Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
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.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/pdfQuoteThe 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.”
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.
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.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/pdfQuoteThe 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.”
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.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.
I think you recognize many of the ways this can be abused, you just agree with them.
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.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)
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.
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.
Who rehabs athletes with heart problems better than KSU?
This is bad!
https://twitter.com/WCKitchen/status/1775027258249359451
This is a good entry lol100%
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.
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 buy those big logs of hamburger meat and go home and vac seal into individual 1 lb bags. Everything sucks about it and the savings isn't enough to be impactful but I have to admit being to quickly thaw out a thin sheet of meat is also not that rewarding.The real midwesterners either buy a side/quarter of beef OR just grind their own. I’ve been eyeballing a kitchen-aid grinder for a while.
I don’t buy roast beef anymore. I buy my own roast, make it, and use my deli-slicer to cut it thin.
This could also go in the NYC thread but I suppose it belongs here
https://twitter.com/LibsSuckaBigOne/status/1774570717545107602
https://twitter.com/TheWapplehouse/status/1774795949899981231