Moms 4 houses about to be evicted

[The New California Republic]

Two separate conversations. But context free sniping is about all you do so carry on.

Wasn't two separate conversations at all, it was part and parcel of the same thing.

[Satuga]

Squatters are modern heroes, defying a corrupt legal system to achieve true justice.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/couple-continues-fight-evict-woman-residing-sale-home/story?id=38319406
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/woman-claims-squatters-took-over-her-fort-washington-home
https://koaa.com/news/news5-investigates/2017/09/07/squatters-take-over-mans-home-while-hes-out-of-state/
https://www.mdjonline.com/news/squatter-moves-into-home-while-family-s-away-refuses-to/article_fecf31a2-12c4-11e9-b17c-0f9d714068c1.html
Yes truly heroes fighting the good fight against the Big Gov, and totally not just criminals taking advantage.

[Ifreann]

Two separate conversations. But context free sniping is about all you do so carry on.

No problem, I'll just quote the whole conversation.

Power isn't limited to legal power, the link in particular talks about the influence it has had. If you seriously think that shit you made up earlier has the same kind of power...

If you think the UN is influential then I've a bridge in the Mojave to sell you.

If you think the UN is influential then I've a bridge in the Mojave to sell you.

UDHR =/= the UN itself. Come on, this isn't difficult.

UDHR =/= the UN itself. Come on, this isn't difficult.

UDHR is a symbolic declaration by the UN intended to be something akin to the Declaration of Independence. The difference being that people actually fought for and defended the Declaration of Independence.

The UDHR is basically unknown outside of leftists who use it to justify their ridiculous beliefs and people like myself who spend far too much time repeatedly telling them that the UDHR isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Also, The Outer Space treaty sucks as well and is singlehandedly responsible for the lack of interest in space.

UDHR is a symbolic declaration by the UN intended to be something akin to the Declaration of Independence. The difference being that people actually fought for and defended the Declaration of Independence.

The UDHR is basically unknown outside of leftists who use it to justify their ridiculous beliefs and people like myself who spend far too much time repeatedly telling them that the UDHR isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Also, The Outer Space treaty sucks as well and is singlehandedly responsible for the lack of interest in space.

And yet the UDHR has had influence, again more than can be said for that shit you made up the other day as allegedly being equivalent.

And yet the UDHR has had influence, again more than can be said for that shit you made up the other day as allegedly being equivalent.

Influence isn't authority. The UDHR is a declaration. Yes some people believe in it's tenants, but pretending it is at all some manner of binding or significant document when most nations of significance do not follow it...

Ask an American what Human rights means. They'll refer you to the Constitution 9/10.

Influence isn't authority.

Don't try to move the goalposts. We were talking about influence.

Don't try to move the goalposts. We were talking about influence.

You're the one moving goalposts. Influence was never the topic of discussion.

I said housing was not a right, that the very idea it was was ridiculous. You and Liriena quoted the UDHR, pretending it was THE authoritative definition of what are and are not human rights when it was/is a non-binding declaration solely meant to inspire people *that has since fallen into disuse and disdain by everyone except young liberals using it to justify their entitlement.*

You're the one moving goalposts. Influence was never the topic of discussion.

If you think the UN is influential then I've a bridge in the Mojave to sell you.

Which brings us right back to now. Is that enough context? Because if you need me to quote your entire participation in this thread back to you then it might be more practical for you to just go back to the OP and start reading.

I'm also still curious about which bridge in the Mojave you're talking about.

[Ethel mermania]

Two separate conversations. But context free sniping is about all you do so carry on.

No problem, I'll just quote the whole conversation.

If you think the UN is influential then I've a bridge in the Mojave to sell you.

UDHR =/= the UN itself. Come on, this isn't difficult.

UDHR is a symbolic declaration by the UN intended to be something akin to the Declaration of Independence. The difference being that people actually fought for and defended the Declaration of Independence.

The UDHR is basically unknown outside of leftists who use it to justify their ridiculous beliefs and people like myself who spend far too much time repeatedly telling them that the UDHR isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Also, The Outer Space treaty sucks as well and is singlehandedly responsible for the lack of interest in space.

And yet the UDHR has had influence, again more than can be said for that shit you made up the other day as allegedly being equivalent.

Influence isn't authority. The UDHR is a declaration. Yes some people believe in it's tenants, but pretending it is at all some manner of binding or significant document when most nations of significance do not follow it...

Ask an American what Human rights means. They'll refer you to the Constitution 9/10.

Don't try to move the goalposts. We were talking about influence.

You're the one moving goalposts. Influence was never the topic of discussion.

I said housing was not a right, that the very idea it was was ridiculous. You and Liriena quoted the UDHR, pretending it was THE authoritative definition of what are and are not human rights when it was/is a non-binding declaration solely meant to inspire people *that has since fallen into disuse and disdain by everyone except young liberals using it to justify their entitlement.*

Which brings us right back to now. Is that enough context? Because if you need me to quote your entire participation in this thread back to you then it might be more practical for you to just go back to the OP and start reading.

I'm also still curious about which bridge in the Mojave you're talking about.

The one on rt. 66 of course.

[The Emerald Legion]

Two separate conversations. But context free sniping is about all you do so carry on.

No problem, I'll just quote the whole conversation.

If you think the UN is influential then I've a bridge in the Mojave to sell you.

UDHR =/= the UN itself. Come on, this isn't difficult.

UDHR is a symbolic declaration by the UN intended to be something akin to the Declaration of Independence. The difference being that people actually fought for and defended the Declaration of Independence.

The UDHR is basically unknown outside of leftists who use it to justify their ridiculous beliefs and people like myself who spend far too much time repeatedly telling them that the UDHR isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Also, The Outer Space treaty sucks as well and is singlehandedly responsible for the lack of interest in space.

And yet the UDHR has had influence, again more than can be said for that shit you made up the other day as allegedly being equivalent.

Influence isn't authority. The UDHR is a declaration. Yes some people believe in it's tenants, but pretending it is at all some manner of binding or significant document when most nations of significance do not follow it...

Ask an American what Human rights means. They'll refer you to the Constitution 9/10.

Don't try to move the goalposts. We were talking about influence.

You're the one moving goalposts. Influence was never the topic of discussion.

I said housing was not a right, that the very idea it was was ridiculous. You and Liriena quoted the UDHR, pretending it was THE authoritative definition of what are and are not human rights when it was/is a non-binding declaration solely meant to inspire people *that has since fallen into disuse and disdain by everyone except young liberals using it to justify their entitlement.*

Which brings us right back to now. Is that enough context? Because if you need me to quote your entire participation in this thread back to you then it might be more practical for you to just go back to the OP and start reading.

I'm also still curious about which bridge in the Mojave you're talking about.

Do... You honestly need the joke explained to you?

I don't have a bridge. The Mojave is fairly far away from me. Erego, "I have a pretend bridge in the Mojave to sell you because you are gullible and will easily part with your money."

[Ifreann]

No problem, I'll just quote the whole conversation.

Which brings us right back to now. Is that enough context? Because if you need me to quote your entire participation in this thread back to you then it might be more practical for you to just go back to the OP and start reading.

I'm also still curious about which bridge in the Mojave you're talking about.

The one on rt. 66 of course.

A fine bridge indeed.

---

No problem, I'll just quote the whole conversation.

Which brings us right back to now. Is that enough context? Because if you need me to quote your entire participation in this thread back to you then it might be more practical for you to just go back to the OP and start reading.

I'm also still curious about which bridge in the Mojave you're talking about.

Do... You honestly need the joke explained to you?

I don't have a bridge. The Mojave is fairly far away from me. Erego, "I have a pretend bridge in the Mojave to sell you because you are gullible and will easily part with your money."

Usually how the joke works is that you propose to sell something that obviously doesn't exist, like beach front property in a landlocked state, or something iconic that you couldn't possibly be in a position to sell, like the Golden Gate bridge. That it's so obviously a scam serves to highlight just how gullible you're saying the other person is. But what you've proposed is actually entirely possible. There are bridges in the Mojave desert, and it's entirely possible to own property while living far away from it. Based on a quick Googling, some of the bridges in the Mojave are pretty dilapidated. It wouldn't be surprising to learn that some of them had been sold.

[Ifreann]

Squatters are modern heroes, defying a corrupt legal system to achieve true justice.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/couple-continues-fight-evict-woman-residing-sale-home/story?id=38319406
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/woman-claims-squatters-took-over-her-fort-washington-home
https://koaa.com/news/news5-investigates/2017/09/07/squatters-take-over-mans-home-while-hes-out-of-state/
https://www.mdjonline.com/news/squatter-moves-into-home-while-family-s-away-refuses-to/article_fecf31a2-12c4-11e9-b17c-0f9d714068c1.html
Yes truly heroes fighting the good fight against the Big Gov, and totally not just criminals taking advantage.

Obviously I'm talking about homeless people squatting in unoccupied homes, as in this case, but if you love the taste of leather then don't let me stand in the way of your bootlicking.

[Page]

Squatters are modern heroes, defying a corrupt legal system to achieve true justice.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/couple-continues-fight-evict-woman-residing-sale-home/story?id=38319406
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/woman-claims-squatters-took-over-her-fort-washington-home
https://koaa.com/news/news5-investigates/2017/09/07/squatters-take-over-mans-home-while-hes-out-of-state/
https://www.mdjonline.com/news/squatter-moves-into-home-while-family-s-away-refuses-to/article_fecf31a2-12c4-11e9-b17c-0f9d714068c1.html
Yes truly heroes fighting the good fight against the Big Gov, and totally not just criminals taking advantage.

I notice that these sensationalized stories neglect to mention the strict requirements for claiming squatters' rights.

A squatter must be flagrantly living on the property. If someone sneaks into your basement and stays hidden down there, they cannot claim squatter's rights no matter how long they've been there. If you check on your property and don't see any signs of squatting and later find they've been hiding, you can kick them out instantly.

If the homeowner is maintaining the property, squatters' rights don't apply. If you're sending someone to mow the lawn, clean the swimming pool, fix the roof, or even just to get mail out of the mailbox, a squatter cannot legally claim it. Only if the squatter has taken responsibility for maintaining the property when the owners have utterly neglected it do they have a case to stay.

And the amount of time one must be openly squatting while the owner neglects it is quite long. No one who leaves their property for a month loses it to a squatter. In many places, it takes a full year or longer, and the squatter must have been there the whole time without anyone kicking them out.

So say you spend a year abroad. All it takes to make sure a squatter can't take your property is just one time, have a neighbor or friend check it out to make sure there is no one living there.

Only extreme apathy and neglect on behalf of the owners result in squatters being allowed to stay.

[Estanglia]

I have more sympathy for the squatters than the homeowner. Sure, they broke the law and lived in your house without your permission, but you weren't doing anything with the house other than letting it sit there. Meanwhile, from what I remember of the article, the squatters are homeless, and you have more houses than just that house. The most the homeowner loses is the property they aren't using gets used.

[Satuga]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/couple-continues-fight-evict-woman-residing-sale-home/story?id=38319406
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/woman-claims-squatters-took-over-her-fort-washington-home
https://koaa.com/news/news5-investigates/2017/09/07/squatters-take-over-mans-home-while-hes-out-of-state/
https://www.mdjonline.com/news/squatter-moves-into-home-while-family-s-away-refuses-to/article_fecf31a2-12c4-11e9-b17c-0f9d714068c1.html
Yes truly heroes fighting the good fight against the Big Gov, and totally not just criminals taking advantage.

I notice that these sensationalized stories neglect to mention the strict requirements for claiming squatters' rights.

A squatter must be flagrantly living on the property. If someone sneaks into your basement and stays hidden down there, they cannot claim squatter's rights no matter how long they've been there. If you check on your property and don't see any signs of squatting and later find they've been hiding, you can kick them out instantly.

If the homeowner is maintaining the property, squatters' rights don't apply. If you're sending someone to mow the lawn, clean the swimming pool, fix the roof, or even just to get mail out of the mailbox, a squatter cannot legally claim it. Only if the squatter has taken responsibility for maintaining the property when the owners have utterly neglected it do they have a case to stay.

And the amount of time one must be openly squatting while the owner neglects it is quite long. No one who leaves their property for a month loses it to a squatter. In many places, it takes a full year or longer, and the squatter must have been there the whole time without anyone kicking them out.

So say you spend a year abroad. All it takes to make sure a squatter can't take your property is just one time, have a neighbor or friend check it out to make sure there is no one living there.

Only extreme apathy and neglect on behalf of the owners result in squatters being allowed to stay.

You're forgetting the time constraints for a squatter to "legally" claim a home as their own. In Nj it's 30 years of residency, California it's 5 years. Also I've said before as long as the the owner maintains the property they can do what they want, even if it's not being used.

[Iwassoclose]

i believe Op has a stunted emotional capacity and sees the world in only two shades. black and white.

[Saiwania]

I have more sympathy for the squatters than the homeowner. Sure, they broke the law and lived in your house without your permission, but you weren't doing anything with the house other than letting it sit there. Meanwhile, from what I remember of the article, the squatters are homeless, and you have more houses than just that house. The most the homeowner loses is the property they aren't using gets used.

If the squatter wrecks/damages the property, or uses the utilities, it does the owner no good to let them live there for free. The whole point of rent is to enable the landlord to pay off their mortgage or to pay for any repairs/improvements/maintenance that will need to be done, beyond just cash flow. And renting is cheaper than owning. Otherwise, more people would opt to buy real estate if they could do that.

You can't just charge whatever you want because rental prices are primarily dictated by what other people in your area charge for rent. You're not competitive if your amenities aren't good enough to attract tenants or your price is out of sync for that market. It clearly isn't just a matter of listing it and waiting for the money to roll in.

It's a bit of a pain to own and manage a property. But under the right circumstances, having enough equity can fund a person's lifestyle/retirement.

Realistically speaking, it has to be worth the landlord's while to agree to a free or lower cost living arrangement with someone else. Their mortgage debt, taxes, repair costs, etc. that is associated with holding property aren't just going to go away. Which is why they'll usually want a paying tenant more than anything else. The math has to make sense, which is why it can't be done more often than not. It is like how nobody will hire someone unless they're convinced that someone's help is worth the wage agreed to.

[Farnhamia]

i believe Op has a stunted emotional capacity and sees the world in only two shades. black and white.

*** Warned for flaming ***

[Greed and Death]

I notice that these sensationalized stories neglect to mention the strict requirements for claiming squatters' rights.

A squatter must be flagrantly living on the property. If someone sneaks into your basement and stays hidden down there, they cannot claim squatter's rights no matter how long they've been there. If you check on your property and don't see any signs of squatting and later find they've been hiding, you can kick them out instantly.

If the homeowner is maintaining the property, squatters' rights don't apply. If you're sending someone to mow the lawn, clean the swimming pool, fix the roof, or even just to get mail out of the mailbox, a squatter cannot legally claim it. Only if the squatter has taken responsibility for maintaining the property when the owners have utterly neglected it do they have a case to stay.

And the amount of time one must be openly squatting while the owner neglects it is quite long. No one who leaves their property for a month loses it to a squatter. In many places, it takes a full year or longer, and the squatter must have been there the whole time without anyone kicking them out.

So say you spend a year abroad. All it takes to make sure a squatter can't take your property is just one time, have a neighbor or friend check it out to make sure there is no one living there.

Only extreme apathy and neglect on behalf of the owners result in squatters being allowed to stay.

You're forgetting the time constraints for a squatter to "legally" claim a home as their own. In Nj it's 30 years of residency, California it's 5 years. Also I've said before as long as the the owner maintains the property they can do what they want, even if it's not being used.

In California you have to pay taxes on the property as well.

[Greed and Death]

As an updated:

They were Evicted and then arrested.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/us/moms- ... index.html

[Purgatio]

As an updated:

They were Evicted and then arrested.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/us/moms- ... index.html

Justice!! Sweet, sweet justice!!!!

Hopefully this will deter future squatters and criminal trespassers from being so smug and entitled and selfish that they think they have the right to saunter around and take and steal things that belong to other people just because they feel like it. This sends a very positive message, but we need this to happen far more often for the message to sink in to the squatters and trespassers out there who still don't seem to grasp the basic concept that they can't just walk around the city and grab anything and any property that they don't own and on a whim.

[-The Watcher]

The easiest solution is to give the family the house and the government pays (or the family could start a fun-raiser or something) the company for the house because after all, it is still their property.

That would be stupid, and basically say to all homeless that "Hey if you invade an empty house that you don't own, we'll pay for it!" This could also be used as a fraud tactic, take the home, then rent it out to others/druggies, turn a profit on something you never owned in the first place.

So from my understanding, you're basically saying that homeless people could use this as a fraud tactic, which does not mean they would. The earth could be destroyed by a meteor but that does not mean it would. Your argument is pretty lame. There is another way besides the one I mentioned. The homeless family and the company could start a fun-raiser so the government does not need to get involved. The company gets the money for the house and the family gets to have the house. There is also no possibility for a possible precedent for government involvement so its a win-win. Being scared of possible precedents is dumb because there is no evidence to prove it will actually happen.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

Thanks for the idea. It's fire safety: a house left vacant is more likely to burn down by arson, to cover that I can charge a rate surcharge.

Dude thats literally a crime and not in the hands of the owner, thats like charging someone extra because theyre in a town theyre more likely to be murdered in.

I think the point is public damage..

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

Then thats their money to spend, youre under no circumstance to tell others how to legally spend their money, and what to do with whatever they bought. Someone can buy an entire fucking town and let no one in and guess what, thats fine because its their money theyre wasting.

Well they couldn't buy the whole town. Towns have local government, who are going to want to know what you intend to do with that property where their ratepayers used to live. They're not going to want to be at the mercy of just one ratepayer. Keeping their jobs is reason enough to stop you.

“Disney county”

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

Uh what? The reason why they can’t afford houses is because real estate prices are extremely high in California. And the actual owners didn’t even really use it, should have been surrendered to the government if they had no plans nor intentions for it to be used.

You can't just steal shit from other people just because they aren't using it enough for your liking. If I own a spare computer or I own books which I've never read for years, you can't just take that away from me without paying for it and justify your theft because I didn't use my property enough. Its still mine, not yours.

Don’t steal, but don’t call poor people lazy...
Most of the time they got laid off or something unfair.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

As an updated:

They were Evicted and then arrested.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/us/moms- ... index.html

Justice!! Sweet, sweet justice!!!!

Hopefully this will deter future squatters and criminal trespassers from being so smug and entitled and selfish that they think they have the right to saunter around and take and steal things that belong to other people just because they feel like it. This sends a very positive message, but we need this to happen far more often for the message to sink in to the squatters and trespassers out there who still don't seem to grasp the basic concept that they can't just walk around the city and grab anything and any property that they don't own and on a whim.

It won't deter protestors, since these women got publicity, a place to stay for awhile, AND got arrested for extra publicity.

It will deter regular squatters, from attracting attention to themselves. Here look, if you're going to squat, don't do what these women did.

As to the message it will send to property speculators and big companies holding houses while they buy out the whole block for their Mamonmarket (or whatever) I think they will take note. Much easier to rent out on limited time terms than to evict squatters one day. Even if the rent is an insignificant amount in their business plan, it would make for better publicity.

[Cannot think of a name]

Justice!! Sweet, sweet justice!!!!

Hopefully this will deter future squatters and criminal trespassers from being so smug and entitled and selfish that they think they have the right to saunter around and take and steal things that belong to other people just because they feel like it. This sends a very positive message, but we need this to happen far more often for the message to sink in to the squatters and trespassers out there who still don't seem to grasp the basic concept that they can't just walk around the city and grab anything and any property that they don't own and on a whim.

It won't deter protestors, since these women got publicity, a place to stay for awhile, AND got arrested for extra publicity.

It will deter regular squatters, from attracting attention to themselves. Here look, if you're going to squat, don't do what these women did.

As to the message it will send to property speculators and big companies holding houses while they buy out the whole block for their Mamonmarket (or whatever) I think they will take note. Much easier to rent out on limited time terms than to evict squatters one day. Even if the rent is an insignificant amount in their business plan, it would make for better publicity.

The second one isn't really something that they need to be reminded of. Squatters who squat because that's their option aren't doing it as a form of civil disobedience. They're squatting.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It won't deter protestors, since these women got publicity, a place to stay for awhile, AND got arrested for extra publicity.

It will deter regular squatters, from attracting attention to themselves. Here look, if you're going to squat, don't do what these women did.

As to the message it will send to property speculators and big companies holding houses while they buy out the whole block for their Mamonmarket (or whatever) I think they will take note. Much easier to rent out on limited time terms than to evict squatters one day. Even if the rent is an insignificant amount in their business plan, it would make for better publicity.

The second one isn't really something that they need to be reminded of. Squatters who squat because that's their option aren't doing it as a form of civil disobedience. They're squatting.

Right, and trying to get away with it. I lived with a guy though, who didn't believe in property rights at all, he stole food from supermarkets and clothes from people's lines, and parts for his car. I had a problem with that last part (I lived without a car then) 'cos his car was old and cheap, he was stealing from other poor people. He also stole fuel. Note that I don't endorse any of it really, but he was a fun flatmate.

[Ifreann]

As an updated:

They were Evicted and then arrested.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/us/moms- ... index.html

Threaten the interests of the capitalist class and the police roll up like a fucking army.

[Des-Bal]

Don't live in other people's things.

Threaten the interests of the capitalist class and the police roll up like a fucking army.

Yeah that's why you don't hear police sirens in the ghetto every night at 2am when I have to be ready for work in three fucking hours.