Thread for when someone on the other side does something good

[catastrophe]

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.

[sys]

But like, what is the dollar impact of those assholes annually?

who gives a crap?

[michigancat]

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

[sys]

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.

[steve dave]

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

[steve dave]

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

[michigancat]

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

[michigancat]

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.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

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??

[steve dave]

If it’s “anti-woke” then call me Rip Van Dave


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[michigancat]

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

[Dugout DickStone]

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

[Spracne]

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.

[catastrophe]

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.

[Dugout DickStone]

Catching strays from spracs over my schtick of mocking fat losers was not on my pit bingo card

[Spracne]

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.

[michigancat]

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.

[Cire]

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

[Spracne]

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.

[michigancat]

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!

[passranch]

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.

[Dugout DickStone]

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

[catastrophe]

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?

[michigancat]

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.

[Spracne]

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 ...