As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Renters (squatters) rights: tenants (landlord) are jerks

1235713

Posts

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    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.

    I thought I had been clear re: the distinction between squatters rights and adverse possession. I am not saying that someone can take your property in a short period of time, just that they can acquire rights in it quickly, and that in as little as a year you can go from the owner of
    an empty commercial property to a residential landlord without your consent and without any rent actually having been received. And if this seems fanciful, it shouldn't, because variants of this situation with artists in Brooklyn actually occur.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    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.

    Sure.

    But there's a difference between a police officer going, "I don't have probable cause to believe that a law has been violated" versus "I can't arrest this person under any circumstances without a court order because there's a law protecting him."

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    I thought I had been clear re: the distinction between squatters rights and adverse possession.

    In California at least, there is no such distinction. Adverse possession = squatter's rights. Until adverse possession kicks in, the squatter is a criminal trespasser.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    Feral wrote: »
    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?

    This does seem to be correct, but the requirements to evict someone squatting aren't exactly onerous

    http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/housing/pdfs/Landlordbooklet.pdf
    There is someone living in the home that I didn’t rent to, what notice do I
    have to serve?

    A Notice to Quit. A Notice to Quit tells the occupant that he or she has 10 days to move
    and gives the reason that the occupant has to move. The reason is either that the
    occupant has to move because he or she:
    • is a licensee that the tenant invited to live in the home without your permission,
    or
    • is a squatter that started living in the home without anybody’s permission.
    If the occupant doesn’t move out by the deadline in the notice, you can start a holdover
    case.

    ...

    How do I start a holdover case against the tenant?
    A holdover case in Housing Court is started with court papers called a Notice of Petition
    and Petition. The papers say the date, time and place (courtroom or Part) when you
    and the tenant have to come to court. You can buy a Notice of Petition and Petition at
    a legal stationery store, like Blumberg. After you fill out the papers, you have to sign
    them in front of a notary and then bring them to the Housing Court.
    ...

    How fast a court date can I choose?
    The Clerk can help you choose a date. The date:
    • can’t be sooner than 5 days away,
    • can’t be more than 12 days after you serve the papers on the tenant

    Assuming you win the case, a Marshall or a Sheriff can evict the person in the property (that guide seems to use the term "tenant" to refer generally to the person in the property).

    So, basically 10 days, plus a week for the court date, plus however long it takes to physically evict the person in the property (which seems to be something that can be done pretty briskly). This is in the context of a situation where you failed to realise there was a person in the property for thirty days or more.

    japan on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited December 2012
    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.

    I thought I had been clear re: the distinction between squatters rights and adverse possession. I am not saying that someone can take your property in a short period of time, just that they can acquire rights in it quickly, and that in as little as a year you can go from the owner of
    an empty commercial property to a residential landlord without your consent and without any rent actually having been received. And if this seems fanciful, it shouldn't, because variants of this situation with artists in Brooklyn actually occur.

    Your clarity does not make the concerns any less fantastical. The plot of Rent not withstanding.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    Feral wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    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.

    Sure.

    But there's a difference between a police officer going, "I don't have probable cause to believe that a law has been violated" versus "I can't arrest this person under any circumstances without a court order because there's a law protecting him."

    Na, they can still get arrested for stuff(b and e, theft, destruction of property) squatters rights just say that you can not trespass somewhere you live. Makes sense really, the point of criminal trespass (and all criminal law really) is to protect people and property. If you live somewhere and aren't hurting anything or anybody then it's a civil matter handled by the courts. As always, the first priority is to make sure that no one gets hurt.

    rockrnger on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    In short, the law says that property owners have a responsibility to maintain and keep up their property in order for their rights to be fully respected.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    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.

    Sure.

    But there's a difference between a police officer going, "I don't have probable cause to believe that a law has been violated" versus "I can't arrest this person under any circumstances without a court order because there's a law protecting him."

    I think, in general, most jurisdictions seem to err on the side of not having the police drag people out of what may potentially be their home without someone examining that claim in a little more detail than is possible for a police officer responding to a call. Which is really a bit of both.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited December 2012
    japan wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    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?

    This does seem to be correct, but the requirements to evict someone squatting aren't exactly onerous

    http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/housing/pdfs/Landlordbooklet.pdf

    Okay. This strikes me as a pretty low bar and I agree that this is extreme. This is within the range that somebody could potentially squat the home of somebody on extended international vacation or deployed in the armed forces.

    As I said above, California doesn't have a law like that, so the squatter has to be very sure that the building is bona fide abandoned if he doesn't want to get forceably removed and arrested.

    Hence my incredulousness.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Feral wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    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.

    Sure.

    But there's a difference between a police officer going, "I don't have probable cause to believe that a law has been violated" versus "I can't arrest this person under any circumstances without a court order because there's a law protecting him."

    That is right, and I have no problem with the former. It is the latter I take issue with. I understand that there will be hard cases where we need to go through a more formal process, but that shouldn't mean that a police officer cannot clearly see that the guy living on a mattress in the corner of my empty warehouse is not entitled to occupy that space, and so I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to call the police and have him ejected immediately, even if he has lived there for 10 years and has shopping carts full of possessions.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Feral wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    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?

    This does seem to be correct, but the requirements to evict someone squatting aren't exactly onerous

    http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/housing/pdfs/Landlordbooklet.pdf

    Okay. This strikes me as a pretty low bar and I agree that this is extreme. This is within the range that somebody could potentially squat the home of somebody on extended international vacation or deployed in the armed forces.

    As I said above, California doesn't have a law like that, so the squatter has to be very sure that the building is bona fide abandoned if he doesn't want to get forceably removed and arrested.

    Hence my incredulousness.

    I only know the law in NY, and I think the brevity of the period is absurd. If the period was much longer, I would be more sympathetic. Also, in NYC it takes a really long time to evict someone, because there is a huge backlog of these types of matters. As I said earlier in the thread, a well oiled machine that kicks people out reliably in a onto or less wouldn't bother me.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    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.

    Sure.

    But there's a difference between a police officer going, "I don't have probable cause to believe that a law has been violated" versus "I can't arrest this person under any circumstances without a court order because there's a law protecting him."

    That is right, and I have no problem with the former. It is the latter I take issue with. I understand that there will be hard cases where we need to go through a more formal process, but that shouldn't mean that a police officer cannot clearly see that the guy living on a mattress in the corner of my empty warehouse is not entitled to occupy that space, and so I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to call the police and have him ejected immediately, even if he has lived there for 10 years and has shopping carts full of possessions.

    Really? The officer can look deep into the owners soul and see that they had no agreement? That he wasn't cleaning the place in exchange for living there and the owner changed their mind when he was done. Or that he was watching the place for the owner and now he wants to show it sans derelict.

    I mean really, I have had tenants that lived pretty Much exactly like you described. Would that have been obvious that I wasn't just trying to circumvent the eviction process? You need to think about how things work for people who make less than you. Maybe the way their world is a little different than you are used to.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Ny is actually a far more landlord favoring state than NJ is

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    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.

    Sure.

    But there's a difference between a police officer going, "I don't have probable cause to believe that a law has been violated" versus "I can't arrest this person under any circumstances without a court order because there's a law protecting him."

    That is right, and I have no problem with the former. It is the latter I take issue with. I understand that there will be hard cases where we need to go through a more formal process, but that shouldn't mean that a police officer cannot clearly see that the guy living on a mattress in the corner of my empty warehouse is not entitled to occupy that space, and so I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to call the police and have him ejected immediately, even if he has lived there for 10 years and has shopping carts full of possessions.

    I have no furniture in my apartment other than my bed.

    From ages 14-16 I didn't have a bed at all and slept on a mattress off in the corner.

    Living somewhere ten years is not everything you have to do, for the billionth time.

    You are wailing about something that does not exist.

    Why are you incapable of realizing that?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Feral wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    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.

    Sure.

    But there's a difference between a police officer going, "I don't have probable cause to believe that a law has been violated" versus "I can't arrest this person under any circumstances without a court order because there's a law protecting him."

    That is right, and I have no problem with the former. It is the latter I take issue with. I understand that there will be hard cases where we need to go through a more formal process, but that shouldn't mean that a police officer cannot clearly see that the guy living on a mattress in the corner of my empty warehouse is not entitled to occupy that space, and so I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to call the police and have him ejected immediately, even if he has lived there for 10 years and has shopping carts full of possessions.

    I have no furniture in my apartment other than my bed.

    From ages 14-16 I didn't have a bed at all and slept on a mattress off in the corner.

    Living somewhere ten years is not everything you have to do, for the billionth time.

    You are wailing about something that does not exist.

    Why are you incapable of realizing that?

    I don't understand why you keep conflating adverse possession and squatters rights. I am not talking about the guy taking the land, and haven't been for a while. I am talking about the creation of additional barriers to removal.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Right and how are the barriers somehow onerous to you

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    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.

    Sure.

    But there's a difference between a police officer going, "I don't have probable cause to believe that a law has been violated" versus "I can't arrest this person under any circumstances without a court order because there's a law protecting him."

    That is right, and I have no problem with the former. It is the latter I take issue with. I understand that there will be hard cases where we need to go through a more formal process, but that shouldn't mean that a police officer cannot clearly see that the guy living on a mattress in the corner of my empty warehouse is not entitled to occupy that space, and so I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to call the police and have him ejected immediately, even if he has lived there for 10 years and has shopping carts full of possessions.

    I have no furniture in my apartment other than my bed.

    From ages 14-16 I didn't have a bed at all and slept on a mattress off in the corner.

    Living somewhere ten years is not everything you have to do, for the billionth time.

    You are wailing about something that does not exist.

    Why are you incapable of realizing that?

    I don't understand why you keep conflating adverse possession and squatters rights. I am not talking about the guy taking the land, and haven't been for a while. I am talking about the creation of additional barriers to removal.

    Because you keep inflating it with things that aren't happening. You keep saying you want certain protections and those protections either already exist or are ridiculous.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2012
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    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.

    Sure.

    But there's a difference between a police officer going, "I don't have probable cause to believe that a law has been violated" versus "I can't arrest this person under any circumstances without a court order because there's a law protecting him."

    That is right, and I have no problem with the former. It is the latter I take issue with. I understand that there will be hard cases where we need to go through a more formal process, but that shouldn't mean that a police officer cannot clearly see that the guy living on a mattress in the corner of my empty warehouse is not entitled to occupy that space, and so I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to call the police and have him ejected immediately, even if he has lived there for 10 years and has shopping carts full of possessions.

    Really? The officer can look deep into the owners soul and see that they had no agreement? That he wasn't cleaning the place in exchange for living there and the owner changed their mind when he was done. Or that he was watching the place for the owner and now he wants to show it sans derelict.

    I mean really, I have had tenants that lived pretty Much exactly like you described. Would that have been obvious that I wasn't just trying to circumvent the eviction process? You need to think about how things work for people who make less than you. Maybe the way their world is a little different than you are used to.

    Fair enough. Maybe it isn't an easy problem to solve, but it still doesn't sit well with me that I should have to do a sweep of my investment property every 30 days. I have family that own large tracts of wooded land in states they don't live in. They never inspect the whole property to my knowledge. They are just holding it until there is developer interest. The idea that some guy could go there and build a cabin or something and have rights really bothers me.

    Edit: just to say it, an agreement to let someone live in nonresidential property would be illegal anyway, so I have no problem with forcing the eviction immediately and letting the alleged tenant sue the land owner. Let the courts sort out damages, but don't stay the eviction on the basis that it might be pursuant to an illegal arrangement.

    spacekungfuman on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Well if it makes you feel better the fact that people from out of state can buy up large tracts of land and sit on them until there is developer interest really bothers me.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Right and how are the barriers somehow onerous to you

    Becauae it doesn't happen fast. Look at Dee's situation. A full year to kick out a tenant who didn't pay rent? And how about the group of homeless that built a shanty town in your abandoned warehouse, and by dint of their occupation you are subjected to residential building and safety codes?

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I would be interested in hearing why we should embrace property rights if we reject natural rights? I'd really like to see this made to gel with the might-makes-right philosophy you embrace in other threads.

    I'd rather take it to PMs than clog up the thread with it though.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    japan wrote: »
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

    If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing. Under no circumstances should I be barred from my home or from ejecting a criminal from it, IMO.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Right and how are the barriers somehow onerous to you

    Becauae it doesn't happen fast. Look at Dee's situation. A full year to kick out a tenant who didn't pay rent? And how about the group of homeless that built a shanty town in your abandoned warehouse, and by dint of their occupation you are subjected to residential building and safety codes?

    The alternative is people risk becoming homeless unjustly.

    One of these things actually ruins lives.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

    If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing. Under no circumstances should I be barred from my home or from ejecting a criminal from it, IMO.

    And you won't be.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    japan wrote: »
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

    If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing. Under no circumstances should I be barred from my home or from ejecting a criminal from it, IMO.
    What if he has a lease? Could be forged or could be from someone who didn't really own the property. Happens.

    Why does the writing matter? Maybe you found a new girlfriend in Europe. Same situation, does the old one get arrested?

    How in the world did the person know that you would be out of town for an extended period of time with no one checking in and a way to get in but not to steal anything and move their stuff in. To what end? If anything that seems more far fetched than the alternative.

    rockrnger on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Oh hey so the loft law space was condemning:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/nyregion/26loft.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    It applies to landlords who've converted their property in to lofts illegally and offers them a method to make it them legal by having the owners bring them up to code and affording legal protection to the tenants the owners would have been collecting rent from.

    That is a fucking good thing, space.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Oh hey so the loft law space was condemning:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/nyregion/26loft.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    It applies to landlords who've converted their property in to lofts illegally and offers them a method to make it them legal by having the owners bring them up to code and affording legal protection to the tenants the owners would have been collecting rent from.

    That is a fucking good thing, space.

    That is not all that it applies to. It also applies where 3+ seperate groups just live there and obtain tenants rights, although you may be able to get them removed in that case.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Oh hey so the loft law space was condemning:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/nyregion/26loft.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    It applies to landlords who've converted their property in to lofts illegally and offers them a method to make it them legal by having the owners bring them up to code and affording legal protection to the tenants the owners would have been collecting rent from.

    That is a fucking good thing, space.

    That is not all that it applies to. It also applies where 3+ seperate groups just live there and obtain tenants rights, although you may be able to get them removed in that case.

    Cite.

    Cause all I have is the building requires illegal lofts to have at least three tenants for it to count for legal conversion while they live there.

    It does not say "If three people just show up you're responsible for taking care of them".

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Well if it makes you feel better the fact that people from out of state can buy up large tracts of land and sit on them until there is developer interest really bothers me.

    As a resident of a state where this has been a serious problem, it more than bothers me.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    Well if it makes you feel better the fact that people from out of state can buy up large tracts of land and sit on them until there is developer interest really bothers me.

    As a resident of a state where this has been a serious problem, it more than bothers me.

    As a resident of a state where outsiders are viewed as the single largest problem affectomg the development of the state, provincial locals can go fuck themselves.

    mrt144 on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Oh hey so the loft law space was condemning:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/nyregion/26loft.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    It applies to landlords who've converted their property in to lofts illegally and offers them a method to make it them legal by having the owners bring them up to code and affording legal protection to the tenants the owners would have been collecting rent from.

    That is a fucking good thing, space.

    That is not all that it applies to. It also applies where 3+ seperate groups just live there and obtain tenants rights, although you may be able to get them removed in that case.

    Cite.

    Cause all I have is the building requires illegal lofts to have at least three tenants for it to count for legal conversion while they live there.

    It does not say "If three people just show up you're responsible for taking care of them".

    It's three or more "residential occupants.". The term is not defined, and my understanding (which could be wrong) is that the law is broad enough to cover situations where no rent is paid.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

    If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing. Under no circumstances should I be barred from my home or from ejecting a criminal from it, IMO.
    What if he has a lease? Could be forged or could be from someone who didn't really own the property. Happens.

    Why does the writing matter? Maybe you found a new girlfriend in Europe. Same situation, does the old one get arrested?

    How in the world did the person know that you would be out of town for an extended period of time with no one checking in and a way to get in but not to steal anything and move their stuff in. To what end? If anything that seems more far fetched than the alternative.

    I agree that this is far fetched. The shanty town in your warehouse is more likely, and also strikes me as a more straight forward case. If they have a claim, let it be made in court, but don't continue the unlawful (in the sense that even if there was a contract, such contract was illegal and contrary to public policy) use continue.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Well if it makes you feel better the fact that people from out of state can buy up large tracts of land and sit on them until there is developer interest really bothers me.

    As a resident of a state where this has been a serious problem, it more than bothers me.

    What is the problem, and why does it matter if they are out of state? They bought the land, and can do what they please with it (as long as it is legal).

  • SoralinSoralin Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

    If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing. Under no circumstances should I be barred from my home or from ejecting a criminal from it, IMO.
    What if he has a lease? Could be forged or could be from someone who didn't really own the property. Happens.

    Why does the writing matter? Maybe you found a new girlfriend in Europe. Same situation, does the old one get arrested?

    How in the world did the person know that you would be out of town for an extended period of time with no one checking in and a way to get in but not to steal anything and move their stuff in. To what end? If anything that seems more far fetched than the alternative.

    I agree that this is far fetched. The shanty town in your warehouse is more likely, and also strikes me as a more straight forward case. If they have a claim, let it be made in court, but don't continue the unlawful (in the sense that even if there was a contract, such contract was illegal and contrary to public policy) use continue.
    At which point, a couple of police officers show up at your house, and arrest you for illegally squatting there. You complain that you're not squatting there, that you own the house and live there. But, under spacekungfuman's new laws, none of that matters. Someone has made the accusation, and therefore you are to be arrested and removed immediately, and if you do indeed have the right to be there, you can prove it in court.

    Remember, if there's 2 parties involved in a law, there's always at least 2 opposing directions a law can be exploited in. You seem to always be assuming that the person claiming ownership is always the one being honest, and the person claiming residency is always the one being dishonest, when the situation could also be exploited the other way around, and often is. A good law has to be able to handle exploitative situations from both directions.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Well if it makes you feel better the fact that people from out of state can buy up large tracts of land and sit on them until there is developer interest really bothers me.

    As a resident of a state where this has been a serious problem, it more than bothers me.

    What is the problem, and why does it matter if they are out of state? They bought the land, and can do what they please with it (as long as it is legal).

    The out of state part is actually rather incidental.

    I have bad memories of local rich people trying to buy up our farm and turn the flood plain into a housing development from my youth.

    Land speculators are the worst.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Well if it makes you feel better the fact that people from out of state can buy up large tracts of land and sit on them until there is developer interest really bothers me.

    As a resident of a state where this has been a serious problem, it more than bothers me.

    What is the problem, and why does it matter if they are out of state? They bought the land, and can do what they please with it (as long as it is legal).

    Well, for one, that people like you and Tom Brokaw want to gut field and stream access laws.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Oh hey so the loft law space was condemning:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/nyregion/26loft.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    It applies to landlords who've converted their property in to lofts illegally and offers them a method to make it them legal by having the owners bring them up to code and affording legal protection to the tenants the owners would have been collecting rent from.

    That is a fucking good thing, space.

    That is not all that it applies to. It also applies where 3+ seperate groups just live there and obtain tenants rights, although you may be able to get them removed in that case.

    Cite.

    Cause all I have is the building requires illegal lofts to have at least three tenants for it to count for legal conversion while they live there.

    It does not say "If three people just show up you're responsible for taking care of them".

    It's three or more "residential occupants.". The term is not defined, and my understanding (which could be wrong) is that the law is broad enough to cover situations where no rent is paid.

    Yes it could be very wrong indeed.

  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    khain wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    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.

    Yeah the police were going to evict them, but a completely different law dealing with bankruptcy and eviction prevented it. If those guys were the legal owners they couldn't have been evicted either.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Soralin wrote: »
    Soralin wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    What would you consider to be a reasonable requirement for removing someone with no right to be on a property?

    You appear to want to be able to call the police and have them kick someone out based on your assurance that you are the property owner, which is insane for a variety of reasons.

    If I return from my 3 month European vacation to find a stranger in my house, I want to call the police and have him arrested immediately. I don't care if he told the neighbors that he was house sitting, or if he found a hidden key and so didn't break in. I have my drivers liscense and other papers showing I own the house, and that should be enough. I know the next objection will be that he could have been sub leasing, but then he should have gotten something in writing. Under no circumstances should I be barred from my home or from ejecting a criminal from it, IMO.
    What if he has a lease? Could be forged or could be from someone who didn't really own the property. Happens.

    Why does the writing matter? Maybe you found a new girlfriend in Europe. Same situation, does the old one get arrested?

    How in the world did the person know that you would be out of town for an extended period of time with no one checking in and a way to get in but not to steal anything and move their stuff in. To what end? If anything that seems more far fetched than the alternative.

    I agree that this is far fetched. The shanty town in your warehouse is more likely, and also strikes me as a more straight forward case. If they have a claim, let it be made in court, but don't continue the unlawful (in the sense that even if there was a contract, such contract was illegal and contrary to public policy) use continue.
    At which point, a couple of police officers show up at your house, and arrest you for illegally squatting there. You complain that you're not squatting there, that you own the house and live there. But, under spacekungfuman's new laws, none of that matters. Someone has made the accusation, and therefore you are to be arrested and removed immediately, and if you do indeed have the right to be there, you can prove it in court.

    Remember, if there's 2 parties involved in a law, there's always at least 2 opposing directions a law can be exploited in. You seem to always be assuming that the person claiming ownership is always the one being honest, and the person claiming residency is always the one being dishonest, when the situation could also be exploited the other way around, and often is. A good law has to be able to handle exploitative situations from both directions.

    But I can produce government issued ID and tax statements stating that I am the lawful owner. I am not saying that a bare accusation should be sufficient, only that where one party has documentation of their right to live there and the other does not, that should be sufficiency for the police to remove the party with no documented right. And, just to say it, I think that moving towards all such rights bring documented and notarized would be an improvement.

Sign In or Register to comment.