NationStates

Squatters rights evolve from Lockean theories on property and improving or making productive that which is not in use otherwise. It's the rental version of adverse possession. Squatters deserve those rights only insofar as society adheres to Locke and his property theories.

Kernen wrote:Squatters rights evolve from Lockean theories on property and improving or making productive that which is not in use otherwise. It's the rental version of adverse possession. Squatters deserve those rights only insofar as society adheres to Locke and his property theories.

As far as I can tell, "squatter's rights" is adverse posession. Because people refer to trespasser residents as "squatters", eviction protections get incorrectly called "squatter's rights".

Ifreann wrote:

Trollgaard wrote:There's seems to be an increase of squatters 'moving in' to homes on the market, people on vacation, and homes of people who died. The process for legally getting them to leave can be long and expensive- and many times they trash the home before leaving. At least from the news stories over the past few months.

I read one story a few months a back of a guy who went on vacation, came back, and people had broken into his house, changed the locks, and he didn't have home anymore! Last I heard he was trying to sell the home at a huge loss due to the headaches of removing squatters.

What happened to all his shit?! Family photos, books, clothes, etc?

That is just wrong.

Another that just happened was the lady in New York who was arrested for apparently trying to change the locks on her house after squatters changed them. How fucked up is that?

I think those squatters were forced out by threats from neighbors or something, but god damn. People should have the right to go in and do whatever is required to get the squatters to leave.

Squatters rights takes years, in some cases decades, to actually grant ownership to the squatter. If someone goes on vacation for two weeks and comes home to find someone has broken into their house and changed the locks, squatters rights just wouldn't apply. I don't know what legal difficulty there would be there, but it can't be squatters rights.

Whether or not squatters rights apply, the fact remains that their home was trashed by squatters. When someone does something illegal, it’s only right for the victim (the lady in New York) to receive just compensation for everything, including the books, clothes, and family photos. Law & Order! We must Keep our Country Safe and respect our Great Men & Women in Blue!

Juansonia wrote:

Kernen wrote:Squatters rights evolve from Lockean theories on property and improving or making productive that which is not in use otherwise. It's the rental version of adverse possession. Squatters deserve those rights only insofar as society adheres to Locke and his property theories.

As far as I can tell, "squatter's rights" is adverse posession. Because people refer to trespasser residents as "squatters", eviction protections get incorrectly called "squatter's rights".

Squatters rights are basically AP on a shorter timescale and with regard to a possessory but not ownership right. It's a matter of weeks or months rather than ten to twenty years.

Trump ALMIGHTY wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Squatters rights takes years, in some cases decades, to actually grant ownership to the squatter. If someone goes on vacation for two weeks and comes home to find someone has broken into their house and changed the locks, squatters rights just wouldn't apply. I don't know what legal difficulty there would be there, but it can't be squatters rights.

Whether or not squatters rights apply, the fact remains that their home was trashed by squatters. When someone does something illegal, it’s only right for the victim (the lady in New York) to receive just compensation. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t want to live in a world where folks who break the law have fancified notions of what they can get away with. Law & Order! We must Keep our Country Safe!

This....

Or we simply acknowledge that Law has failed completely and we start letting people settle their own matters/problems as they see fit seeking compensation from those who have wronged them.

If in a society you can’t bear a Remington M870 and forcefully evict a squatter from your property do you truly have freedom?

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

Trump ALMIGHTY wrote:
Whether or not squatters rights apply, the fact remains that their home was trashed by squatters. When someone does something illegal, it’s only right for the victim (the lady in New York) to receive just compensation. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t want to live in a world where folks who break the law have fancified notions of what they can get away with. Law & Order! We must Keep our Country Safe!

This....

Or we simply acknowledge that Law has failed completely and we start letting people settle their own matters/problems as they see fit seeking compensation from those who have wronged them.

If we need to reexamine the philosophical basis of property ownership in US law, I'm afraid we'd lose a lot of rights we really would prefer to keep.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

Trump ALMIGHTY wrote:
Whether or not squatters rights apply, the fact remains that their home was trashed by squatters. When someone does something illegal, it’s only right for the victim (the lady in New York) to receive just compensation. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t want to live in a world where folks who break the law have fancified notions of what they can get away with. Law & Order! We must Keep our Country Safe!

This....

Or we simply acknowledge that Law has failed completely and we start letting people settle their own matters/problems as they see fit seeking compensation from those who have wronged them.

Fox News has made me afraid of immigrants somehow taking legal possession of my house, therefore we must abandon the idea of law entirely and return(or perhaps RETVRN) to bellum omnia contra omnes.

Ifreann wrote:Fox News has made me afraid of immigrants somehow taking legal possession of my house, therefore we must abandon the idea of law entirely and return(or perhaps RETVRN) to bellum omnia contra omnes.

What is there not to be afraid of? There is clear footage of migrants breaking through the border wall and knocking down guards in El Paso and some Venezuelan proposing a mass squatting/home invasion ring as a business opportunity.

Saiwana wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Fox News has made me afraid of immigrants somehow taking legal possession of my house, therefore we must abandon the idea of law entirely and return(or perhaps RETVRN) to bellum omnia contra omnes.

What is there not to be afraid of? There is clear footage of migrants breaking through the border wall and knocking down guards in El Paso and some Venezuelan proposing a mass squatting/home invasion ring as a business opportunity.

Are you also afraid of waking up in a motel bathtub with only one kidney? It could happen! Better topple the government, just to be sure!

Ifreann wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
This....

Or we simply acknowledge that Law has failed completely and we start letting people settle their own matters/problems as they see fit seeking compensation from those who have wronged them.

Fox News has made me afraid of immigrants somehow taking legal possession of my house, therefore we must abandon the idea of law entirely and return(or perhaps RETVRN) to bellum omnia contra omnes.

The threat of Illegal Immigrants taking control of private property is legitimate. I will never abandon the Law entirely, and neither will my supporters. It should simply be rewritten to account for punishing those who manipulate the law to live in a home they never earned! Sad!

And Fox News is far less Slanted than Reuters, MSNBC, or CNN, or as I call it, FNN (Fake News Network). Also, what is “bellum omnia contra omnes?” I only use American phrases that all Patriots in Mar-A-Lago will understand

Right of Conquest for squatters

Immoren wrote:Right of Conquest for squatters

I’d have to disagree with you on that

Immoren wrote:Right of Conquest for squatters

I see you this and raise you Castle Doctrine for the legal/lawful homeowners when they try and remove said unlawful trespassers.

Squatters who reside anywhere for less than five years shouldn't have "rights" to property they do not own.

Longer term squatters are common in many parts of the world and the dilemma usually isn't that they "invaded" a building that wasn't theirs, they got lost in a legal shuffle that stripped them of their legitimate rights as residents.

I was reading about a case in Armenia the other day where there were some "squatters" living in legal limbo. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, they were employees of a government-owned research facility. The state built public housing for them on the grounds of the facility. They move in. During the 1990s, the facility - and all its property - gets privatized and sold to a firm from a foreign country. Do the new owners have the right to evict people who have been living for thirty to forty years in what was formerly public housing? When the original residents moved in, they signed the equivalent of an indefinite lease that was supposed to be guaranteed by the government.

In my opinion the new property owners should be bound by the terms of the agreements the previous property owner (in this case, the government) made with the residents - especially considering the long term of residence. Although the legal reshuffle made them technically squatters, in cases like this the new owners of the property shouldn't just be entitled to tear up the long term leases of the current tenants.

Krasny-Volny wrote:In my opinion the new property owners should be bound by the terms of the agreements the previous property owner (in this case, the government) made with the residents - especially considering the long term of residence.

What is the incentive to buy, improve on, or invest in a government owned property if there was full knowledge that it comes attached with tenants that are protected by an unfavorable lease? The point of buying real estate is usually to be able to do as you want with the property/land within reason. The state effectively won't be able to get rid of the real estate if nobody wants to buy it if the downsides outweigh any upside.

The buyer can perhaps pay a settlement to the tenants but it should be made clear that in exchange for any compensation, they do have to leave permanently for somewhere else or accept the original lease being null and void.

In general I'm against, but I have to recognize it would help attenuate the housing crisis in Europe. It's rather idiotic that, despite declining populations, there are still not enough houses for young people to buy at affordable prices.

Saiwana wrote:

Krasny-Volny wrote:In my opinion the new property owners should be bound by the terms of the agreements the previous property owner (in this case, the government) made with the residents - especially considering the long term of residence.

What is the incentive to buy, improve on, or invest in a government owned property if there was full knowledge that it comes attached with tenants that are protected by an unfavorable lease? The point of buying real estate is usually to be able to do as you want with the property/land within reason. The state effectively won't be able to get rid of the real estate if nobody wants to buy it if the downsides outweigh any upside.

The buyer can perhaps pay a settlement to the tenants but it should be made clear that in exchange for any compensation, they do have to leave permanently for somewhere else or accept the original lease being null and void.

This is why there's things like squatter's rights. Because profit-seeking enterprises will ruin society to make a buck if we don't stop them. And they will tell you scary stories about evil foreigners coming to steal your house to convince you to let them ruin society, and apparently a bunch of you people will fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.

Durius wrote:In general I'm against, but I have to recognize it would help attenuate the housing crisis in Europe. It's rather idiotic that, despite declining populations, there are still not enough houses for young people to buy at affordable prices.

If the immigration wasn't let in and Europe was more of a closed society/region like Japan is, perhaps they'd have more resources for themselves to reutilize?

Ifreann wrote:This is why there's things like squatter's rights. Because profit-seeking enterprises will ruin society to make a buck if we don't stop them. And they will tell you scary stories about evil foreigners coming to steal your house to convince you to let them ruin society, and apparently a bunch of you people will fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.

I'd prefer for property rights to be protected and respected, than to live where people can just move in whenever they want just because you're absent for any short length of time or they don't have money and didn't work for it but you did and have money.

Saiwana wrote:

Ifreann wrote:This is why there's things like squatter's rights. Because profit-seeking enterprises will ruin society to make a buck if we don't stop them. And they will tell you scary stories about evil foreigners coming to steal your house to convince you to let them ruin society, and apparently a bunch of you people will fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.

I'd prefer for property rights to be protected and respected, than to live where a bunch of low lives can just move in whenever they want just because you're absent for any short length of time or they don't have money and didn't work for it but you did and have money.

Of course you would prefer that there be hundreds more homeless people than for a business to miss an opportunity to profit. But any sensible person who isn't a fascist can see that it's obviously much better for society for those people to keep their homes than to kick them out on the streets just so some rich dickheads can get slightly richer.

Saiwana wrote:

Ifreann wrote:This is why there's things like squatter's rights. Because profit-seeking enterprises will ruin society to make a buck if we don't stop them. And they will tell you scary stories about evil foreigners coming to steal your house to convince you to let them ruin society, and apparently a bunch of you people will fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.

I'd prefer for property rights to be protected and respected, than to live where people can just move in whenever they want just because you're absent for any short length of time or they don't have money and didn't work for it but you did and have money.

But the squatters need lebensraum. Surely you should support them.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

Immoren wrote:Right of Conquest for squatters

I see you this and raise you Castle Doctrine for the legal/lawful homeowners when they try and remove said unlawful trespassers.

They can defend them in honorable and traditional sword duel to first blood.

Saiwana wrote:

Durius wrote:In general I'm against, but I have to recognize it would help attenuate the housing crisis in Europe. It's rather idiotic that, despite declining populations, there are still not enough houses for young people to buy at affordable prices.

If the immigration wasn't let in and Europe was more of a closed society/region like Japan is, perhaps they'd have more resources for themselves to reutilize?

Did you miss the part where I stated that the phenomenon is happening in countries whose population is decreasing?

Dogmeat wrote:

Saiwana wrote:
I'd prefer for property rights to be protected and respected, than to live where people can just move in whenever they want just because you're absent for any short length of time or they don't have money and didn't work for it but you did and have money.

But the squatters need lebensraum. Surely you should support them.

If a man genuinely supported lebensraum he would either force immigrants to colonize Alaska and the Canadian territories, invade South Africa and commit TND or wage a costly war against Russia and have the EU dump its immigrants in Siberia and the Russian Far East.

Obviously, all of these are terrible and would have vastly negative impacts on the native populations.

As much as I hate government intervention in the economy, there really needs to be more affordable housing available to prevent squatters and their 'lebensraum'.