which is being unused and collect a windfall, vs having the government take the property and selling it.
The first is pretty easy. A court order is needed to actually sort out who is in the right and avoid violence. Whatever your rights to a property they aren't worth someone's life and asking a normal police officer to sort out real estate law is kind of silly.
As to the second, cities have to pay a premium to use eminent domain and then pay for the fees to sell it so that doesn't really work. Also, that would give owners an incentive to not use their property and have the city buy it. They could develop it themselves but that tie up a lot of resources. It's more efficient to let some disinterested parties lose their titles and give the rest an incentive to productively use their land.
Adverse possession requires a period of squatting, however, so the two are related.
It's difficult to be absolute about this kind of thing because there is a continuum of circumstances between "you broke into my property, get out" and "I've been living here for years with nobody objecting". It ties into the whole thing about it generally not being in the public interest to turf people out of the place where they live without some kind of due process.
The point at which you start to tip from trespass (which is a civil matter in the UK, not a criminal one. I don't know what the situation is in the US) into squatter's rights seems to be to be about the point that someone can reasonably argue to be living in the place in question.
The trouble with dragging the value of the property into the equation is that what somewhere is worth to different people is more nuanced than a simple calculation of pounds and pence.
Here is a real, happened-to-a-guy-I-know example of small potatoes adverse possession:
Two adjacent residential lots with single family homes, facing the same street, sharing a property line. Family that owns house A sells and moves on, and the lot passes into ownership of a developer who wants to level it and build condos. Developer in the course of the purchase acquires the most recent (though 30 years old) county survey records, which indicate the actual property line is approximately four feet closer to house B than understood by previous homeowners and demarcated by various structures (a fence, a garden, a garage, and approximately one lateral half of house B's driveway.)
Developer apparently needs this space in order to make the property a commercially viable development; owner of house B needs his driveway. And so the two enter legal dispute over who has the proper title to the approximately 400 square feet of real estate. Long story short house B owner wins: state requirement for adverse possession is 10 years, easily met by the owner of house B during his ownership and never contested by the (former) owner of house A.
The question raised by a case like this is what's more important: the survey record in the county stacks or the actual accepted use of the property? We don't know how the discrepancy came to exist; maybe some previous owners of the homes made arrangements privately, maybe one guy just built a garage where he wanted, or maybe it's simply a clerical error by the surveyor.
We are familiar with the saying that "possession is nine tenths of the law." Most of the time in pop culture it's used ironically, but what it's actually expressing is that our conception of property is really just a way of ordering the daily conduct of society. I say "this [thing] is mine" not because I have some kind of absolute moral claim to it necessarily, but because society functions most easily when we have a clear understanding of how to treat and interact with each other. If the law and the clear, unchallenged understanding are in conflict then (generally speaking) the law should be what bends.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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.
Except the government IS intervening - they are saying that by showing poor stewardship of the land, they are revoking your title to it.
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.
Except the government IS intervening - they are saying that by showing poor stewardship of the land, they are revoking your title to it.
Yeah. Claims to private property are all backed by the government anyway - what is private property in the absence of government? An abstract right some people might posit, at most. Really, anything to do with property at all involves government and unspoken societal contracts. It's just that unless the government has some specific relation to that property, as an entity, it's happy to have its hands off. Adverse possession kicks in when two parties disagree on who owns something, and the government tells them who legally owns what, since again, ownership is basically defined and enforced by the government, social contracts, and our ideas of what natural rights are.
There's also more common findings of adverse possession with fence lines. You see 'accidental' over shots all the time commercially, and it's the liability of any property owner to at least keep a rudimentary inventory of their assets. The state can't always step in, and oftentimes the original claim to a piece of property can be very ambiguous, and pretty much originated due to a form of squatters rights (in the US with the homestead acts).
I think probably either narrowing the subject to residential tenancy, or broadening it might make it easier for a lot of us to start speaking the same language (and I think the former is more in line with the OP, since he's looking for more of them good anecdotes if I read right.) It feels like we just keep broadening the matter of debate, or trying to win by classification, while if we were arguing the merits of particulars it'd be easier to understand.
Some form of due process is needed in matters of eviction, and I'm of the opinion that if it's a family's primary residence, the current norms seem fair. It's true landlords could raise the deposit held (to a maximum by proscription in some jurisdictions), all terms in a contract are subject to market conditions. Another known is all assets are taxed (this being one of the primary sources of revenues for all states) and the property tax particulars have a heavy influence on the ratios of renters to owners (as well as the particular of a given milieu). Generally, ownership is preferred over tenancy in most states, and this is obviously reflected in their laws. Some jurisdictions (NYC in particular) have strong renters protection due to the particulars of their milieu. Classically, a given areas real estate market will have a heavy indicative effect of the overall health of the economy of a particular state, with the negative factors in real estate indicating an obviously bleak broader market outlook. Having owners has classically been a hedge against this, as it forms a sense of 'community', and eases other issues of governance such as residency, census, taxation, etc.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There's also more common findings of adverse possession with fence lines. You see 'accidental' over shots all the time commercially, and it's the liability of any property owner to at least keep a rudimentary inventory of their assets. The state can't always step in, and oftentimes the original claim to a piece of property can be very ambiguous, and pretty much originated due to a form of squatters rights (in the US with the homestead acts).
I will happily amend my earlier statement to exclude fence disputes and similiar instances of adverse possession. I think it was pretty clear from my posts that the issue I was discussing (and until the last few posts, everyone else was too) was the occupation of a seemingly vacant but owned properties. This is what I take issue with, whether the occupation is squatting or actual adverse possession. I simply do not think that the duration of someone's infringement on my property rights should give the infringer any rights, much like I do not think that the volume of people crossing my land should ever give them the right to do so. If I own a home or warehouse which I do not make use of (maybe I am holding it for investment, or maybe I plan to retire to the home in 20 years time) then I don't care if someone else is homeless and can use it now. I paid for it and my claim should be respected. If we do not protect such claims through law, then the home owner is faced with the worst possible situation. If there was no law, I would understand that I must protect my property from encroachment, and So alarms, traps, spring guns etc. would be the norm. If I can rely on the law to protect it, then I do not need to devote my vigilance to or direct physical force towards protecting my claim, which is one of the main benefits of having a society at all. But if laws provide limited protection to me, and any potential squatter? Well, now I must devote an unreasonable degree of my own efforts to protection, and had better be quite forceful in defending my home from would be squatters before they reach the point where an eviction notice is required. The end result (at least in a stand your ground state) seems to be monthly sweeps of all your properties with a gun, and possibly even shooting any intruder you find (otherwise how can you be sure they won't just come back again after you leave?).
On the state vs individuals, I doubt very much that the state cannot profit from the sale of property deemed abandoned. However, even if this were true, I fail to see how the public good is served by a free for all approach where the first person to trespass can have his trespass converted into ownership. This seems akin to telling car thieves that once the statute of limitations has run on the theft, they are free to go to the DMV and pick up title to the stolen car.
the requirement for adverse possession is measured in years if not decades! And maintaining your title doesn't require that you do anything aside from the barest minimum of upkeep (i.e. ensure the condition of your property hasn't actually changed.)
you seem to be continuing to reason from this position where you believe some person is going to break into a building, thrown down a sleeping bag in the corner or something and after going unnoticed for a month, have some kind of claim of ownership or other protection. That just is not how it works.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
There's also more common findings of adverse possession with fence lines. You see 'accidental' over shots all the time commercially, and it's the liability of any property owner to at least keep a rudimentary inventory of their assets. The state can't always step in, and oftentimes the original claim to a piece of property can be very ambiguous, and pretty much originated due to a form of squatters rights (in the US with the homestead acts).
I will happily amend my earlier statement to exclude fence disputes and similiar instances of adverse possession. I think it was pretty clear from my posts that the issue I was discussing (and until the last few posts, everyone else was too) was the occupation of a seemingly vacant but owned properties. This is what I take issue with, whether the occupation is squatting or actual adverse possession. I simply do not think that the duration of someone's infringement on my property rights should give the infringer any rights, much like I do not think that the volume of people crossing my land should ever give them the right to do so. If I own a home or warehouse which I do not make use of (maybe I am holding it for investment, or maybe I plan to retire to the home in 20 years time) then I don't care if someone else is homeless and can use it now. I paid for it and my claim should be respected. If we do not protect such claims through law, then the home owner is faced with the worst possible situation. If there was no law, I would understand that I must protect my property from encroachment, and So alarms, traps, spring guns etc. would be the norm. If I can rely on the law to protect it, then I do not need to devote my vigilance to or direct physical force towards protecting my claim, which is one of the main benefits of having a society at all. But if laws provide limited protection to me, and any potential squatter? Well, now I must devote an unreasonable degree of my own efforts to protection, and had better be quite forceful in defending my home from would be squatters before they reach the point where an eviction notice is required. The end result (at least in a stand your ground state) seems to be monthly sweeps of all your properties with a gun, and possibly even shooting any intruder you find (otherwise how can you be sure they won't just come back again after you leave?).
You can also protect your property by making use of it. Why should the city/state be concerned about it if you don't bother using it? Why should they use resources to protect something detrimental to their interests?
If you left that car in the middle of the highway with the keys in it yes that person might have a claim to it. That's more akin to squatting than outright theft.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
There's also more common findings of adverse possession with fence lines. You see 'accidental' over shots all the time commercially, and it's the liability of any property owner to at least keep a rudimentary inventory of their assets. The state can't always step in, and oftentimes the original claim to a piece of property can be very ambiguous, and pretty much originated due to a form of squatters rights (in the US with the homestead acts).
I will happily amend my earlier statement to exclude fence disputes and similiar instances of adverse possession. I think it was pretty clear from my posts that the issue I was discussing (and until the last few posts, everyone else was too) was the occupation of a seemingly vacant but owned properties. This is what I take issue with, whether the occupation is squatting or actual adverse possession. I simply do not think that the duration of someone's infringement on my property rights should give the infringer any rights, much like I do not think that the volume of people crossing my land should ever give them the right to do so. If I own a home or warehouse which I do not make use of (maybe I am holding it for investment, or maybe I plan to retire to the home in 20 years time) then I don't care if someone else is homeless and can use it now. I paid for it and my claim should be respected. If we do not protect such claims through law, then the home owner is faced with the worst possible situation. If there was no law, I would understand that I must protect my property from encroachment, and So alarms, traps, spring guns etc. would be the norm. If I can rely on the law to protect it, then I do not need to devote my vigilance to or direct physical force towards protecting my claim, which is one of the main benefits of having a society at all. But if laws provide limited protection to me, and any potential squatter? Well, now I must devote an unreasonable degree of my own efforts to protection, and had better be quite forceful in defending my home from would be squatters before they reach the point where an eviction notice is required. The end result (at least in a stand your ground state) seems to be monthly sweeps of all your properties with a gun, and possibly even shooting any intruder you find (otherwise how can you be sure they won't just come back again after you leave?).
On the state vs individuals, I doubt very much that the state cannot profit from the sale of property deemed abandoned. However, even if this were true, I fail to see how the public good is served by a free for all approach where the first person to trespass can have his trespass converted into ownership. This seems akin to telling car thieves that once the statute of limitations has run on the theft, they are free to go to the DMV and pick up title to the stolen car.
I mean, if you find a car that has been abandoned and go through the right process, you can get the state to recognize your claim on the vehicle.
You seriously do not seem to have a grasp on just what the current laws are. Squatters have to put years and large sums of money into a property in order to claim ownership, there are various steps the current owners can take to stop them if they put a mind to it.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
the requirement for adverse possession is measured in years if not decades! And maintaining your title doesn't require that you do anything aside from the barest minimum of upkeep (i.e. ensure the condition of your property hasn't actually changed.)
you seem to be continuing to reason from this position where you believe some person is going to break into a building, thrown down a sleeping bag in the corner or something and after going unnoticed for a month, have some kind of claim of ownership or other protection. That just is not how it works.
In NYC it is generally illegal to remove someone from a place they have occupied for 30 days or more. They don't have an ownership right, but they are still seriously abridging your rights as a property owner. And once someone has lived in your commercial space for 12 months, they may effectively convert the space into a residential property, imposing certain requirements on the home owner.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
There's also more common findings of adverse possession with fence lines. You see 'accidental' over shots all the time commercially, and it's the liability of any property owner to at least keep a rudimentary inventory of their assets. The state can't always step in, and oftentimes the original claim to a piece of property can be very ambiguous, and pretty much originated due to a form of squatters rights (in the US with the homestead acts).
I will happily amend my earlier statement to exclude fence disputes and similiar instances of adverse possession. I think it was pretty clear from my posts that the issue I was discussing (and until the last few posts, everyone else was too) was the occupation of a seemingly vacant but owned properties. This is what I take issue with, whether the occupation is squatting or actual adverse possession. I simply do not think that the duration of someone's infringement on my property rights should give the infringer any rights, much like I do not think that the volume of people crossing my land should ever give them the right to do so. If I own a home or warehouse which I do not make use of (maybe I am holding it for investment, or maybe I plan to retire to the home in 20 years time) then I don't care if someone else is homeless and can use it now. I paid for it and my claim should be respected. If we do not protect such claims through law, then the home owner is faced with the worst possible situation. If there was no law, I would understand that I must protect my property from encroachment, and So alarms, traps, spring guns etc. would be the norm. If I can rely on the law to protect it, then I do not need to devote my vigilance to or direct physical force towards protecting my claim, which is one of the main benefits of having a society at all. But if laws provide limited protection to me, and any potential squatter? Well, now I must devote an unreasonable degree of my own efforts to protection, and had better be quite forceful in defending my home from would be squatters before they reach the point where an eviction notice is required. The end result (at least in a stand your ground state) seems to be monthly sweeps of all your properties with a gun, and possibly even shooting any intruder you find (otherwise how can you be sure they won't just come back again after you leave?).
On the state vs individuals, I doubt very much that the state cannot profit from the sale of property deemed abandoned. However, even if this were true, I fail to see how the public good is served by a free for all approach where the first person to trespass can have his trespass converted into ownership. This seems akin to telling car thieves that once the statute of limitations has run on the theft, they are free to go to the DMV and pick up title to the stolen car.
I mean, if you find a car that has been abandoned and go through the right process, you can get the state to recognize your claim on the vehicle.
You seriously do not seem to have a grasp on just what the current laws are. Squatters have to put years and large sums of money into a property in order to claim ownership, there are various steps the current owners can take to stop them if they put a mind to it.
Yeah the squatters in this context aren't a bunch of vagrants who claim ownership because they threw a couple of mattresses down. They have to truly live there and act like owners (like fixing and improving stuff and general upkeep).
Like, just check wikipedia. It's really hard to meet the requirements and the owner has to basically not try and do anything about it while being aware of it. Hell, some courts require you to pay property taxes!
It's not just duration, it's actual and proper use while the owner does nothing.
You would certainly get it in the case I outlined, but I don't think you should need a court order at all.
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.
the requirement for adverse possession is measured in years if not decades! And maintaining your title doesn't require that you do anything aside from the barest minimum of upkeep (i.e. ensure the condition of your property hasn't actually changed.)
you seem to be continuing to reason from this position where you believe some person is going to break into a building, thrown down a sleeping bag in the corner or something and after going unnoticed for a month, have some kind of claim of ownership or other protection. That just is not how it works.
In NYC it is generally illegal to remove someone from a place they have occupied for 30 days or more. They don't have an ownership right, but they are still seriously abridging your rights as a property owner. And once someone has lived in your commercial space for 12 months, they may effectively convert the space into a residential property, imposing certain requirements on the home owner.
Getting an eviction notice is not really a big deal. The whole idea is to make sure that everyone follows proper procedure and that no one gets hurt.
Say someone is squatting in an apartment in Space land where you have absolute property rights. How does it go down? Do you pick them up by the scruff of the neck and throw them in the street? What about their personal property? Who pays to move it and where? Even garbage disposal costs money. How do you prove that you didn't rent it out on a verbal contract? How does a normal police officer sort all of this out?
The answer is, of course, that we go to court and if they are really squatters they will either lose or more likely not show up in the first place for fear of criminal charges and court costs. Again, a week of getting an eviction notice is a pain but it is in no way worth someone getting hurt or wrongly evicted from their lawful home.
You would certainly get it in the case I outlined, but I don't think you should need a court order at all.
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.
When has this ever happened?
I found this story in a google search, which seems to be a somewhat similar situation and there's a couple more similar ones if you google "squatters in the news". The problem I see in all these stories is not adverse possession which generally takes 10+ years, but that the owners has to go to court to get the eviction order and that takes time. I don't really see how you get around this obstacle though without opening it up for abuse.
khain on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There's also more common findings of adverse possession with fence lines. You see 'accidental' over shots all the time commercially, and it's the liability of any property owner to at least keep a rudimentary inventory of their assets. The state can't always step in, and oftentimes the original claim to a piece of property can be very ambiguous, and pretty much originated due to a form of squatters rights (in the US with the homestead acts).
I will happily amend my earlier statement to exclude fence disputes and similiar instances of adverse possession. I think it was pretty clear from my posts that the issue I was discussing (and until the last few posts, everyone else was too) was the occupation of a seemingly vacant but owned properties. This is what I take issue with, whether the occupation is squatting or actual adverse possession. I simply do not think that the duration of someone's infringement on my property rights should give the infringer any rights, much like I do not think that the volume of people crossing my land should ever give them the right to do so. If I own a home or warehouse which I do not make use of (maybe I am holding it for investment, or maybe I plan to retire to the home in 20 years time) then I don't care if someone else is homeless and can use it now. I paid for it and my claim should be respected. If we do not protect such claims through law, then the home owner is faced with the worst possible situation. If there was no law, I would understand that I must protect my property from encroachment, and So alarms, traps, spring guns etc. would be the norm. If I can rely on the law to protect it, then I do not need to devote my vigilance to or direct physical force towards protecting my claim, which is one of the main benefits of having a society at all. But if laws provide limited protection to me, and any potential squatter? Well, now I must devote an unreasonable degree of my own efforts to protection, and had better be quite forceful in defending my home from would be squatters before they reach the point where an eviction notice is required. The end result (at least in a stand your ground state) seems to be monthly sweeps of all your properties with a gun, and possibly even shooting any intruder you find (otherwise how can you be sure they won't just come back again after you leave?).
You can also protect your property by making use of it. Why should the city/state be concerned about it if you don't bother using it? Why should they use resources to protect something detrimental to their interests?
Because enforcing the law, including protecting rights in property, is the responsibility of the government? Because we don't want private individuals using or arranging for the use of force in protection of those rights?
There's also more common findings of adverse possession with fence lines. You see 'accidental' over shots all the time commercially, and it's the liability of any property owner to at least keep a rudimentary inventory of their assets. The state can't always step in, and oftentimes the original claim to a piece of property can be very ambiguous, and pretty much originated due to a form of squatters rights (in the US with the homestead acts).
I will happily amend my earlier statement to exclude fence disputes and similiar instances of adverse possession. I think it was pretty clear from my posts that the issue I was discussing (and until the last few posts, everyone else was too) was the occupation of a seemingly vacant but owned properties. This is what I take issue with, whether the occupation is squatting or actual adverse possession. I simply do not think that the duration of someone's infringement on my property rights should give the infringer any rights, much like I do not think that the volume of people crossing my land should ever give them the right to do so. If I own a home or warehouse which I do not make use of (maybe I am holding it for investment, or maybe I plan to retire to the home in 20 years time) then I don't care if someone else is homeless and can use it now. I paid for it and my claim should be respected. If we do not protect such claims through law, then the home owner is faced with the worst possible situation. If there was no law, I would understand that I must protect my property from encroachment, and So alarms, traps, spring guns etc. would be the norm. If I can rely on the law to protect it, then I do not need to devote my vigilance to or direct physical force towards protecting my claim, which is one of the main benefits of having a society at all. But if laws provide limited protection to me, and any potential squatter? Well, now I must devote an unreasonable degree of my own efforts to protection, and had better be quite forceful in defending my home from would be squatters before they reach the point where an eviction notice is required. The end result (at least in a stand your ground state) seems to be monthly sweeps of all your properties with a gun, and possibly even shooting any intruder you find (otherwise how can you be sure they won't just come back again after you leave?).
You can also protect your property by making use of it. Why should the city/state be concerned about it if you don't bother using it? Why should they use resources to protect something detrimental to their interests?
Because enforcing the law, including protecting rights in property, is the responsibility of the government? Because we don't want private individuals using or arranging for the use of force in protection of those rights?
The government does enforce property rights. I don't know where you're getting the idea that they don't.
What you seem to be getting at is that you're annoyed the government doesn't actively defend your property, and that the police won't necessarily act on your word alone in a civil dispute.
You would certainly get it in the case I outlined, but I don't think you should need a court order at all.
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.
When has this ever happened?
I found this story in a google search, which seems to be a somewhat similar situation and there's a couple more similar ones if you google "squatters in the news". The problem I see in all these stories is not adverse possession which generally takes 10+ years, but that the owners has to go to court to get the eviction order and that takes time. I don't really see how you get around this obstacle though without opening it up for abuse.
Exactly.
Also, even in that article the family in the house wasn't to do with squatting or adverse possession, but because they filed for bankruptcy and claimed to own the home. Before that they had just two days to get out.
There's also more common findings of adverse possession with fence lines. You see 'accidental' over shots all the time commercially, and it's the liability of any property owner to at least keep a rudimentary inventory of their assets. The state can't always step in, and oftentimes the original claim to a piece of property can be very ambiguous, and pretty much originated due to a form of squatters rights (in the US with the homestead acts).
I will happily amend my earlier statement to exclude fence disputes and similiar instances of adverse possession. I think it was pretty clear from my posts that the issue I was discussing (and until the last few posts, everyone else was too) was the occupation of a seemingly vacant but owned properties. This is what I take issue with, whether the occupation is squatting or actual adverse possession. I simply do not think that the duration of someone's infringement on my property rights should give the infringer any rights, much like I do not think that the volume of people crossing my land should ever give them the right to do so. If I own a home or warehouse which I do not make use of (maybe I am holding it for investment, or maybe I plan to retire to the home in 20 years time) then I don't care if someone else is homeless and can use it now. I paid for it and my claim should be respected. If we do not protect such claims through law, then the home owner is faced with the worst possible situation. If there was no law, I would understand that I must protect my property from encroachment, and So alarms, traps, spring guns etc. would be the norm. If I can rely on the law to protect it, then I do not need to devote my vigilance to or direct physical force towards protecting my claim, which is one of the main benefits of having a society at all. But if laws provide limited protection to me, and any potential squatter? Well, now I must devote an unreasonable degree of my own efforts to protection, and had better be quite forceful in defending my home from would be squatters before they reach the point where an eviction notice is required. The end result (at least in a stand your ground state) seems to be monthly sweeps of all your properties with a gun, and possibly even shooting any intruder you find (otherwise how can you be sure they won't just come back again after you leave?).
You can also protect your property by making use of it. Why should the city/state be concerned about it if you don't bother using it? Why should they use resources to protect something detrimental to their interests?
Because enforcing the law, including protecting rights in property, is the responsibility of the government? Because we don't want private individuals using or arranging for the use of force in protection of those rights?
They already protect property rights. You're asking them to actively do the reporting and checking for you. It's like expecting the police to search for your stolen car when you haven't reported it stolen.
You seem to live in some bizarre situation where you think the only way you can get squatters out of your property is by using force. It isn't. In fact, the squatters rights stuff is precisely for the purpose of preventing force. You can't forcefully kick people out of your land after some time, you have to get an eviction notice. Did you even check the wiki on adverse possession I linked?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
the requirement for adverse possession is measured in years if not decades! And maintaining your title doesn't require that you do anything aside from the barest minimum of upkeep (i.e. ensure the condition of your property hasn't actually changed.)
you seem to be continuing to reason from this position where you believe some person is going to break into a building, thrown down a sleeping bag in the corner or something and after going unnoticed for a month, have some kind of claim of ownership or other protection. That just is not how it works.
In NYC it is generally illegal to remove someone from a place they have occupied for 30 days or more. They don't have an ownership right, but they are still seriously abridging your rights as a property owner. And once someone has lived in your commercial space for 12 months, they may effectively convert the space into a residential property, imposing certain requirements on the home owner.
Getting an eviction notice is not really a big deal. The whole idea is to make sure that everyone follows proper procedure and that no one gets hurt.
Say someone is squatting in an apartment in Space land where you have absolute property rights. How does it go down? Do you pick them up by the scruff of the neck and throw them in the street? What about their personal property? Who pays to move it and where? Even garbage disposal costs money. How do you prove that you didn't rent it out on a verbal contract? How does a normal police officer sort all of this out?
The answer is, of course, that we go to court and if they are really squatters they will either lose or more likely not show up in the first place for fear of criminal charges and court costs. Again, a week of getting an eviction notice is a pain but it is in no way worth someone getting hurt or wrongly evicted from their lawful home.
Well, that is part of why statutes of fraud exist. Agreements regarding the rental or use of property are normally required to be in writing, so presenting evidence that a living arrangement is lawful should not be a problem.
As to the squatter, why shouldn't the land owner be entitled to treat them like any trespasser? Have the police eject them and have them either forfeit their things or be responsible for removing them, and for compensating the owner for the cost of removal, repairs and cleaning.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
the requirement for adverse possession is measured in years if not decades! And maintaining your title doesn't require that you do anything aside from the barest minimum of upkeep (i.e. ensure the condition of your property hasn't actually changed.)
you seem to be continuing to reason from this position where you believe some person is going to break into a building, thrown down a sleeping bag in the corner or something and after going unnoticed for a month, have some kind of claim of ownership or other protection. That just is not how it works.
In NYC it is generally illegal to remove someone from a place they have occupied for 30 days or more. They don't have an ownership right, but they are still seriously abridging your rights as a property owner. And once someone has lived in your commercial space for 12 months, they may effectively convert the space into a residential property, imposing certain requirements on the home owner.
Getting an eviction notice is not really a big deal. The whole idea is to make sure that everyone follows proper procedure and that no one gets hurt.
Say someone is squatting in an apartment in Space land where you have absolute property rights. How does it go down? Do you pick them up by the scruff of the neck and throw them in the street? What about their personal property? Who pays to move it and where? Even garbage disposal costs money. How do you prove that you didn't rent it out on a verbal contract? How does a normal police officer sort all of this out?
The answer is, of course, that we go to court and if they are really squatters they will either lose or more likely not show up in the first place for fear of criminal charges and court costs. Again, a week of getting an eviction notice is a pain but it is in no way worth someone getting hurt or wrongly evicted from their lawful home.
Well, that is part of why statutes of fraud exist. Agreements regarding the rental or use of property are normally required to be in writing, so presenting evidence that a living arrangement is lawful should not be a problem.
As to the squatter, why shouldn't the land owner be entitled to treat them like any trespasser? Have the police eject them and have them either forfeit their things or be responsible for removing them, and for compensating the owner for the cost of removal, repairs and cleaning.
They are, for a huge amount of time.
You are complaining about a thing which simply does not exist outside of your imagination. Your concerns have merit, which is why the laws we have were written with them in mind!
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
You wondered why I don't think you're being serious here.
This is one example, you are arguing that we should rectify a thing which simply doesn't happen. Add to that your rejection of the concept of natural rights, which fyi would mean you have no right to property, literally the basis of the entirety of the American legal system (life, liberty, property hooooooooooo).
I had these same concerns about squatters when I was a kid and worried someone would set up a camp on our farm. Then I went to high school and took a civics course and realized those concerns were unfounded.
Yea, the need to read a bit about how things got to where they are would help, too, but just starting to know where they are in the first place would be a start.
It's very difficult for a squatter to get any actual net gain from a fraudulent domain, outside of a possible few days with a roof over their head.. Clearly, throwing every person desperate enough to invade an abandoned domicile for shelter into the street will alleviate our issues, lower crime, and strengthen respect for personal property!
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There's also more common findings of adverse possession with fence lines. You see 'accidental' over shots all the time commercially, and it's the liability of any property owner to at least keep a rudimentary inventory of their assets. The state can't always step in, and oftentimes the original claim to a piece of property can be very ambiguous, and pretty much originated due to a form of squatters rights (in the US with the homestead acts).
I will happily amend my earlier statement to exclude fence disputes and similiar instances of adverse possession. I think it was pretty clear from my posts that the issue I was discussing (and until the last few posts, everyone else was too) was the occupation of a seemingly vacant but owned properties. This is what I take issue with, whether the occupation is squatting or actual adverse possession. I simply do not think that the duration of someone's infringement on my property rights should give the infringer any rights, much like I do not think that the volume of people crossing my land should ever give them the right to do so. If I own a home or warehouse which I do not make use of (maybe I am holding it for investment, or maybe I plan to retire to the home in 20 years time) then I don't care if someone else is homeless and can use it now. I paid for it and my claim should be respected. If we do not protect such claims through law, then the home owner is faced with the worst possible situation. If there was no law, I would understand that I must protect my property from encroachment, and So alarms, traps, spring guns etc. would be the norm. If I can rely on the law to protect it, then I do not need to devote my vigilance to or direct physical force towards protecting my claim, which is one of the main benefits of having a society at all. But if laws provide limited protection to me, and any potential squatter? Well, now I must devote an unreasonable degree of my own efforts to protection, and had better be quite forceful in defending my home from would be squatters before they reach the point where an eviction notice is required. The end result (at least in a stand your ground state) seems to be monthly sweeps of all your properties with a gun, and possibly even shooting any intruder you find (otherwise how can you be sure they won't just come back again after you leave?).
You can also protect your property by making use of it. Why should the city/state be concerned about it if you don't bother using it? Why should they use resources to protect something detrimental to their interests?
Because enforcing the law, including protecting rights in property, is the responsibility of the government? Because we don't want private individuals using or arranging for the use of force in protection of those rights?
The government does enforce property rights. I don't know where you're getting the idea that they don't.
What you seem to be getting at is that you're annoyed the government doesn't actively defend your property, and that the police won't necessarily act on your word alone in a civil dispute.
It isn't a civil dispute in America. Trespassing is a criminal act, and under normal circumstances you can have the police eject a trespasser. My exasperation is with the laws which prevent land owners from following the ordinary procedures and confer rights on rule breakers by virtue of how long they have been violating the law.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
the requirement for adverse possession is measured in years if not decades! And maintaining your title doesn't require that you do anything aside from the barest minimum of upkeep (i.e. ensure the condition of your property hasn't actually changed.)
you seem to be continuing to reason from this position where you believe some person is going to break into a building, thrown down a sleeping bag in the corner or something and after going unnoticed for a month, have some kind of claim of ownership or other protection. That just is not how it works.
In NYC it is generally illegal to remove someone from a place they have occupied for 30 days or more. They don't have an ownership right, but they are still seriously abridging your rights as a property owner. And once someone has lived in your commercial space for 12 months, they may effectively convert the space into a residential property, imposing certain requirements on the home owner.
Getting an eviction notice is not really a big deal. The whole idea is to make sure that everyone follows proper procedure and that no one gets hurt.
As someone who has been evicted,
It took close to a year of my scumbag ex-roommate not paying rent (and pocketing the half I gave him) for the landlord to get us into housing court. That's pretty fucked up, imo.
the requirement for adverse possession is measured in years if not decades! And maintaining your title doesn't require that you do anything aside from the barest minimum of upkeep (i.e. ensure the condition of your property hasn't actually changed.)
you seem to be continuing to reason from this position where you believe some person is going to break into a building, thrown down a sleeping bag in the corner or something and after going unnoticed for a month, have some kind of claim of ownership or other protection. That just is not how it works.
In NYC it is generally illegal to remove someone from a place they have occupied for 30 days or more. They don't have an ownership right, but they are still seriously abridging your rights as a property owner. And once someone has lived in your commercial space for 12 months, they may effectively convert the space into a residential property, imposing certain requirements on the home owner.
Getting an eviction notice is not really a big deal. The whole idea is to make sure that everyone follows proper procedure and that no one gets hurt.
Say someone is squatting in an apartment in Space land where you have absolute property rights. How does it go down? Do you pick them up by the scruff of the neck and throw them in the street? What about their personal property? Who pays to move it and where? Even garbage disposal costs money. How do you prove that you didn't rent it out on a verbal contract? How does a normal police officer sort all of this out?
The answer is, of course, that we go to court and if they are really squatters they will either lose or more likely not show up in the first place for fear of criminal charges and court costs. Again, a week of getting an eviction notice is a pain but it is in no way worth someone getting hurt or wrongly evicted from their lawful home.
Well, that is part of why statutes of fraud exist. Agreements regarding the rental or use of property are normally required to be in writing, so presenting evidence that a living arrangement is lawful should not be a problem.
Nope, not even a little. I would say that the majority of residential land use is without a contract. I personally don't use them unless its a HUD thing. No reason to when everything that I would put in a contract is already covered under state law.
Lots of times a live in girl/boyfriend name isn't on the lease. In dispute should one party be able to just call the police and throw the other's possessions into the street? Or what if the renter has lost their copy of the lease (or is in month to month) if everything has been in cash how would the police officer know who to believe? Again you are putting a minor inconvenience to the owner that almost never happens ahead of a million ways that your law could go bad based on what? Some absolute view of property rights.
He's also assuming the landlord operating in total good faith. Right now my landlord could jack the rent on my place several hundred dollars a month if he evicted me and relisted at market price. But he should be able to kick me out with no evidence or recourse?
He's also assuming the landlord operating in total good faith. Right now my landlord could jack the rent on my place several hundred dollars a month if he evicted me and relisted at market price. But he should be able to kick me out with no evidence or recourse?
Of course. He's put capital and labor in to the property.
He's also assuming the landlord operating in total good faith. Right now my landlord could jack the rent on my place several hundred dollars a month if he evicted me and relisted at market price. But he should be able to kick me out with no evidence or recourse?
Obv you're scum for not being a homeowner. Squatter!
MadCaddy on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
In NYC it is generally illegal to remove someone from a place they have occupied for 30 days or more.
1) Can you cite this?
2) If (1), can you also show that this is also the general case rather than unique to NYC?
Generally, yeah.
In Florida if someone lives in and get mail delivered somewhere for 30 days, you have to serve them with an eviction notice.
This may let undesirable people stay in a place longer than you want them to, but it also protects lawful tenants as well so I'm not too bothered by it.
To paraphrase Pratchett: Police officers are not finely tuned instruments of natural justice.
Someone calls the cops, saying there is a trespasser. Cop turns up. On one hand he has someone claiming that they own this property and the person in it is trespassing. On the other hand he has someone who appears to live in the property claiming they have a right to be there for any one of a number of potentially valid reasons.
A police officer is not equipped, or trained, to evaluate either claim. Especially at the front door of a building with people yelling.
Posts
Encourages the sale or at least the use of un, or under, utilised land/buildings; discourages land banking; can be an influence that resists urban decay. Take your pick.
Squatting has little to do with tenancy though. Generally former tenants or tenants in arrears are specifically excluded from squatting laws.
Squatters rights are part of the thread title, so I think they are fair game.
It is debatable whether they encourage the sale or the land long term, since adverse possession (distinct from squatters rights btw) creates a very messy title.
But on the broader point of social equities, I repeat my question from a few posts in this thread. Why should a private actor be able to take it on themselves to take another private actor's property? Why shouldn't it be the state which takes the property and reaps the benefit, instead of creating a windfall for hard working thieves?
Generally because squatter's rights are used to formalise arrangements that already satisfactorily exist de facto, and to which nobody has objected yet. They're a legal fudge that generally seems to work.
There generally are processes where the state can take possession of land and property for development or other reasons. I don't see that there's a conflict between the existence of the two, particularly.
I don't get why you are using the word thieves here. They are by definition operating under the law.
Anyway, these laws are on the books because real estate isn't like any other business. When you own real estate you are holding a monopoly (with all the power that implies) so the state has an interest in how you use it. We don't want people to use real estate to store wealth and waste it's practical use and we don't want disinterested owner to hurt other landowners.
Why do we use private parties instead of the state? Well mostly we don't but when we do it is because that is what has worked the best in the past, not just recent past but going back hundreds of years.
We really need to distinguish squatters rights from adverse possession. Squatters rights are a pastiche of judicially created and statutory rights which you acquire in someone else's property just by living there withou their permission. Squatters rights may include the right to occupy until a court order is issued to remove the squatter, or may impose affirmative duties on the land owners.
Adverse possession is a process through which you can acquire title to property by behaving in all respects like you are the owner for a sufficiently long period of time. This is really what you seem to be referring to when you say it is a recognition of an existing arrangement.
My objection to the first is pretty straight forward. I don't see why being a determined trespasser should give you any rights. The latter is a rare situation, but I just don't understand why we would permit private individuals to seize property which is being unused and collect a windfall, vs having the government take the property and selling it.
The first is pretty easy. A court order is needed to actually sort out who is in the right and avoid violence. Whatever your rights to a property they aren't worth someone's life and asking a normal police officer to sort out real estate law is kind of silly.
As to the second, cities have to pay a premium to use eminent domain and then pay for the fees to sell it so that doesn't really work. Also, that would give owners an incentive to not use their property and have the city buy it. They could develop it themselves but that tie up a lot of resources. It's more efficient to let some disinterested parties lose their titles and give the rest an incentive to productively use their land.
It's difficult to be absolute about this kind of thing because there is a continuum of circumstances between "you broke into my property, get out" and "I've been living here for years with nobody objecting". It ties into the whole thing about it generally not being in the public interest to turf people out of the place where they live without some kind of due process.
The point at which you start to tip from trespass (which is a civil matter in the UK, not a criminal one. I don't know what the situation is in the US) into squatter's rights seems to be to be about the point that someone can reasonably argue to be living in the place in question.
The trouble with dragging the value of the property into the equation is that what somewhere is worth to different people is more nuanced than a simple calculation of pounds and pence.
Two adjacent residential lots with single family homes, facing the same street, sharing a property line. Family that owns house A sells and moves on, and the lot passes into ownership of a developer who wants to level it and build condos. Developer in the course of the purchase acquires the most recent (though 30 years old) county survey records, which indicate the actual property line is approximately four feet closer to house B than understood by previous homeowners and demarcated by various structures (a fence, a garden, a garage, and approximately one lateral half of house B's driveway.)
Developer apparently needs this space in order to make the property a commercially viable development; owner of house B needs his driveway. And so the two enter legal dispute over who has the proper title to the approximately 400 square feet of real estate. Long story short house B owner wins: state requirement for adverse possession is 10 years, easily met by the owner of house B during his ownership and never contested by the (former) owner of house A.
The question raised by a case like this is what's more important: the survey record in the county stacks or the actual accepted use of the property? We don't know how the discrepancy came to exist; maybe some previous owners of the homes made arrangements privately, maybe one guy just built a garage where he wanted, or maybe it's simply a clerical error by the surveyor.
We are familiar with the saying that "possession is nine tenths of the law." Most of the time in pop culture it's used ironically, but what it's actually expressing is that our conception of property is really just a way of ordering the daily conduct of society. I say "this [thing] is mine" not because I have some kind of absolute moral claim to it necessarily, but because society functions most easily when we have a clear understanding of how to treat and interact with each other. If the law and the clear, unchallenged understanding are in conflict then (generally speaking) the law should be what bends.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Except the government IS intervening - they are saying that by showing poor stewardship of the land, they are revoking your title to it.
Yeah. Claims to private property are all backed by the government anyway - what is private property in the absence of government? An abstract right some people might posit, at most. Really, anything to do with property at all involves government and unspoken societal contracts. It's just that unless the government has some specific relation to that property, as an entity, it's happy to have its hands off. Adverse possession kicks in when two parties disagree on who owns something, and the government tells them who legally owns what, since again, ownership is basically defined and enforced by the government, social contracts, and our ideas of what natural rights are.
Some form of due process is needed in matters of eviction, and I'm of the opinion that if it's a family's primary residence, the current norms seem fair. It's true landlords could raise the deposit held (to a maximum by proscription in some jurisdictions), all terms in a contract are subject to market conditions. Another known is all assets are taxed (this being one of the primary sources of revenues for all states) and the property tax particulars have a heavy influence on the ratios of renters to owners (as well as the particular of a given milieu). Generally, ownership is preferred over tenancy in most states, and this is obviously reflected in their laws. Some jurisdictions (NYC in particular) have strong renters protection due to the particulars of their milieu. Classically, a given areas real estate market will have a heavy indicative effect of the overall health of the economy of a particular state, with the negative factors in real estate indicating an obviously bleak broader market outlook. Having owners has classically been a hedge against this, as it forms a sense of 'community', and eases other issues of governance such as residency, census, taxation, etc.
I will happily amend my earlier statement to exclude fence disputes and similiar instances of adverse possession. I think it was pretty clear from my posts that the issue I was discussing (and until the last few posts, everyone else was too) was the occupation of a seemingly vacant but owned properties. This is what I take issue with, whether the occupation is squatting or actual adverse possession. I simply do not think that the duration of someone's infringement on my property rights should give the infringer any rights, much like I do not think that the volume of people crossing my land should ever give them the right to do so. If I own a home or warehouse which I do not make use of (maybe I am holding it for investment, or maybe I plan to retire to the home in 20 years time) then I don't care if someone else is homeless and can use it now. I paid for it and my claim should be respected. If we do not protect such claims through law, then the home owner is faced with the worst possible situation. If there was no law, I would understand that I must protect my property from encroachment, and So alarms, traps, spring guns etc. would be the norm. If I can rely on the law to protect it, then I do not need to devote my vigilance to or direct physical force towards protecting my claim, which is one of the main benefits of having a society at all. But if laws provide limited protection to me, and any potential squatter? Well, now I must devote an unreasonable degree of my own efforts to protection, and had better be quite forceful in defending my home from would be squatters before they reach the point where an eviction notice is required. The end result (at least in a stand your ground state) seems to be monthly sweeps of all your properties with a gun, and possibly even shooting any intruder you find (otherwise how can you be sure they won't just come back again after you leave?).
On the state vs individuals, I doubt very much that the state cannot profit from the sale of property deemed abandoned. However, even if this were true, I fail to see how the public good is served by a free for all approach where the first person to trespass can have his trespass converted into ownership. This seems akin to telling car thieves that once the statute of limitations has run on the theft, they are free to go to the DMV and pick up title to the stolen car.
you seem to be continuing to reason from this position where you believe some person is going to break into a building, thrown down a sleeping bag in the corner or something and after going unnoticed for a month, have some kind of claim of ownership or other protection. That just is not how it works.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You can also protect your property by making use of it. Why should the city/state be concerned about it if you don't bother using it? Why should they use resources to protect something detrimental to their interests?
I mean, if you find a car that has been abandoned and go through the right process, you can get the state to recognize your claim on the vehicle.
You seriously do not seem to have a grasp on just what the current laws are. Squatters have to put years and large sums of money into a property in order to claim ownership, there are various steps the current owners can take to stop them if they put a mind to it.
In NYC it is generally illegal to remove someone from a place they have occupied for 30 days or more. They don't have an ownership right, but they are still seriously abridging your rights as a property owner. And once someone has lived in your commercial space for 12 months, they may effectively convert the space into a residential property, imposing certain requirements on the home owner.
Yeah the squatters in this context aren't a bunch of vagrants who claim ownership because they threw a couple of mattresses down. They have to truly live there and act like owners (like fixing and improving stuff and general upkeep).
Like, just check wikipedia. It's really hard to meet the requirements and the owner has to basically not try and do anything about it while being aware of it. Hell, some courts require you to pay property taxes!
It's not just duration, it's actual and proper use while the owner does nothing.
When has this ever happened?
Getting an eviction notice is not really a big deal. The whole idea is to make sure that everyone follows proper procedure and that no one gets hurt.
Say someone is squatting in an apartment in Space land where you have absolute property rights. How does it go down? Do you pick them up by the scruff of the neck and throw them in the street? What about their personal property? Who pays to move it and where? Even garbage disposal costs money. How do you prove that you didn't rent it out on a verbal contract? How does a normal police officer sort all of this out?
The answer is, of course, that we go to court and if they are really squatters they will either lose or more likely not show up in the first place for fear of criminal charges and court costs. Again, a week of getting an eviction notice is a pain but it is in no way worth someone getting hurt or wrongly evicted from their lawful home.
I found this story in a google search, which seems to be a somewhat similar situation and there's a couple more similar ones if you google "squatters in the news". The problem I see in all these stories is not adverse possession which generally takes 10+ years, but that the owners has to go to court to get the eviction order and that takes time. I don't really see how you get around this obstacle though without opening it up for abuse.
Because enforcing the law, including protecting rights in property, is the responsibility of the government? Because we don't want private individuals using or arranging for the use of force in protection of those rights?
The government does enforce property rights. I don't know where you're getting the idea that they don't.
What you seem to be getting at is that you're annoyed the government doesn't actively defend your property, and that the police won't necessarily act on your word alone in a civil dispute.
Exactly.
Also, even in that article the family in the house wasn't to do with squatting or adverse possession, but because they filed for bankruptcy and claimed to own the home. Before that they had just two days to get out.
They already protect property rights. You're asking them to actively do the reporting and checking for you. It's like expecting the police to search for your stolen car when you haven't reported it stolen.
You seem to live in some bizarre situation where you think the only way you can get squatters out of your property is by using force. It isn't. In fact, the squatters rights stuff is precisely for the purpose of preventing force. You can't forcefully kick people out of your land after some time, you have to get an eviction notice. Did you even check the wiki on adverse possession I linked?
Well, that is part of why statutes of fraud exist. Agreements regarding the rental or use of property are normally required to be in writing, so presenting evidence that a living arrangement is lawful should not be a problem.
As to the squatter, why shouldn't the land owner be entitled to treat them like any trespasser? Have the police eject them and have them either forfeit their things or be responsible for removing them, and for compensating the owner for the cost of removal, repairs and cleaning.
They are, for a huge amount of time.
You are complaining about a thing which simply does not exist outside of your imagination. Your concerns have merit, which is why the laws we have were written with them in mind!
This is one example, you are arguing that we should rectify a thing which simply doesn't happen. Add to that your rejection of the concept of natural rights, which fyi would mean you have no right to property, literally the basis of the entirety of the American legal system (life, liberty, property hooooooooooo).
I had these same concerns about squatters when I was a kid and worried someone would set up a camp on our farm. Then I went to high school and took a civics course and realized those concerns were unfounded.
It's very difficult for a squatter to get any actual net gain from a fraudulent domain, outside of a possible few days with a roof over their head.. Clearly, throwing every person desperate enough to invade an abandoned domicile for shelter into the street will alleviate our issues, lower crime, and strengthen respect for personal property!
It isn't a civil dispute in America. Trespassing is a criminal act, and under normal circumstances you can have the police eject a trespasser. My exasperation is with the laws which prevent land owners from following the ordinary procedures and confer rights on rule breakers by virtue of how long they have been violating the law.
As someone who has been evicted,
It took close to a year of my scumbag ex-roommate not paying rent (and pocketing the half I gave him) for the landlord to get us into housing court. That's pretty fucked up, imo.
Nope, not even a little. I would say that the majority of residential land use is without a contract. I personally don't use them unless its a HUD thing. No reason to when everything that I would put in a contract is already covered under state law.
Lots of times a live in girl/boyfriend name isn't on the lease. In dispute should one party be able to just call the police and throw the other's possessions into the street? Or what if the renter has lost their copy of the lease (or is in month to month) if everything has been in cash how would the police officer know who to believe? Again you are putting a minor inconvenience to the owner that almost never happens ahead of a million ways that your law could go bad based on what? Some absolute view of property rights.
1) Can you cite this?
2) If (1), can you also show that this is also the general case rather than unique to NYC?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
All you've done is payed money for the property.
Obv you're scum for not being a homeowner. Squatter!
Generally, yeah.
In Florida if someone lives in and get mail delivered somewhere for 30 days, you have to serve them with an eviction notice.
This may let undesirable people stay in a place longer than you want them to, but it also protects lawful tenants as well so I'm not too bothered by it.
Someone calls the cops, saying there is a trespasser. Cop turns up. On one hand he has someone claiming that they own this property and the person in it is trespassing. On the other hand he has someone who appears to live in the property claiming they have a right to be there for any one of a number of potentially valid reasons.
A police officer is not equipped, or trained, to evaluate either claim. Especially at the front door of a building with people yelling.