goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Pete on July 02, 2022, 03:53:03 PM
-
How about a thread where we give credit to someone on the "other side" of the political spectrum, in a position of power or influence, that we agree with.
I liked some of the stuff Dick Cheny's daughter has said lately. Made me really think I might be able to compromise more with the "other side" if there were more folks like her.
Obviously this will be a seldom trafficked thread.
-
I also want to posthumously apologize to George Sr for my mocking of Compassionate Conservatism years ago. I'd kill a drifter for the chance to vote for that sort of thing today.
-
I like a lot of what I hear from Bernie Sanders. Not his actual policy plays, which are dogshit, but his sincerity and selflessness in trying to work for things you can tell he legitimately believes in to help others. There isn’t much of that in politics, outside of really evil/ghoulish crap you can tell these freaks legitimately believe in.
-
I like a lot of what I hear from Bernie Sanders. Not his actual policy plays, which are dogshit, but his sincerity and selflessness in trying to work for things you can tell he legitimately believes in to help others. There isn’t much of that in politics, outside of really evil/ghoulish crap you can tell these freaks legitimately believe in.
Agreed. Obviously, his proposed policies stand a snowball's chance in hell, but I'll give him this: he may be the only honest politician in Washington. When he talks, I believe he means what he says. And that's pretty refreshing.
Also, Pete's pretty great, too!
-
https://twitter.com/spencespencer01/status/1543271612199407619?s=21&t=jxGcP69hkF1EcyrPwT7CzQ
-
How about a thread where we give credit to someone on the "other side" of the political spectrum, in a position of power or influence, that we agree with.
I liked some of the stuff Dick Cheny's daughter has said lately. Made me really think I might be able to compromise more with the "other side" if there were more folks like her.
Obviously this will be a seldom trafficked thread.
I'd for sure vote for her
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1543581127759331328
-
I like a lot of what I hear from Bernie Sanders. Not his actual policy plays, which are dogshit, but his sincerity and selflessness in trying to work for things you can tell he legitimately believes in to help others. There isn’t much of that in politics, outside of really evil/ghoulish crap you can tell these freaks legitimately believe in.
Before I was a Bernie bro, a friend of my wife that worked for Jerry Moran said Bernie saw her waiting for the staff elevator and said “this is so stupid get on” to bring her on the senator elevator and then made small talk with her on the ride. Possibly the only human in the town that came anywhere near power and was mostly unscathed.
-
Liz Cheney loves war, just like her dad.
-
Liz Cheney loves war, just like her dad.
I wouldn't have guessed that this was something that you loved about her, but you are literate and can read this thread title, so here we are I suppose.
-
I was wrong over the past decade or so when I dismissed the threat of conflict with other super powers….I thought we had moved passed that as a planet…that our economies were too interconnected and that corporate powers would help keep states in line by virtue of economic influence. I wanted us to cut our military drastically.
I was wrong.
I believe that John McCain and other centrist republicans were right. We do need a very strong defense.
-
Agree with Pete and other who think this.
-
I agree, but we do need to balance that with other spending. Our infrastructure is bad. Our social safety net is bad. Our health as a citizenry is bad. We need some of that money at home. We can do that and still be the baddest kid on the block. Republicans want to talk about spending and then they cop the world. Military is the main spending issue and has been since Eisenhower. It has literally robbed our generation.
-
The militarys main function is to secure global commerce. As always you have to spend money to make money.
-
I was wrong over the past decade or so when I dismissed the threat of conflict with other super powers….I thought we had moved passed that as a planet…that our economies were too interconnected and that corporate powers would help keep states in line by virtue of economic influence. I wanted us to cut our military drastically.
I was wrong.
I believe that John McCain and other centrist republicans were right. We do need a very strong defense.
yeah, same. hope everyone enjoyed their peace dividend, but we now need to cancel it.
-
I think there is room for a strong military with spending cut drastically
-
Military is the main spending issue and has been since Eisenhower. It has literally robbed our generation.
this isn't anywhere close to true, btw. defense spending is about 10% of the federal budget, about 3% of gdp. and of that defense spending, only about a fifth is spent on weapons. well under 1% of gdp.
-
I think there is room for a strong military with spending cut drastically
how?
-
I think there is room for a strong military with spending cut drastically
how?
If we cut spending in half we'd still spend more than anyone in the world? If it can't be "strong" with that much money, something is wrong
-
strong enough to prevent anyone from invading the united states, sure. but much weaker than our current military.
-
strong enough to prevent anyone from invading the united states, sure. but much weaker than our current military.
If preventing an invasion of the US is the objective you could cut way more than half.
What current military objectives couldn't be fulfilled if we cut the budget in half?
-
Military is the main spending issue and has been since Eisenhower. It has literally robbed our generation.
this isn't anywhere close to true, btw. defense spending is about 10% of the federal budget, about 3% of gdp. and of that defense spending, only about a fifth is spent on weapons. well under 1% of gdp.
More than half of discretionary spending.
-
strong enough to prevent anyone from invading the united states, sure. but much weaker than our current military.
If preventing an invasion of the US is the objective you could cut way more than half.
What current military objectives couldn't be fulfilled if we cut the budget in half?
people that know way more about this stuff than i do think it would be pretty touch and go if we became involved in a war with china with the military as is, so i think it's fair to say that if we cut spending in half that we'd be in much worse shape on that front.
by the same token, we are running into hard limits on being able to send aid to ukraine without going below the levels of munitions (and in some cases weapons systems) we consider acceptable for our own use. so, again, seems pretty clear that cutting everything in half would make those limitations even more severe.
honestly, cutting the budget in half isn't even close to a realistic debate. you aren't doing that without violating treaty obligations, diplomatic promises, firing millions of people that signed up with the promise of a steady govt job, health care and pension, etc.
-
More than half of discretionary spending.
yeah, most spending isn't discretionary. that's why when anyone is serious about budget reform they talk about entitlements.
-
strong enough to prevent anyone from invading the united states, sure. but much weaker than our current military.
If preventing an invasion of the US is the objective you could cut way more than half.
What current military objectives couldn't be fulfilled if we cut the budget in half?
Wasteful boondoggles, for one. That base in Afghanistan that was never used comes to mind. 64K I believe was the name of it
-
I think there is room for a strong military with spending cut drastically
how?
If we cut spending in half we'd still spend more than anyone in the world? If it can't be "strong" with that much money, something is wrong
I know math probably isn’t your thing but wouldn’t that be expected when human labor is a huge component of the spending and we have by far the largest economy in the world (and a very high gdp per capita)…
-
strong enough to prevent anyone from invading the united states, sure. but much weaker than our current military.
If preventing an invasion of the US is the objective you could cut way more than half.
What current military objectives couldn't be fulfilled if we cut the budget in half?
people that know way more about this stuff than i do think it would be pretty touch and go if we became involved in a war with china with the military as is, so i think it's fair to say that if we cut spending in half that we'd be in much worse shape on that front.
by the same token, we are running into hard limits on being able to send aid to ukraine without going below the levels of munitions (and in some cases weapons systems) we consider acceptable for our own use. so, again, seems pretty clear that cutting everything in half would make those limitations even more severe.
honestly, cutting the budget in half isn't even close to a realistic debate. you aren't doing that without violating treaty obligations, diplomatic promises, firing millions of people that signed up with the promise of a steady govt job, health care and pension, etc.
Well, you wouldn't cut it in half all at once. I'm just saying that transitioning to that amount over time should still leave us with the strongest military in the world and likely could meet most of its current objectives. I do like that you care about the workers though.
-
https://twitter.com/nataliebetance/status/1591886306535440384?s=46&t=vRmn769o6vbksy1cMEN7Fw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think maybe Bezos will give us $100M to continue to the great unifying work of this thread.
-
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1598714500286406657?s=20&t=x8-jPmAq6VWXVKO-bVCV9w
-
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1765151624425525400
I feel like there must be some play or ulterior motive that's going over my head.
-
That's a great start. Navalny's widow should be invited also.
-
strong enough to prevent anyone from invading the united states, sure. but much weaker than our current military.
If preventing an invasion of the US is the objective you could cut way more than half.
What current military objectives couldn't be fulfilled if we cut the budget in half?
people that know way more about this stuff than i do think it would be pretty touch and go if we became involved in a war with china with the military as is, so i think it's fair to say that if we cut spending in half that we'd be in much worse shape on that front.
by the same token, we are running into hard limits on being able to send aid to ukraine without going below the levels of munitions (and in some cases weapons systems) we consider acceptable for our own use. so, again, seems pretty clear that cutting everything in half would make those limitations even more severe.
honestly, cutting the budget in half isn't even close to a realistic debate. you aren't doing that without violating treaty obligations, diplomatic promises, firing millions of people that signed up with the promise of a steady govt job, health care and pension, etc.
Arguing that we should sustain or increase our military budget so that we can be prepared for a war with China is a completely insane thing to say. What do people forsee a war with China looking like? Do they imagine it would be some kind of small contained thing? We are talking about two countries with massive nuclear arsenals. What are we even talking about? It should be avoided at nearly any cost for the sake of the entire planet's survival!
-
strong enough to prevent anyone from invading the united states, sure. but much weaker than our current military.
If preventing an invasion of the US is the objective you could cut way more than half.
What current military objectives couldn't be fulfilled if we cut the budget in half?
people that know way more about this stuff than i do think it would be pretty touch and go if we became involved in a war with china with the military as is, so i think it's fair to say that if we cut spending in half that we'd be in much worse shape on that front.
by the same token, we are running into hard limits on being able to send aid to ukraine without going below the levels of munitions (and in some cases weapons systems) we consider acceptable for our own use. so, again, seems pretty clear that cutting everything in half would make those limitations even more severe.
honestly, cutting the budget in half isn't even close to a realistic debate. you aren't doing that without violating treaty obligations, diplomatic promises, firing millions of people that signed up with the promise of a steady govt job, health care and pension, etc.
Arguing that we should sustain or increase our military budget so that we can be prepared for a war with China is a completely insane thing to say. What do people forsee a war with China looking like? Do they imagine it would be some kind of small contained thing? We are talking about two countries with massive nuclear arsenals. What are we even talking about? It should be avoided at nearly any cost for the sake of the entire planet's survival!
Deterrence matters
-
Love, love deterrence apart, again
-
strong enough to prevent anyone from invading the united states, sure. but much weaker than our current military.
If preventing an invasion of the US is the objective you could cut way more than half.
What current military objectives couldn't be fulfilled if we cut the budget in half?
people that know way more about this stuff than i do think it would be pretty touch and go if we became involved in a war with china with the military as is, so i think it's fair to say that if we cut spending in half that we'd be in much worse shape on that front.
by the same token, we are running into hard limits on being able to send aid to ukraine without going below the levels of munitions (and in some cases weapons systems) we consider acceptable for our own use. so, again, seems pretty clear that cutting everything in half would make those limitations even more severe.
honestly, cutting the budget in half isn't even close to a realistic debate. you aren't doing that without violating treaty obligations, diplomatic promises, firing millions of people that signed up with the promise of a steady govt job, health care and pension, etc.
Arguing that we should sustain or increase our military budget so that we can be prepared for a war with China is a completely insane thing to say. What do people forsee a war with China looking like? Do they imagine it would be some kind of small contained thing? We are talking about two countries with massive nuclear arsenals. What are we even talking about? It should be avoided at nearly any cost for the sake of the entire planet's survival!
Deterrence matters
Isn't that what the nukes are for?
-
YES! And, I've actually read the original manuscript and edits for the Atoms for Peace speech from Ike (available for checkout at his library in ksu_Fan's hometown).
Nukes are necessary, but not sufficient. Being able to show up anywhere on the globe, quickly, and absolutely unleash hell has a wonderful way of deterring many sorts of actions.
-
Put another way, I think most reasonable minds would agree that there are situations where military action is called for, AND the action required is less than a nuke. Almost universal agreement on that point.
Then, most reasonable minds also agree that bad guys tend to do fewer bad things if they have a legitimate expectation of adverse consequences. Again, almost universal agreement on that point as well.
So, we all agree that not every situation requires us nuking someone, and we also agree that something less than nukes is required to deter bad guys.
-
YES! And, I've actually read the original manuscript and edits for the Atoms for Peace speech from Ike (available for checkout at his library in ksu_Fan's hometown).
Nukes are necessary, but not sufficient. Being able to show up anywhere on the globe, quickly, and absolutely unleash hell has a wonderful way of deterring many sorts of actions.
I guess xpost with Pet Peeves, but as a logic hobbyist, the misuse of necessary/sufficient conditions bugs me almost as much as the misuse of "begs the question." But I've given up, at this point, and accepted that language evolves.
-
Looks like both sides are about to grease tik tok. Good on them
-
Looks like both sides are about to grease tik tok. Good on them
they should get rid of insta and facebook and twitter too if they really care about kids or spying on people or whatever they're using to justify it
-
PRY TWITTER FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS YOU COMMUNIST BASTARDS!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
PRY TWITTER FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS YOU COMMUNIST BASTARDS!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
twitter isn't going anywhere.
-
Looks like both sides are about to grease tik tok. Good on them
yeah, good. ridiculous that we would allow the chinese govt to have a media platform here.
-
Looks like both sides are about to grease tik tok. Good on them
yeah, good. ridiculous that we would allow the chinese govt to have a media platform here.
Something trump did right.
-
100% agree
-
Something trump did right.
a pretty impressive for it before he was against it.
-
https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1768357177356427668
As someone who first accessed internet porn in grade school, it's insane to me that there's still essentially no actual restrictions on this stuff.
-
You want to give up your anonymity?
-
I think the best way to handle this is an opt-in from your isp. I'm sure there are other issues that arise from that. Making each site do verification is probably not a good solution either, but the "do you promise you're 18?" button is not sufficient.
-
I think the best way to handle this is an opt-in from your isp. I'm sure there are other issues that arise from that. Making each site do verification is probably not a good solution either, but the "do you promise you're 18?" button is not sufficient.
It is a universal truth that children will find a way to access porn.
-
Absolutely, that doesn't mean there should be no attempts at barriers
-
I think the best way to handle this is an opt-in from your isp. I'm sure there are other issues that arise from that. Making each site do verification is probably not a good solution either, but the "do you promise you're 18?" button is not sufficient.
It is a universal truth that children will find a way to access porn.
What are your thoughts on gun laws
-
I think the best way to handle this is an opt-in from your isp. I'm sure there are other issues that arise from that. Making each site do verification is probably not a good solution either, but the "do you promise you're 18?" button is not sufficient.
It is a universal truth that children will find a way to access porn.
What are your thoughts on gun laws
I think that's an absolutely inappropriate comparison. Let the teenagers jerk off but make it as difficult as possible to illegally obtain guns. :jerk:
-
Oh ok
-
Should there be age verification to post content? Fwiw I am pretty sure you have to be verified on porn hub to post but not to view
-
I would say this will create a whole new group of hackers, but the path of least resistance says they'll just get VPN services
-
One interesting thing with vpn's that I didn't know until I began using one recently, youtubetv gives an error saying it won't work behind a VPN. I don't know if that's a legal issue or what, but I didn't know they would be able to tell a VPN was being used. Could be a noob thing on my end though.
-
Should there be age verification to post content? Fwiw I am pretty sure you have to be verified on porn hub to post but not to view
According to you, PH already has that policy because they want to avoid liability. Maybe less scrupulous sites don't, but I don't know. If it turns out that's the case, then yeah, I'd be in favor of a law addressing that. I just don't support a verification law for viewing.
-
I feel like that's the role of parents, not the government.
-
Let the teenagers show their hoots and dongs!
-
Let the teenagers show their hoots and dongs!
Pretty sure that's why Snapchat was invented.
-
Let the teenagers show their hoots and dongs!
Pretty sure that's why Snapchat was invented.
Lol
-
Trumps plan to ban tik tok is gaining steam!
-
Desantis signed a bill banning kids under 14 from having social media without parents consent.
-
Desantis signed a bill banning kids under 14 from having social media without parents consent.
Not sure how effective it will be, but I like the spirit of it.
-
Desantis signed a bill banning kids under 14 from having social media without parents consent.
good news for those under 14 yr old kids who suddenly will have some free time on their hands...FLA would be happy to let you use that time working for next to nothing at like, meat packing plants or other similar type Industrial Farming sorts of jorbs
-
More time for huffing bath salts and loitering :shakesfist:
-
Desantis signed a bill banning kids under 14 from having social media without parents consent.
Not sure how effective it will be, but I like the spirit of it.
Same
-
DeSantis just signed a bill fighting squatters rights.
https://www.wptv.com/news/state/florida-gov-ron-desantis-signs-law-squashing-squatters-rights (https://www.wptv.com/news/state/florida-gov-ron-desantis-signs-law-squashing-squatters-rights)
-
Good grief, do you think we could still get Ron to be president?
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/gov-desantis-signs-bill-that-increase-wine-bottle-size-limit/3270804/ (https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/gov-desantis-signs-bill-that-increase-wine-bottle-size-limit/3270804/)
-
He’s on a heater
-
Yeesh
If this had been his platform instead of all the anti-woke nonsense
-
Yeesh
If this had been his platform instead of all the anti-woke nonsense
Up until this week, the only platform he had was his shoes
-
Yeesh
If this had been his platform instead of all the anti-woke nonsense
Up until this week, the only platform he had was his shoes
:lol:
-
Yeesh
If this had been his platform instead of all the anti-woke nonsense
Up until this week, the only platform he had was his shoes
oh my
-
Yeesh
If this had been his platform instead of all the anti-woke nonsense
Up until this week, the only platform he had was his shoes
:alleyoop:
-
Yeesh
If this had been his platform instead of all the anti-woke nonsense
Up until this week, the only platform he had was his shoes
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/fAv2n4Tlhshig/giphy.gif)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yeesh
If this had been his platform instead of all the anti-woke nonsense
Up until this week, the only platform he had was his shoes
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/fAv2n4Tlhshig/giphy.gif)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Holy crap I’ve never seen this :lol:
-
(https://media1.tenor.com/m/r4tZeFvPo_EAAAAd/nic-cage.gif)
-
personally, I am on team squatter
-
why
-
personally, I am on team squatter
I cannot think of a single reason someone would be on this side other than the squatter themselves
-
Yeah based on the description in the article it seems pretty common sense to me. It specifically excludes tenants who are in a legal dispute with the landlord.
-
The only defense I have seen for Team Squat is that, something like 100 yrs ago, States were concerned about land use and they would rather someone use land productively. We don't seem to have that problem right now. Even if someone owns a vaca home in swampland, they are going to be paying taxes on it and therefore it is productive to the state.
-
Squatters are criminals and can squat their asses in jail imo. And make Mexico pay for it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
personally, I am on team squatter
I cannot think of a single reason someone would be on this side other than the squatter themselves
victimless crime
also it's kinda fun to stir the pot sometimes
-
personally, I am on team squatter
I cannot think of a single reason someone would be on this side other than the squatter themselves
victimless crime
also it's kinda fun to stir the pot sometimes
Squatters need to be jailed.
-
If impairing someone's ability to use their own property is "victimless" in your mind, then I have to assume you're on Dax's side in the Trump civil fraud stuff.
-
guys he's GE'ing, he doesn't ACTUALLY think that
-
guys he's GE'ing, he doesn't ACTUALLY think that
partially GE'ing but squatting is the spirit of taxing/robbing the rich that I can get behind. I mean I'd prefer we tax appropriately and guarantee housing for everyone but squatting in an empty mansion seems like a decent alternative in the meantime
-
i feel this
like the people that stealth move in over a weekend and say you can't kick me out is nonsense
but if you have so much property that you are not aware of it for 3-15 years then maybe redistribution is in the best interest of the community
(in ks - a squatter must reside on the premises and pay taxes on it for at least 15 years in a row in order to make an adverse possession claim)
-
Squatters' rights might technically overlap with adverse possession, but the two are really totally different concepts serving different purposes. I've never thought of squatters' rights as sticking it to the rich but more of a check on forced homelessness without lots of due process.
-
Squatters rights are racist
-
Also, if Fat Ron is in favor of something, my gut says to be opposed to it. Even if it seems good on the surface there's more than likely something sinister in the details
-
Totally. You should always assume evil motives all the time.
-
Ron went crazy. He needs to show some actual results to keep his current job.
-
the Mouse broke him
-
You have to remember that michigancat doesn't believe in property ownership
-
You have to remember that michigancat doesn't believe in property ownership
He’s been radicalized
-
You have to remember that michigancat doesn't believe in property ownership
He’s been radicalized
Look what the big city liberal elites have done to a smart boy from harper county kansas
-
I hope some hobo squats in michigancats car making him unable to move it across the street every day and he gets a years worth of tickets
-
I hope some hobo squats in michigancats car making him unable to move it across the street every day and he gets a years worth of tickets
another way to do this would be for the people parked in front of and behind michcat to simply engage their parking brakes
-
I hope some hobo squats in michigancats car making him unable to move it across the street every day and he gets a years worth of tickets
seizethemeansofproductioncat
-
You have to remember that michigancat doesn't believe in property ownership
If I mostly just lived in SF and NY I’d probably think property ownership is only some urban legend.
-
I hope some hobo squats in michigancats car making him unable to move it across the street every day and he gets a years worth of tickets
another way to do this would be for the people parked in front of and behind michcat to simply engage their parking brakes
:lol: :lol:
-
I think I'm on kRusty's side now, this is disgusting
https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1773819634778522013
-
I think I'm on kRusty's side now, this is disgusting
https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1773819634778522013
LOL at the idea that Abbott wouldn’t be advocating for gun violence in property disputes if squatters had more rights.
-
This has to be a trap of some sort so I refuse to give my thoughts on the matter. :shakesfist: (ftp://:shakesfist:)
-
I probably lean more Abbott than not on the idea of coming home to someone claiming my home is theirs and refusing to leave.
-
is this a thing all of a sudden because of tiktok? I genuinely don't know how squatters rights entered the right wing discourse
-
is this a thing all of a sudden because of tiktok? I genuinely don't know how squatters rights entered the right wing discourse
I assume, as always, Fox News.
-
The whole idea of squatters rights was the idea that Indians couldn’t take care of the land or use it right.
Giving white famines free reign to illegally settle on treaty lands
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
is this a thing all of a sudden because of tiktok? I genuinely don't know how squatters rights entered the right wing discourse
It’s been all over Reddit for months. Not in a left or right way, but in a “this happened to me and it’s mumped up” way.
-
is this a thing all of a sudden because of tiktok? I genuinely don't know how squatters rights entered the right wing discourse
It’s been all over Reddit for months. Not in a left or right way, but in a “this happened to me and it’s mumped up” way.
My mom doesn't reddit, tho
-
is this a thing all of a sudden because of tiktok? I genuinely don't know how squatters rights entered the right wing discourse
It’s been all over Reddit for months. Not in a left or right way, but in a “this happened to me and it’s mumped up” way.
My mom doesn't reddit, tho
I’ve heard that r/conservative interviewers you to make sure you’re a believer before allowing you to join. You might have her check it out.
-
is this a thing all of a sudden because of tiktok? I genuinely don't know how squatters rights entered the right wing discourse
It’s been all over Reddit for months. Not in a left or right way, but in a “this happened to me and it’s mumped up” way.
My mom doesn't reddit, tho
I’ve heard that r/conservative interviewers you to make sure you’re a believer before allowing you to join. You might have her check it out.
I will not do that. My mom thought her TV was broken for a year before we discovered the HDMI cable wasn't plugged in. She wouldn't be able to navigate reddit.
-
is this a thing all of a sudden because of tiktok? I genuinely don't know how squatters rights entered the right wing discourse
It’s been all over Reddit for months. Not in a left or right way, but in a “this happened to me and it’s mumped up” way.
My mom doesn't reddit, tho
I’ve heard that r/conservative interviewers you to make sure you’re a believer before allowing you to join. You might have her check it out.
I will not do that. My mom thought her TV was broken for a year before we discovered the HDMI cable wasn't plugged in. She wouldn't be able to navigate reddit.
The dog vids, though!
-
you should probably have to call the cops first but if they refuse to help you, you should be able to shoot someone squatting on your property. there's no way to accidentally squat, it's a very deliberate crime.
-
As much as I’m a radical leftist, I don’t have a problem with the idea that you should be able to defend yourself in your home without risk of being charged criminally.
That said, I’m sure Gregory has a very broad interpretation on who has standing in such cases. Some guy from the next county over will drive in to defend an auto zone he’s never been inside and doesn’t know the owner.
Also, I’d bet dollars to donuts the “I took my family on a wholesome vacation and when we got home squatters had stolen our home!” Is going to be 2024’s litter box in the classroom fiasco
-
As much as I’m a radical leftist, I don’t have a problem with the idea that you should be able to defend yourself in your home without risk of being charged criminally.
That said, I’m sure Gregory has a very broad interpretation on who has standing in such cases. Some guy from the next county over will drive in to defend an auto zone he’s never been inside and doesn’t know the owner.
Also, I’d bet dollars to donuts the “I took my family on a wholesome vacation and when we got home squatters had stolen our home!” Is going to be 2024’s litter box in the classroom fiasco
Yes. That doesn't really happen. Our property law is based on English Common Law, which in fact DID have a general policy of putting property to productive use, hence the Rule Against Perpetuities. It grew out of feudal times. I don't think it's all that burdensome to evict squatters. But also, use your rough ridin' property, folks.
-
from a functional perspective squatting it either takes a significant amount of wealth or exceptionally unique circumstances to be affected by a squatting incident
-
i mean, these are in the news because in some states, it doesn't. your house is vacant and some bad person breaks in, claims he has a lease and you're mumped. it takes months to evict them.
-
i mean, these are in the news because in some states, it doesn't. your house is vacant and some bad person breaks in, claims he has a lease and you're mumped. it takes months to evict them.
But like, what is the dollar impact of those assholes annually? I imagine there are plenty of thefts with greater impact.
-
i mean, these are in the news because in some states, it doesn't. your house is vacant and some bad person breaks in, claims he has a lease and you're mumped. it takes months to evict them.
But like, what is the dollar impact of those assholes annually? I imagine there are plenty of thefts with greater impact.
Do you think stealing a $500 item from someone’s bag at the gym should be treated similar to stealing a $500 from their bedroom?
-
i mean, these are in the news because in some states, it doesn't. your house is vacant and some bad person breaks in, claims he has a lease and you're mumped. it takes months to evict them.
But like, what is the dollar impact of those assholes annually? I imagine there are plenty of thefts with greater impact.
Do you think stealing a $500 item from someone’s bag at the gym should be treated similar to stealing a $500 from their bedroom?
I'm talking about total dollar impact, not impact per crime. I'm assuming squatting isn't terribly common and has a low dollar impact, unlike stealing from gym bags or bedrooms. But I'm not sure! Like I really only knew this was being discussed because of this thread and headlines about those Malibu squatters
-
Fair enough. But my point is still that people tend to be so repulsed by squatting because it does feel especially violative.
And for the situation Sys is describing, I think it can be very expensive if you factor in the value of lost time. There would almost certainly be legal expenses even if you didn’t hire a lawyer, and you'd have to gather a ton of info to make your case. And all that is of course on top of the actual lost income/rent/whatever.
-
But like, what is the dollar impact of those assholes annually?
who gives a crap?
-
But like, what is the dollar impact of those assholes annually?
who gives a crap?
You'd think the media would!
This seems
A) small and
B) not new
Which is why I don't understand why it's the new anti-woke thing
-
This seems
A) small and
B) not new
fascinating argument. a crime that is rare and not new should not be a crime. so murder is legalized under this theory, what else?
I don't understand why it's the new anti-woke thing
because there are people on the woke side that have so destroyed their brains that they'll defend it.
-
The whole idea of squatters rights was the idea that Indians couldn’t take care of the land or use it right.
Giving white famines free reign to illegally settle on treaty lands
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jesus Christ Michigancat. WTF
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I’m with sys and I’m shooting the living crap out of these criminals first and being totally exonerated later.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
This seems
A) small and
B) not new
fascinating argument. a crime that is rare and not new should not be a crime. so murder is legalized under this theory, what else?
I don't understand why it's the new anti-woke thing
because there are people on the woke side that have so destroyed their brains that they'll defend it.
Actually I'm pretty sure it's this story (plus maybe the Beverly Hills story) and not woke opinion havers
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13216813/amp/Vigilantes-squatters-Queens-home-arrested.html
-
Yeah based on the description in the article it seems pretty common sense to me. It specifically excludes tenants who are in a legal dispute with the landlord.
I did a bit more research and I think the genuine opposition to this is related to tenant rights. Before this law passed, the courts would need to verify documents and records regarding the tenancy before evictions. The new law shifts that role to the police and could allow a landlord to say a valid tenant is a "squatter" and get the police to remove them without any court involvement. Your last sentence is an incentive for landlords to use this law to kick out legal tenants before they can take a dispute to court. The tenants would be on the street and THEY would have to take the case to court while also needing a place to live. (or in sys and Greg Abbot's case, you could just murder them if you want them out).
So going back to Desantis, he's taking fringe Fox News cases like the lady in Queens that have minimal overall financial impact to justify removing basic tenant rights. Even assuming the "squatters" in this case are 100% wrong, we shouldn't remove the rights of all tenants to earn anti-woke political points.
-
Personally, I am in favor of sweeping legislation that will only benefit a very small number of (probably ultra wealthy) people. When will the poor landlords finally catch a break??
-
If it’s “anti-woke” then call me Rip Van Dave
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
A better articulated alternative view to the Desantis/sys/Abbot/rip van Dave alliance that also explains why conservatives are freaking out (thread and article):
https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1772607586069602405
https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1772611822450819424
-
Maga Twitter is going nuts about squatting so it’s their new caravan boogie man. I predict it will become a talking point for old dummies
-
Maga Twitter is going nuts about squatting so it’s their new caravan boogie man. I predict it will become a talking point for old dummies
It already is, dummy.
-
Yeah based on the description in the article it seems pretty common sense to me. It specifically excludes tenants who are in a legal dispute with the landlord.
I did a bit more research and I think the genuine opposition to this is related to tenant rights. Before this law passed, the courts would need to verify documents and records regarding the tenancy before evictions. The new law shifts that role to the police and could allow a landlord to say a valid tenant is a "squatter" and get the police to remove them without any court involvement. Your last sentence is an incentive for landlords to use this law to kick out legal tenants before they can take a dispute to court. The tenants would be on the street and THEY would have to take the case to court while also needing a place to live. (or in sys and Greg Abbot's case, you could just murder them if you want them out).
So going back to Desantis, he's taking fringe Fox News cases like the lady in Queens that have minimal overall financial impact to justify removing basic tenant rights. Even assuming the "squatters" in this case are 100% wrong, we shouldn't remove the rights of all tenants to earn anti-woke political points.
Why on earth would a landlord have a tenant forcibly removed from their home if they’re following the lease?
If a tenant stops paying rent without being prepared to make their case in court or to a police officer that’s on them. If a landlord kicks someone out who hasn’t broken their lease they can’t rent the property to someone else. They’re screwing themselves out of income.
Not sure the current state of the law, but seems like an easy fix anyway. Create a legal right to recover penalties and all legal expenses if you were wrongfully kicked out of your rental. I think that would be another common ground issue.
-
Catching strays from spracs over my schtick of mocking fat losers was not on my pit bingo card
-
Catching strays from spracs over my schtick of mocking fat losers was not on my pit bingo card
Lol. Nothing personal. Just saying the talking points have already been disseminated.
-
Why on earth would a landlord have a tenant forcibly removed from their home if they’re following the lease?
This seriously happens all the time for various reasons with scumbag landlords. I'm guessing the most common is to get out lower income tenants in gentrifying areas in favor of a sale or bringing in higher-end tenants. Death of an owner leading to inheritors of the property to force tenants out for a quick sale is probably also common (although pretty sure this is somewhat legal in some cases). The tenant could be paying rent but demanding repairs that the landlord doesn't want to make. So yeah, landlords have all kinds of incentive to evict legal tenants and probably do it successfully way more often squatters illegally take over a vacation home already.
If a tenant stops paying rent without being prepared to make their case in court or to a police officer that’s on them.
I'm not sure that's what's being discussed necessarily but I think making your case in court is very different than making your case to a police officer. That's the biggest shift with this law - the courts don't need to be involved any more, it's just up to the cops.
Not sure the current state of the law, but seems like an easy fix anyway. Create a legal right to recover penalties and all legal expenses if you were wrongfully kicked out of your rental. I think that would be another common ground issue.
I don't think a right to recover legal expenses if you are illegally evicted is a good trade for making it easier for landlords to kick people out of their homes without a trial.
-
I’m pretty sure the term squatting is from translation of Indians complaining to their agents that white people were shitting on their treaty lands.
Shitting translated to squatting fwiw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Why on earth would a landlord have a tenant forcibly removed from their home if they’re following the lease?
This seriously happens all the time for various reasons with scumbag landlords. I'm guessing the most common is to get out lower income tenants in gentrifying areas in favor of a sale or bringing in higher-end tenants. Death of an owner leading to inheritors of the property to force tenants out for a quick sale is probably also common (although pretty sure this is somewhat legal in some cases). The tenant could be paying rent but demanding repairs that the landlord doesn't want to make. So yeah, landlords have all kinds of incentive to evict legal tenants and probably do it successfully way more often squatters illegally take over a vacation home already.
If a tenant stops paying rent without being prepared to make their case in court or to a police officer that’s on them.
I'm not sure that's what's being discussed necessarily but I think making your case in court is very different than making your case to a police officer. That's the biggest shift with this law - the courts don't need to be involved any more, it's just up to the cops.
Not sure the current state of the law, but seems like an easy fix anyway. Create a legal right to recover penalties and all legal expenses if you were wrongfully kicked out of your rental. I think that would be another common ground issue.
I don't think a right to recover legal expenses if you are illegally evicted is a good trade for making it easier for landlords to kick people out of their homes without a trial.
Allowing cops to act as factfinders is the thing that irks me. Cops are generally stupid and shitty.* Trust me. Do not want that.
*Obligatory "not all cops." But enough, and too many.
-
Allowing cops to act as factfinders is the thing that irks me. Cops are generally stupid and shitty.* Trust me. Do not want that.
My understanding is that's the ONLY thing this bill really does!
-
Not necessarily squatting-related, but perhaps squatting-adjacent:
https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2024/03/27/the-hotel-guest-who-wouldnt-leave/
Nonetheless, a pretty entertaining story.
-
Not necessarily squatting-related, but perhaps squatting-adjacent:
https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2024/03/27/the-hotel-guest-who-wouldnt-leave/
Nonetheless, a pretty entertaining story.
That's Home Alone 2
-
Why on earth would a landlord have a tenant forcibly removed from their home if they’re following the lease?
This seriously happens all the time for various reasons with scumbag landlords. I'm guessing the most common is to get out lower income tenants in gentrifying areas in favor of a sale or bringing in higher-end tenants. Death of an owner leading to inheritors of the property to force tenants out for a quick sale is probably also common (although pretty sure this is somewhat legal in some cases). The tenant could be paying rent but demanding repairs that the landlord doesn't want to make. So yeah, landlords have all kinds of incentive to evict legal tenants and probably do it successfully way more often squatters illegally take over a vacation home already.
If a tenant stops paying rent without being prepared to make their case in court or to a police officer that’s on them.
I'm not sure that's what's being discussed necessarily but I think making your case in court is very different than making your case to a police officer. That's the biggest shift with this law - the courts don't need to be involved any more, it's just up to the cops.
Not sure the current state of the law, but seems like an easy fix anyway. Create a legal right to recover penalties and all legal expenses if you were wrongfully kicked out of your rental. I think that would be another common ground issue.
I don't think a right to recover legal expenses if you are illegally evicted is a good trade for making it easier for landlords to kick people out of their homes without a trial.
I'm still struggling to see how any of this makes anti-squatting laws a net negative. All the bad landlord stuff you're talking about are things landlords are currently doing extra judicially in order to skirt the laws. Under an anti-squatter law, why would scumbag landlords involve law enforcement--who could easily determine that they're doing something illegally--when the landlords already have the other tricks in their scumbag toolbelt?
-
Why on earth would a landlord have a tenant forcibly removed from their home if they’re following the lease?
This seriously happens all the time for various reasons with scumbag landlords. I'm guessing the most common is to get out lower income tenants in gentrifying areas in favor of a sale or bringing in higher-end tenants. Death of an owner leading to inheritors of the property to force tenants out for a quick sale is probably also common (although pretty sure this is somewhat legal in some cases). The tenant could be paying rent but demanding repairs that the landlord doesn't want to make. So yeah, landlords have all kinds of incentive to evict legal tenants and probably do it successfully way more often squatters illegally take over a vacation home already.
If a tenant stops paying rent without being prepared to make their case in court or to a police officer that’s on them.
I'm not sure that's what's being discussed necessarily but I think making your case in court is very different than making your case to a police officer. That's the biggest shift with this law - the courts don't need to be involved any more, it's just up to the cops.
Not sure the current state of the law, but seems like an easy fix anyway. Create a legal right to recover penalties and all legal expenses if you were wrongfully kicked out of your rental. I think that would be another common ground issue.
I don't think a right to recover legal expenses if you are illegally evicted is a good trade for making it easier for landlords to kick people out of their homes without a trial.
I'm still struggling to see how any of this makes anti-squatting laws a net negative. All the bad landlord stuff you're talking about are things landlords are currently doing extra judicially in order to skirt the laws. Under an anti-squatter law, why would scumbag landlords involve law enforcement--who could easily determine that they're doing something illegally--when the landlords already have the other tricks in their scumbag toolbelt?
because it makes the process quicker and easier and more effective and is sponsored by the state, mostly.
-
Not necessarily squatting-related, but perhaps squatting-adjacent:
https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2024/03/27/the-hotel-guest-who-wouldnt-leave/
Nonetheless, a pretty entertaining story.
That was a pretty interesting read. I have so many questions ...
-
Why on earth would a landlord have a tenant forcibly removed from their home if they’re following the lease?
This seriously happens all the time for various reasons with scumbag landlords. I'm guessing the most common is to get out lower income tenants in gentrifying areas in favor of a sale or bringing in higher-end tenants. Death of an owner leading to inheritors of the property to force tenants out for a quick sale is probably also common (although pretty sure this is somewhat legal in some cases). The tenant could be paying rent but demanding repairs that the landlord doesn't want to make. So yeah, landlords have all kinds of incentive to evict legal tenants and probably do it successfully way more often squatters illegally take over a vacation home already.
If a tenant stops paying rent without being prepared to make their case in court or to a police officer that’s on them.
I'm not sure that's what's being discussed necessarily but I think making your case in court is very different than making your case to a police officer. That's the biggest shift with this law - the courts don't need to be involved any more, it's just up to the cops.
Not sure the current state of the law, but seems like an easy fix anyway. Create a legal right to recover penalties and all legal expenses if you were wrongfully kicked out of your rental. I think that would be another common ground issue.
I don't think a right to recover legal expenses if you are illegally evicted is a good trade for making it easier for landlords to kick people out of their homes without a trial.
I'm still struggling to see how any of this makes anti-squatting laws a net negative. All the bad landlord stuff you're talking about are things landlords are currently doing extra judicially in order to skirt the laws. Under an anti-squatter law, why would scumbag landlords involve law enforcement--who could easily determine that they're doing something illegally--when the landlords already have the other tricks in their scumbag toolbelt?
because it makes the process quicker and easier and more effective and is sponsored by the state, mostly.
I think your hangup just comes down to the fact that you assume the law will be used to effect illegal evictions without any evidence of whether that's likely or not. Unless I missed something in what you posted, nothing suggests that legal processes are being systemically abused--landlords are just using tactics that are outside of what the law provides, in which case it's all "illegal" even if the occupant really has no legal right to be there.
If we're going on conjecture, I think you have just as good of a reason to think that "illegal" evictions will actually go down because landlords will be incentivized to use the new, more efficient process rather than try to scare people off in order to avoid the expense of court.
-
Why on earth would a landlord have a tenant forcibly removed from their home if they’re following the lease?
This seriously happens all the time for various reasons with scumbag landlords. I'm guessing the most common is to get out lower income tenants in gentrifying areas in favor of a sale or bringing in higher-end tenants. Death of an owner leading to inheritors of the property to force tenants out for a quick sale is probably also common (although pretty sure this is somewhat legal in some cases). The tenant could be paying rent but demanding repairs that the landlord doesn't want to make. So yeah, landlords have all kinds of incentive to evict legal tenants and probably do it successfully way more often squatters illegally take over a vacation home already.
If a tenant stops paying rent without being prepared to make their case in court or to a police officer that’s on them.
I'm not sure that's what's being discussed necessarily but I think making your case in court is very different than making your case to a police officer. That's the biggest shift with this law - the courts don't need to be involved any more, it's just up to the cops.
Not sure the current state of the law, but seems like an easy fix anyway. Create a legal right to recover penalties and all legal expenses if you were wrongfully kicked out of your rental. I think that would be another common ground issue.
I don't think a right to recover legal expenses if you are illegally evicted is a good trade for making it easier for landlords to kick people out of their homes without a trial.
I'm still struggling to see how any of this makes anti-squatting laws a net negative. All the bad landlord stuff you're talking about are things landlords are currently doing extra judicially in order to skirt the laws. Under an anti-squatter law, why would scumbag landlords involve law enforcement--who could easily determine that they're doing something illegally--when the landlords already have the other tricks in their scumbag toolbelt?
because it makes the process quicker and easier and more effective and is sponsored by the state, mostly.
I think your hangup just comes down to the fact that you assume the law will be used to effect illegal evictions without any evidence of whether that's likely or not. Unless I missed something in what you posted, nothing suggests that legal processes are being systemically abused--landlords are just using tactics that are outside of what the law provides, in which case it's all "illegal" even if the occupant really has no legal right to be there.
If we're going on conjecture, I think you have just as good of a reason to think that "illegal" evictions will actually go down because landlords will be incentivized to use the new, more efficient process rather than try to scare people off in order to avoid the expense of court.
I'm less concerned with whether or not tenants are removed "illegally" and more concerned with an effective removal of eviction due process for tenants.
Like, yeah I think more tenants in good standing will be removed "legally" under this law. Maybe the number of "illegal" evictions go down but the end result is someone on the street either way
-
There was a huge backlog of tenant/landlord cases right after Covid. I knew a guy who did t pay rent for 8months because it took that long for the case to be heard. He was an open/crap case too. He was subleasing from someone else who did t pay their rent for at least one month before he moved in. Also, the original renter’s lease didn’t even allow for a sublease. One and shut, yet he got almost. Year for free.
Obviously that is unique to Covid, but losing a month or two income can be a big deal to a landlord. I imagine this law will help reduce the occurrence of that a little bit, at least.
-
If I had a squatter in my place, I'd grab a rake and poke at him, yelling "Go on, get!!!" over and over until he stood his squatting ass up and left the premises.
-
If I had a squatter in my place, I'd grab a rake and poke at him, yelling "Go on, get!!!" over and over until he stood his squatting ass up and left the premises.
:D
-
I had a long post typed up that referenced South Africa's white farmers building arsenals and fortresses to protect their land being taken as part of the land re-distribution plan that allotted 30% of white land to be put in to black hands (about 10% happened through government purchases on behalf of black farmers and another 15% through black people just buying the land at market rates from whites, so this was never a real seizure despite everyone that knows what the Rhodesian flag looks like looping a video of the ANC chanting "kill the Boer").
All that being said, there is a through line that applies to how land was first declared "property" and given the full backing of the state in these United States of America.
That the punishment for trespassing should be extrajudicial vigilante execution is a pretty great example of the property rights brainworms at the very core of the US. Worth considering that the gun is quick to come out to "protect" the property when that was also the means used to procure it originally.
-
Yeah based on the description in the article it seems pretty common sense to me. It specifically excludes tenants who are in a legal dispute with the landlord.
I did a bit more research and I think the genuine opposition to this is related to tenant rights. Before this law passed, the courts would need to verify documents and records regarding the tenancy before evictions. The new law shifts that role to the police and could allow a landlord to say a valid tenant is a "squatter" and get the police to remove them without any court involvement. Your last sentence is an incentive for landlords to use this law to kick out legal tenants before they can take a dispute to court. The tenants would be on the street and THEY would have to take the case to court while also needing a place to live. (or in sys and Greg Abbot's case, you could just murder them if you want them out).
So going back to Desantis, he's taking fringe Fox News cases like the lady in Queens that have minimal overall financial impact to justify removing basic tenant rights. Even assuming the "squatters" in this case are 100% wrong, we shouldn't remove the rights of all tenants to earn anti-woke political points.
Landlords squeal like pigs about tons of things. You can put this in the category of "organized crime shoplifting runs rampant."
It is useful to find egregious outlier examples that play to people's basic sense of fairness and reinforce the current power structures to obscure the other deeply unjust power structures that are not in the open.
Target wants to close some stores, they have a bad quarter or two and they trot out the unsympathetic drug addicts and shoplifters and cry to the media. Zero statistics to back it up, but it is now in a huge chunk of the country's mind. Meanwhile they are raising prices and BY FAR the biggest group of thieves are wage thieves (corporations and small businesses which are often worse) which affects almost 1/5th of the working poor in this country. Heard of that? Not as much as people stealing stuff from the shelves.
https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-from-workers-paychecks-each-year/ (https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-from-workers-paychecks-each-year/)
-
Every piece of land on the face of the earth was seized by force once upon a time. At some point don’t the conquered peoples/cultures/governments objections need to be ignored and the best course of action is that we need to just accept it and move on?
Do we still need to be sensitive about the Akkadians and how their land was taken and changed hands a dozen or more times over the last 4000 years?
-
Every piece of land on the face of the earth was seized by force once upon a time. At some point don’t the conquered peoples/cultures/governments objections need to be ignored and the best course of action is that we need to just accept it and move on?
Do we still need to be sensitive about the Akkadians and how their land was taken and changed hands a dozen or more times over the last 4000 years?
Did Benjamin Netanyahu write this post?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Every piece of land on the face of the earth was seized by force once upon a time. At some point don’t the conquered peoples/cultures/governments objections need to be ignored and the best course of action is that we need to just accept it and move on?
Do we still need to be sensitive about the Akkadians and how their land was taken and changed hands a dozen or more times over the last 4000 years?
Did Benjamin Netanyahu write this post?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Isn’t he standing on the Canaanites land?
-
Every piece of land on the face of the earth was seized by force once upon a time. At some point don’t the conquered peoples/cultures/governments objections need to be ignored and the best course of action is that we need to just accept it and move on?
Do we still need to be sensitive about the Akkadians and how their land was taken and changed hands a dozen or more times over the last 4000 years?
Did Benjamin Netanyahu write this post?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
!!!
-
I had a long post typed up that referenced South Africa's white farmers building arsenals and fortresses to protect their land being taken as part of the land re-distribution plan that allotted 30% of white land to be put in to black hands (about 10% happened through government purchases on behalf of black farmers and another 15% through black people just buying the land at market rates from whites, so this was never a real seizure despite everyone that knows what the Rhodesian flag looks like looping a video of the ANC chanting "kill the Boer").
All that being said, there is a through line that applies to how land was first declared "property" and given the full backing of the state in these United States of America.
That the punishment for trespassing should be extrajudicial vigilante execution is a pretty great example of the property rights brainworms at the very core of the US. Worth considering that the gun is quick to come out to "protect" the property when that was also the means used to procure it originally.
I'm not ashamed to say that I have no idea what you're getting at here.
-
Every piece of land on the face of the earth was seized by force once upon a time. At some point don’t the conquered peoples/cultures/governments objections need to be ignored and the best course of action is that we need to just accept it and move on?
Do we still need to be sensitive about the Akkadians and how their land was taken and changed hands a dozen or more times over the last 4000 years?
I agree, this like most of our political questions is a matter of force, not non-aggression principle. And while force makes sense to most of the "muh guns, muh house" types that hitler on wheels is preaching to, there is plenty of time and money spent on our national mythos and our "divine providence" being the "gift" of land. When we know that was just not the case.
To grant this conception of property rights value, we must excuse not only the original sin of theft, but quite a bit more than that:
The land was deliberately taken by force from the original occupants who were in use of it at the time, the subsequent labor force (black people) that cultivated huge swathes of it and never tasted the fruits of their labor, once black people were "freed" were often put back to work as renters or "squatters" on the land and in the same hovels that they had been forced to live in prior. To the extent that property rights were "respected" at pretty much any point in history the terms and conditions were exclusively defined and enforced by the rich and powerful. The philosophical underpinnings are only in service of the power structure already in place. To the extent that those things changed, it was people that demanded the state re-distribute this bounty to a more just and equal end against the protestations of the rich who claimed this was "theft" of the "fruits of their labor." Which is such a distortion of both terms that it is worth revisiting.
The concept of "property rights" in the US is based upon Locke and it is supposed to give this real philosophical sheen, but his formulation of "life, liberty, and property" did not make it in to the Constitution because that ideas has some unfortunate byproducts:
"Though the earth, and all inferiour creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his."
but if we talk about who gets to have the land to begin with then that is a little more complicated. Even the freak libertarians acknowledge this problem as being unfair:
For example, economist Murray Rothbard stated (in Man, Economy, and State):
"If Columbus lands on a new continent, is it legitimate for him to proclaim all the new continent his own, or even that sector 'as far as his eye can see'? Clearly, this would not be the case in the free society that we are postulating. Columbus or Crusoe would have to use the land, to 'cultivate' it in some way, before he could be asserted to own it.... If there is more land than can be used by a limited labor supply, then the unused land must simply remain unowned until a first user arrives on the scene. Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be."
But this is also absurd on its face, because it is just force all the way down...(Who gets to get to the land? When do I get to begin enforcing my rights? Can I elbow someone on the way to the land I want?) and with all of that largely unremarked upon or hand waved away, what do we really have here? Another hint that our property rights might not be very fair is the very much intended and very specific hereditary rules of inheritance property rights which obviously exclude many generations to come from ever being able to own land without their own violent conquest or a democracy deciding that property rights based on feudal ideas might need some updating.
So, to my mind, you are right Pete. We should acknowledge that property rights are the spoils of war.
We should stop pretending that they have any sort of justice to them.
To the extent that sys and others are arguing that property rights are a foundational precursor to society and without them there would be uncontrolled vigilante justice by the strong against the weak--It is worth remembering that they are the ones that reject the state exercising due process on behalf of both parties and want to get straight to shooting.
-
I had a long post typed up that referenced South Africa's white farmers building arsenals and fortresses to protect their land being taken as part of the land re-distribution plan that allotted 30% of white land to be put in to black hands (about 10% happened through government purchases on behalf of black farmers and another 15% through black people just buying the land at market rates from whites, so this was never a real seizure despite everyone that knows what the Rhodesian flag looks like looping a video of the ANC chanting "kill the Boer").
All that being said, there is a through line that applies to how land was first declared "property" and given the full backing of the state in these United States of America.
That the punishment for trespassing should be extrajudicial vigilante execution is a pretty great example of the property rights brainworms at the very core of the US. Worth considering that the gun is quick to come out to "protect" the property when that was also the means used to procure it originally.
I'm not ashamed to say that I have no idea what you're getting at here.
see my follow up, might be more confusing or clear up my thoughts. I report, you decide.
-
I had a long post typed up that referenced South Africa's white farmers building arsenals and fortresses to protect their land being taken as part of the land re-distribution plan that allotted 30% of white land to be put in to black hands (about 10% happened through government purchases on behalf of black farmers and another 15% through black people just buying the land at market rates from whites, so this was never a real seizure despite everyone that knows what the Rhodesian flag looks like looping a video of the ANC chanting "kill the Boer").
All that being said, there is a through line that applies to how land was first declared "property" and given the full backing of the state in these United States of America.
That the punishment for trespassing should be extrajudicial vigilante execution is a pretty great example of the property rights brainworms at the very core of the US. Worth considering that the gun is quick to come out to "protect" the property when that was also the means used to procure it originally.
I'm not ashamed to say that I have no idea what you're getting at here.
see my follow up, might be more confusing or clear up my thoughts. I report, you decide.
Bro, no one is going to read that. Well, maybe like two people will.
-
well I hope you are one of them. :shy:
-
well I hope you are one of them. :shy:
Alright, as a favor I went back and read it. The whole first half, I was thinking about responding with Locke. And then you absolutely went there, like a boss. What a ride.
-
Everyone should follow the lease agreements, including the lack thereof.
A renter should also point to the lease agreement when a squatter breaks into their apartment and declares that they now live there too.
-
I had a long post typed up that referenced South Africa's white farmers building arsenals and fortresses to protect their land being taken as part of the land re-distribution plan that allotted 30% of white land to be put in to black hands (about 10% happened through government purchases on behalf of black farmers and another 15% through black people just buying the land at market rates from whites, so this was never a real seizure despite everyone that knows what the Rhodesian flag looks like looping a video of the ANC chanting "kill the Boer").
All that being said, there is a through line that applies to how land was first declared "property" and given the full backing of the state in these United States of America.
That the punishment for trespassing should be extrajudicial vigilante execution is a pretty great example of the property rights brainworms at the very core of the US. Worth considering that the gun is quick to come out to "protect" the property when that was also the means used to procure it originally.
I'm not ashamed to say that I have no idea what you're getting at here.
see my follow up, might be more confusing or clear up my thoughts. I report, you decide.
I only took the very last sentence to be germane to the last couple pages ITT:
To the extent that sys and others are arguing that property rights are a foundational precursor to society and without them there would be uncontrolled vigilante justice by the strong against the weak--It is worth remembering that they are the ones that reject the state exercising due process on behalf of both parties and want to get straight to shooting.
I think that's deliberately mischaracterizing what most folks are getting at in order to fit the philosophical points you wanted to make. "Due process" means a right to have your day in court, it does not mean you are entitled to maintain the status quo until that day comes. The question is who should bear the burden unless and until that day comes.
The assumption I've been operating under (because no one ITT has said otherwise) is that: (1) in most places, the law says the property owner bears the burden of allowing alleged squatters to remain rent free until a court orders otherwise, and (2) anti-squatting laws would shift it so that an owner/landlord has the option to initially prove that they own the property and the other person is not entitled to be there, in which case they are not required to accommodate the person until a court decides the issue.
That system does not strike me as unfair, regardless of how you feel about whether anyone has a true "right" to own property.
-
You make it sound really simple but I’m not willing to put another badge on armed cops that says they are judges capable of on the spot comprehending a rental agreement and deed or figuring out what a water bill means. Those things are called evidence. In addition, to my earlier point, I have a hard time getting all worked up about this when the much more frequent and much more costly issue is landlords stealing people’s security deposits with outrageous claims and refusing to fix things that endanger renters.
I too, was a renter in Manhattan, KS like many of you. I am aware that college students are not always easy on apartments, but the landlords of manhattan have consistently not allowed for mandatory rental inspections to ensure that buildings are up to code and safe. Currently there is a Report it! App and less than 1% of all properties have been inspected. I’d be more concerned about these common issues for the people in the precarious situation currently, than creating a fast rack for renters to get evicted under some program designed to empower landlords to declare who is squatting on their property and then the renter having to seek legal recourse on the back end.
Don’t like it? Don’t be a landlord.
I am sympathetic to people trying to settle an estate dispute that have to deal with this, but that can be handled without opening the door to obvious abuse by landlords
I just refuse to take seriously people that are claiming “this could happen to you!” And trying to say tomorrow you could be forced from your own home by hordes of homeless.
-
this seems like a perfect task for the social workers (or whatever the term that is used for the non-police that can respond to a situation that could be de-escalated without violence). I'm sure those social workers can have enough training/ability to dispassionately evaluate whatever evidence is available at the time, and if it is determined the accused is indeed squatting, then they can be summarily evicted (while still getting their day in court.)
i think it should also be the case that if you are evicted under such circumstances that you get your day in court very quickly, like, within 2-3 days. Because obviously if the landlord can drag it out, delay, that is just that much more time the evicted is essentially homeless and i'd bet dollars to donuts the longer you've been homeless, the less likely you are to win any pending litigation.
-
I had a long post typed up that referenced South Africa's white farmers building arsenals and fortresses to protect their land being taken as part of the land re-distribution plan that allotted 30% of white land to be put in to black hands (about 10% happened through government purchases on behalf of black farmers and another 15% through black people just buying the land at market rates from whites, so this was never a real seizure despite everyone that knows what the Rhodesian flag looks like looping a video of the ANC chanting "kill the Boer").
All that being said, there is a through line that applies to how land was first declared "property" and given the full backing of the state in these United States of America.
That the punishment for trespassing should be extrajudicial vigilante execution is a pretty great example of the property rights brainworms at the very core of the US. Worth considering that the gun is quick to come out to "protect" the property when that was also the means used to procure it originally.
I'm not ashamed to say that I have no idea what you're getting at here.
see my follow up, might be more confusing or clear up my thoughts. I report, you decide.
I only took the very last sentence to be germane to the last couple pages ITT:
To the extent that sys and others are arguing that property rights are a foundational precursor to society and without them there would be uncontrolled vigilante justice by the strong against the weak--It is worth remembering that they are the ones that reject the state exercising due process on behalf of both parties and want to get straight to shooting.
I think that's deliberately mischaracterizing what most folks are getting at in order to fit the philosophical points you wanted to make. "Due process" means a right to have your day in court, it does not mean you are entitled to maintain the status quo until that day comes. The question is who should bear the burden unless and until that day comes.
The assumption I've been operating under (because no one ITT has said otherwise) is that: (1) in most places, the law says the property owner bears the burden of allowing alleged squatters to remain rent free until a court orders otherwise, and (2) anti-squatting laws would shift it so that an owner/landlord has the option to initially prove that they own the property and the other person is not entitled to be there, in which case they are not required to accommodate the person until a court decides the issue.
My issue is you just think way too highly of cops' ability to determine "proof", especially in a complicated situation such as a tenant dispute. Like, a wrongful arrest is very disruptive and problematic and we all agree it is wrong but it is not nearly as problematic or permanently damaging as a wrongful eviction could be.
-
It’s a fair criticism. I’m torn as to whether policy should be informed by assuming law enforcement sucks at their job, but I agree that any law involving the removal of someone who CLAIMS to have a legal right to be on a property should only be enforced by someone with clear and specific training in that area.
-
It’s a fair criticism. I’m torn as to whether policy should be informed by assuming law enforcement sucks at their job
judging guilt or innocence (or validity of residence) is not their job! (but I guarantee they would suck at it if it was part of their job)
-
It’s a fair criticism. I’m torn as to whether policy should be informed by assuming law enforcement sucks at their job
judging guilt or innocence (or validity of residence) is not their job! (but I guarantee they would suck at it if it was part of their job)
Yeah. Cops generally suck. Not all, but most.
-
to play devils advocate for cops they are the only people willing to do that crap. if you want to put a punisher sticker on your f150 and go to the gun range and beat the living crap out of your wife or ex wife then by all means just feel rough ridin' free and do it. until you step up to the plate though maybe shut the eff up, huh?
-
It’s a fair criticism. I’m torn as to whether policy should be informed by assuming law enforcement sucks at their job
judging guilt or innocence (or validity of residence) is not their job! (but I guarantee they would suck at it if it was part of their job)
Sure but the problem is that without some sort of prejudging by a police officer, the only distinction between trespass and a “residence” dispute is the offender saying he has a right to be there. I don’t really favor that being the line between police having a duty to enforce the law and all of the sudden lacking jurisdiction to act entirely.
-
guilty party seems pretty dead to me if you catch my drift (blows smoke off barrel of gun I just shot a dog with after shooting and missing it 9 times)
-
It’s a fair criticism. I’m torn as to whether policy should be informed by assuming law enforcement sucks at their job
judging guilt or innocence (or validity of residence) is not their job! (but I guarantee they would suck at it if it was part of their job)
Sure but the problem is that without some sort of prejudging by a police officer, the only distinction between trespass and a “residence” dispute is the offender saying he has a right to be there.
I mean, yeah. The "prejudging" is the problem!The cops could definitely say that's enough under the Desantis law to not forcibly remove someone. But also, a property owner could just say someone doesn't have a right to be there and the cop believes them and removes the tenant. If you don't see any potential danger or abuse in that I think we're done here
-
Ok but what does abuse look like in this scenario?
Landlord says tenant is squatting. Tenant says “actually I have a lease, and I’ve paid my rent.” Cop says “meh, landlord said you shouldn’t be here, take it up with the court” and escorts tenant off premises.
What does the landlord do next? Change the locks? What stops the tenant from coming back to his residence in 15 minutes? It’s not illegal for him to be there, even if the cop kicked him off. Is the cop going to physically force the tenant to hand over all his house keys? And the landlord locks the door behind him?
And if you think a landlord would call the cops just to get someone removed so they could illegally evict (by changing the locks or moving someone else in or whatever) the new law only makes that fractionally easier. They could also simply wait until the tenant goes to work in the morning to do the same thing.
-
Ok but what does abuse look like in this scenario?
Landlord says tenant is squatting. Tenant says “actually I have a lease, and I’ve paid my rent.” Cop says “meh, landlord said you shouldn’t be here, take it up with the court” and escorts tenant off premises.
What does the landlord do next? Change the locks? What stops the tenant from coming back to his residence in 15 minutes? It’s not illegal for him to be there, even if the cop kicked him off. Is the cop going to physically force the tenant to hand over all his house keys? And the landlord locks the door behind him?
And if you think a landlord would call the cops just to get someone removed so they could illegally evict (by changing the locks or moving someone else in or whatever) the new law only makes that fractionally easier. They could also simply wait until the tenant goes to work in the morning to do the same thing.
I mean yeah the landlord would probably change the locks and/or throw their stuff into the street or any tactics they already use to illegally evict after the cops kick the tenants out. But now you don't need to confront the tenants in person or wait until they go to work, plus you get the added bonus of cops with guns scaring the crap out of them. The fear of being arrested/forcibly removed again will likely reduce the chance of the tenant doing anything about it compared to coming home from work and finding the locks changed. Especially for those tenants unfamiliar with tenant law or the legal system in general (everyone but landlords).
I think you recognize many of the ways this can be abused, you just agree with them.
-
I'm used to cat making better arguments than he is making, here. I'm persuadable, but you're kind of pushing me in the opposite direction.
-
I think you recognize many of the ways this can be abused, you just agree with them.
Agree with what?
You started this conversation by criticizing conservatives for pointing to random squatter incidents to create some kind of boogeyman but your problem with the proposal is based on the fact you simply distrust cops and landlords to follow the law based on the (horrible) incidents you’ve read about them in your circles.
-
You started this conversation by criticizing conservatives for pointing to random squatter incidents to create some kind of boogeyman but your problem with the proposal is based on the fact you simply distrust cops and landlords to follow the law based on the (horrible) incidents you’ve read about them in your circles.
My main issue with the law is that cops and landlords can now LEGALLY remove a tenant they are in dispute with without a hearing, where previously that was illegal.
-
Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.
https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf
-
Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.
https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf
Who is more likely to retain a lawyer, tenants or landlords?
There are tons of examples of people just deciding it isn't worth it to pursue their legal recourse, if they even know that they have a legal case and it is usually poor people.
I'm comfortable with the current tail risk of criminal trespass against tenants having more precarity to the whims of their landlords.
-
Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.
https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf
Who is more likely to retain a lawyer, tenants or landlords?
There are tons of examples of people just deciding it isn't worth it to pursue their legal recourse, if they even know that they have a legal case and it is usually poor people.
I'm comfortable with the current tail risk of criminal trespass against tenants having more precarity to the whims of their landlords.
The law provides you cannot evict someone with a valid lease, it awards attorneys fees for wrongful conviction, and it says wrongful eviction cases should be quickly pushed through by the courts.
If the situation is as dire as Mich makes it out to be, lawyers are going to descend on Florida tenants like locusts begging for their business. That’s about as easy money as you can make.
-
I think a lot of people just get mad when anything happens that could benefit wealthy people. Which directionally is probably ok but at the micro level doesn’t work.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.
https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf
The ACLU reports that 81% of landlords are represented in eviction court proceedings, compared to 3% of renters. Studies show that “between 51 percent and 75 percent of tenants without legal representation lost their case in court.”
-
I think a lot of people just get mad when anything happens that could benefit wealthy people. Which directionally is probably ok but at the micro level doesn’t work.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
this is more about the direct rough ridin' over of poor people than the benefits of rich people. I'm OK with plenty of policies that benefit the wealthy much more than this will.
-
Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.
https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf
The ACLU reports that 81% of landlords are represented in eviction court proceedings, compared to 3% of renters. Studies show that “between 51 percent and 75 percent of tenants without legal representation lost their case in court.”
Did you miss my point about how the new law includes a fee shifting provision when a tenant is removed from the property? Attorneys would be happy to take that case with no cash up front. Not so much if a tenant is in a bona fide legal dispute with a landlord.
If you think landlords have a massive advantage in traditional eviction proceedings (which I don’t disagree with), you would think they would much prefer that route over utilizing the anti-squatting law, which is exactly the policy you’ve been advocating for ITT.
-
Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.
https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf
The ACLU reports that 81% of landlords are represented in eviction court proceedings, compared to 3% of renters. Studies show that “between 51 percent and 75 percent of tenants without legal representation lost their case in court.”
Did you miss my point about how the new law includes a fee shifting provision when a tenant is removed from the property? Attorneys would be happy to take that case with no cash up front. Not so much if a tenant is in a bona fide legal dispute with a landlord.
If you think landlords have a massive advantage in traditional eviction proceedings (which I don’t disagree with), you would think they would much prefer that route over utilizing the anti-squatting law, which is exactly the policy you’ve been advocating for ITT.
I don't think you're being very realistic with how often wrongfully evicted tenants will take advantage of those provisions and win. go read the book "Evicted" if you want to learn more about why I think this is so bad, I'm really done this time.
-
I had a pro bono client who represented himself and won his eviction case. If cat's stats (TM) are true, that is a rare result. Still, the slumlord continued to pursue him, and that's where we came into the case. We whipped the slumlord's ass pretty good, if I do say so myself. But most poor people don't have access to a white-shoe law firm and just throw up their hands and give up, flee, move, etc.
-
gE has plan for how to address squatters in our corporate office as a part of our emergency preparedness program. Most of these squatters are not going to answer the door, so subterfuge is required.
The key is to entice the squatter, praying upon their own self interests. The challenge is in finding something that will appeal to the vast majority of squatters.
Below is a mock up of our plan.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-2nU0_okWBP4/UfEVKC2aifI/AAAAAAAAAzM/kCPNiqUXBHc/w800-h533-no/HSC+Ron+Prince+Love+Sweepstakes+and+Stomp.gif)
Not pictured (concealed behind bouquet) is the largest handgun made in America (a bespoke squattershooter3000). When the squatter opens the front door gE staffers/summer-intern will blow the squatters rough ridin' brains all over the wall, door, woodwork, floor, and welcome mat.
-
and we make Mexico pay for the cleanup
-
I've never had a squatter encounter but I'd say squatter adjace is trespassing hunters which I've had a SHITLOAD of experience with. In western KS this is basically the most serious crime someone can commit. And sd's dad would uphold the law to the maximum amount possible which is shaming someone to the entire world (other ranchers) and really giving them the business. and if you are from out of town you can bet you got followed around all over the middle of nowhere until you just left the area. it's dirty business but someone has to uphold justice.
-
:ksu: :ksu: :ksu: :ksu: :ksu:
Crosspost this with the HighstepperCat thread :runaway:
-
Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.
https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf
The ACLU reports that 81% of landlords are represented in eviction court proceedings, compared to 3% of renters. Studies show that “between 51 percent and 75 percent of tenants without legal representation lost their case in court.”
Did you miss my point about how the new law includes a fee shifting provision when a tenant is removed from the property? Attorneys would be happy to take that case with no cash up front. Not so much if a tenant is in a bona fide legal dispute with a landlord.
If you think landlords have a massive advantage in traditional eviction proceedings (which I don’t disagree with), you would think they would much prefer that route over utilizing the anti-squatting law, which is exactly the policy you’ve been advocating for ITT.
I don't think you're being very realistic with how often wrongfully evicted tenants will take advantage of those provisions and win. go read the book "Evicted" if you want to learn more about why I think this is so bad, I'm really done this time.
Yeah I think we're at an impasse cause we're supposed to be talking about whether a new law is good or bad and I'm the only person actually looking at the language of it.
Your beef is that landlord/tenant laws need to be overhauled, but when a new law comes along that only can be utilized by a landlord signing a document under penalty of perjury and makes them liable for 3x rent plus attorneys fees for wrongfully using it, you dismiss it as another attempt to screw over renters.
-
yes because I hold more weight in how reality works and less in the text of ron desantis bill reacting to fox news headlines
-
gE has plan for how to address squatters in our corporate office as a part of our emergency preparedness program. Most of these squatters are not going to answer the door, so subterfuge is required.
The key is to entice the squatter, praying upon their own self interests. The challenge is in finding something that will appeal to the vast majority of squatters.
Below is a mock up of our plan.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-2nU0_okWBP4/UfEVKC2aifI/AAAAAAAAAzM/kCPNiqUXBHc/w800-h533-no/HSC+Ron+Prince+Love+Sweepstakes+and+Stomp.gif)
Not pictured (concealed behind bouquet) is the largest handgun made in America (a bespoke squattershooter3000). When the squatter opens the front door gE staffers/summer-intern will blow the squatters rough ridin' brains all over the wall, door, woodwork, floor, and welcome mat.
this has worked 100% of the time.
-
I had a pro bono client who represented himself and won his eviction case. If cat's stats (TM) are true, that is a rare result. Still, the slumlord continued to pursue him, and that's where we came into the case. We whipped the slumlord's ass pretty good, if I do say so myself. But most poor people don't have access to a white-shoe law firm and just throw up their hands and give up, flee, move, etc.
I'm a little dubious about whether most landlords are using "white-shoe law firms" for eviction proceedings. EDIT - nvm i misread. your tenant had the white shoe law firm. not the slumlord.
But speaking of Cat's Stats, he said between 51-75% of self-represented tenants lost their case. if something like 40ish% of self-represented tenants are winning, it doesn't really seem that rare. :dunno: . Especially when you factor in the logical self-selection element (if you know you ought to be evicted, there's less of a chance of you showing up to court, getting representation, etc.).
-
FTR - not my stats. But I have no reason to dispute them. But fair point about the result of actual disputes being less skewed when you consider there will be a number of tenants who simply disappeared and would not show up at all, much less hire an attorney.
-
I'm actually shocked that ~40% of tenants win these lawsuits. I would have assumed more than 60% were in the wrong and just mad. color me impressed with 40% of evicted tenants.
-
Of those ~40% who win their cases I’m curious to know what percentage of them were able to find some sort of housing in the interim and how many were just straight up out on their ass homeless
-
I'm actually shocked that ~40% of tenants win these lawsuits. I would have assumed more than 60% were in the wrong and just mad. color me impressed with 40% of evicted tenants.
At least in big cities with diverse jury pools, I think jury nullification becomes more prevalent. People don't like slumlords, and they are a very real occurrence. I mean, my guy had mold growing over every porous surface in his place because there was a hole in the roof, so every time in rained, it rained inside ...
-
Including things like child seats. I'm sure this is a common occurrence across the country. I mean hell, I've experienced it myself in my salad days.
-
Of those ~40% who win their cases I’m curious to know what percentage of them were able to find some sort of housing in the interim and how many were just straight up out on their ass homeless
What are you talking about? They live there until the case is decided.
-
But speaking of Cat's Stats, he said between 51-75% of self-represented tenants lost their case. if something like 40ish% of self-represented tenants are winning, it doesn't really seem that rare. :dunno: . Especially when you factor in the logical self-selection element (if you know you ought to be evicted, there's less of a chance of you showing up to court, getting representation, etc.).
An alternative takeaway from that is that a crazy number of eviction cases must be utter bullshit, and there's a good chance that people who were threatened eviction would have a decent chance in court. I don't think people who don't fight their case in court necessarily have worse cases - they might not understand the system or not be able to take off work or going to court is really scary (it should be obvious, but a trial can be financially catastrophic to the working poor who is most impacted by evictions)
Of those ~40% who win their cases I’m curious to know what percentage of them were able to find some sort of housing in the interim and how many were just straight up out on their ass homeless
What are you talking about? They live there until the case is decided.
well they probably won't in Florida now that this bill passed
-
But speaking of Cat's Stats, he said between 51-75% of self-represented tenants lost their case. if something like 40ish% of self-represented tenants are winning, it doesn't really seem that rare. :dunno: . Especially when you factor in the logical self-selection element (if you know you ought to be evicted, there's less of a chance of you showing up to court, getting representation, etc.).
An alternative takeaway from that is that a crazy number of eviction cases must be utter bullshit, and there's a good chance that people who were threatened eviction would have a decent chance in court. I don't think people who don't fight their case in court necessarily have worse cases - they might not understand the system or not be able to take off work or going to court is really scary (it should be obvious, but a trial can be financially catastrophic to the working poor who is most impacted by evictions)
Of those ~40% who win their cases I’m curious to know what percentage of them were able to find some sort of housing in the interim and how many were just straight up out on their ass homeless
What are you talking about? They live there until the case is decided.
well they probably won't in Florida now that this bill passed
eff yeah it can. Also catastrophic for everyone, including "billionaires."
-
I was referring to just taking a couple days off work or finding child care or whatever to merely "show up" but yeah
-
https://www.axios.com/2024/04/07/russian-propaganda-republican-party-mike-turner
-
Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.
https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf
The ACLU reports that 81% of landlords are represented in eviction court proceedings, compared to 3% of renters. Studies show that “between 51 percent and 75 percent of tenants without legal representation lost their case in court.”
Did you miss my point about how the new law includes a fee shifting provision when a tenant is removed from the property? Attorneys would be happy to take that case with no cash up front. Not so much if a tenant is in a bona fide legal dispute with a landlord.
If you think landlords have a massive advantage in traditional eviction proceedings (which I don’t disagree with), you would think they would much prefer that route over utilizing the anti-squatting law, which is exactly the policy you’ve been advocating for ITT.
I think you are overestimating how excited lawyers would get about a 3x rent plus attorney fee judgement, but even if we started seeing billboards to drum up business there are plenty of people who wouldn’t be able to do it because they couldn’t take off work, too scared, etc as mich pointed out.
There is an incredible amount of wage theft in this country and even when the worker knows they are being ripped off they don’t do anything because they are worried about their job. Losing your housing is very scary so people put up with incredibly bad situations for the most part. This should not be surprising.
-
I mean, there are a bunch of attorneys going around suing soda companies because their label says "preservative free" even though it contains citric acid--A KNOWN PRESERVATIVE. Those guys are really just chasing a right to collect their own fees. The same type of attorney would be happy to take a case that is (i) expedited, and (ii) won simply by showing your guy had a lease.
I don't take exception with anything in your second point, other than to say the anti-squatter law we've been talking about does not move the needle in either direction to make that situation better or worse. Obviously the tenant's hand is forced to act if they get kicked out of their own home by a landlord willing to perjure themselves.
-
https://x.com/matthewkassel/status/1815853022188118094
-
#blueanon - violently weaving and bobbing its way through either supporting or being mad as hell at Israel on a case by case virtue signaling basis.
It's a roller coaster ride and everyone sit back and :bwpopcorn: :bwpopcorn:
-
:lol:
-
#blueanon - violently weaving and bobbing its way through either supporting or being mad as hell at Israel on a case by case virtue signaling basis.
It's a roller coaster ride and everyone sit back and :bwpopcorn: :bwpopcorn:
:lol:
-
Libs are for sure the ones with the hating or not hating Israelies dichotomy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk