Moms 4 houses about to be evicted

[Jack Thomas Lang]

This is why we need a land tax. And limits on foreign developers. They're especially prone to this kind of behaviour.

[Purgatio]

Better, Alternative Title - Lazy Scroungers Unable to Achieve Anything in Life or Do Anything Remotely Productive for Themselves Decides to Takes and Steal Shit from Other People Instead, Gets Called to Account for Their Bullshit

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Better, Alternative Title - Lazy Scroungers Unable to Achieve Anything in Life or Do Anything Remotely Productive for Themselves Decides to Takes and Steal Shit from Other People Instead, Gets Called to Account for Their Bullshit

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.

[Purgatio]

Better, Alternative Title - Lazy Scroungers Unable to Achieve Anything in Life or Do Anything Remotely Productive for Themselves Decides to Takes and Steal Shit from Other People Instead, Gets Called to Account for Their Bullshit

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.

[Risottia]

Seize the house from the company who left it vacant for two years. Give it to the squatters.

If the company still pays for the home its their right to keep it vacant should they choose.

Only if we choose to prioritise the right to corporate property over the right to shelter.
Curiously enough, the right to shelter is enumerated in the UDHR, while the right to corporate property isn't. Guess why. Must have been those evil Soviets that drafted the UDHR.

[Risottia]

This is why we need a land tax. And limits on foreign developers. They're especially prone to this kind of behaviour.

Actually, that would be more like "we need a tax on vacant RE".
Also, source on your second claim?

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

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.

Oh well. There used to be legal precedence for their occupation, but that got nullified when they were caught. I wouldn’t prosecute them though.

[Kernen]

And you don't need any of your technology, doesn't mean someone can just come up to you and take your phone because they're in a worse position than you, its your property not theirs. If you want to give out your property thats one thing, but no one should be allowed to just come up a claim it as their own.

I'm using my phone, they're leaving a building vacant. The owners refuse to use the house in any of the many ways you can use a house then fuck them, they don't need it.

Leaving a building vacant in anticipation for future development is a use of a house. Businesses ought not be punished by needing to take time with projects. Adverse possession takes much longer than 2 years.

[Kernen]

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.

Oh well. There used to be legal precedence for their occupation, but that got nullified when they were caught. I wouldn’t prosecute them though.

Adverse possession takes between 10 and 20 years, and generally only applies to real property. Short term nonproductive use is not punishable.

[Satuga]

If the company still pays for the home its their right to keep it vacant should they choose.

Only if we choose to prioritise the right to corporate property over the right to shelter.
Curiously enough, the right to shelter is enumerated in the UDHR, while the right to corporate property isn't. Guess why. Must have been those evil Soviets that drafted the UDHR.

Are we also just going to forget that homeless shelters and church housing exists? You can't just walk into someone elses property, no matter who's property it is, corporation or otherwise and claim it's yours because they didn't use it enough or don't need it.

[Satuga]

I'm unsure what you think my argument is but you clearly don't know. Someone owning a house and keeping it vacant is not comparable to someone having something in their house and not using it.

That wasn't my point but you are right that I couldn't give a fuck about them spending money.

Unless you are under the impression that those squatting in this house were crack addicts who didn't have a dime to their name then affording the tax and utilities is pretty reasonable just about anywhere aside from say New York or San Francisco.

A house is a property, a more expensive and useful property, but property none the less. Someone claiming it as their own is akin to someone taking your old game cube or something and saying it's theirs because you didn't use it. Why is that? Oh maybe because its property and therefore legally owned by the person who is paying for or paid for it, is it an exaggeration? Yes it is but it is still the fact that someone cannot just take something that doesn't belong to them because the owner doesn't use it enough.

If you don't give a fuck about how they spend their money then why do you care how they use the items they bought the money with?

In this case they aren't drug users, and they are also 4 separate families, this is not most cases though. In most cases squatters are substance abusers, or at the very least doing something illegal. Hell I've seen squatters who were literally illegally making moonshine in their stolen home. Also even in Oklahoma which has incredibly cheap housing and taxes, it's still 796 dollars a month for property tax alone.

[The Emerald Legion]

If the company still pays for the home its their right to keep it vacant should they choose.

Only if we choose to prioritise the right to corporate property over the right to shelter.
Curiously enough, the right to shelter is enumerated in the UDHR, while the right to corporate property isn't. Guess why. Must have been those evil Soviets that drafted the UDHR.

The UDHR is worthless European idealism and will fall into the dustbin of history with time.

Meanwhile, America follows the US Constitution. Which does protect private property from seizure, and also doesn't give you a right to shelter.

[Ethel mermania]

This is why Capital gains tax is good, it means property isnt being left idle for 2 years and the own is obliged to manage it.

That said, squatters need to bed evicted earlier

A capital gains tax is not paid till the property is sold. Doesnt have any effect on this situation.

[Ethel mermania]

If the company still pays for the home its their right to keep it vacant should they choose.

Only if we choose to prioritise the right to corporate property over the right to shelter.
Curiously enough, the right to shelter is enumerated in the UDHR, while the right to corporate property isn't. Guess why. Must have been those evil Soviets that drafted the UDHR.

I would he surprised if The right to pick any property you like to live in is part of the UDHR.

[Kernen]

Only if we choose to prioritise the right to corporate property over the right to shelter.
Curiously enough, the right to shelter is enumerated in the UDHR, while the right to corporate property isn't. Guess why. Must have been those evil Soviets that drafted the UDHR.

The UDHR is worthless European idealism and will fall into the dustbin of history with time.

Meanwhile, America follows the US Constitution. Which does protect private property from seizure, and also doesn't give you a right to shelter.

I cant say I have the same outlook on the UDHR, but I can agree that, even assuming one can claim a moral and legal right to shelter, one is hard pressed to show that they are justified in securing that right via trespass and what amounts to theft. By using an unocupied structure, not only have they required the owner to engage in expensive eviction efforts, but they have acquired a benefit for free. Their benefit without any quid pro quo is an unjust enrichment that, even if the business cannot recover costs, the business should be allowed to end.

Otherwise, the exclusory nature of private property is meaningless, which invites a great number of other problems.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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.

Sit-in protesters were technically trespassing. Does this mean they were the wrong?

[Purgatio]

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.

Sit-in protesters were technically trespassing. Does this mean they were the wrong?

Of course, trespassing is wrong, property ownership entails the right to use that property and to the exclusive possession of it, and to decide who gets to use and enjoy that property. Otherwise its not really your property anymore if any random stranger can walk all over it without your consent.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Sit-in protesters were technically trespassing. Does this mean they were the wrong?

Of course, trespassing is wrong, property ownership entails the right to use that property and to the exclusive possession of it, and to decide who gets to use and enjoy that property. Otherwise its not really your property anymore if any random stranger can walk all over it without your consent.

And if any property owner can artificially inflate the value of their property by deliberately leaving some of it vacant, they can walk all over the public by overcharging them for rent.

Enough is enough. People need to fight back.

[Loben The 2nd]

Of course, trespassing is wrong, property ownership entails the right to use that property and to the exclusive possession of it, and to decide who gets to use and enjoy that property. Otherwise its not really your property anymore if any random stranger can walk all over it without your consent.

And if any property owner can artificially inflate the value of their property by deliberately leaving some of it vacant, they can walk all over the public by overcharging them for rent.

Enough is enough. People need to fight back.

By trespassing?

[Gormwood]

I will not be surprised if California eventually passes a law to crack down on real estate speculation.

[Petrolheadia]

Of course, trespassing is wrong, property ownership entails the right to use that property and to the exclusive possession of it, and to decide who gets to use and enjoy that property. Otherwise its not really your property anymore if any random stranger can walk all over it without your consent.

And if any property owner can artificially inflate the value of their property by deliberately leaving some of it vacant, they can walk all over the public by overcharging them for rent.

Enough is enough. People need to fight back.

There is a difference between temporarily using property for the clear purpose of protesting it, and an indefinite use of property just for the sake of its use.

[Ethel mermania]

I will not be surprised if California eventually passes a law to crack down on real estate speculation.

I dont know about that but I would not be surprised to see something that NYC has been talking about.

a vacancy tax. If the home or apt is not occupied the real estate tax rate will go up a point or two. The idea being that it will cost the landlord, or investor more to keep a property unoccupied than rented. They are talking about this for both the home and commerical markets.

[Purgatio]

Of course, trespassing is wrong, property ownership entails the right to use that property and to the exclusive possession of it, and to decide who gets to use and enjoy that property. Otherwise its not really your property anymore if any random stranger can walk all over it without your consent.

And if any property owner can artificially inflate the value of their property by deliberately leaving some of it vacant, they can walk all over the public by overcharging them for rent.

Enough is enough. People need to fight back.

There are many reasons why you might leave property vacant. You might be leaving it vacant in anticipation of an upcoming property development sometime in the future. Or maybe you are waiting for market conditions to change before using a property for a particular commercial purpose, or you are exploring different commercial options whilst keeping your eye on changing market conditions. So many possible and legitimate reasons why a property owner may leave land vacant.

[Gormwood]

And if any property owner can artificially inflate the value of their property by deliberately leaving some of it vacant, they can walk all over the public by overcharging them for rent.

Enough is enough. People need to fight back.

There are many reasons why you might leave property vacant. You might be leaving it vacant in anticipation of an upcoming property development sometime in the future. Or maybe you are waiting for market conditions to change before using a property for a particular commercial purpose, or you are exploring different commercial options whilst keeping your eye on changing market conditions. So many possible and legitimate reasons why a property owner may leave land vacant.

Real estate speculation in a nutshell.

[Purgatio]

There are many reasons why you might leave property vacant. You might be leaving it vacant in anticipation of an upcoming property development sometime in the future. Or maybe you are waiting for market conditions to change before using a property for a particular commercial purpose, or you are exploring different commercial options whilst keeping your eye on changing market conditions. So many possible and legitimate reasons why a property owner may leave land vacant.

Real estate speculation in a nutshell.

First of all nothing I described is market speculation, speculation on pricing is very different from buying property and then exploring different commercial options for how to use the property, based on market changes and whether one industry becomes more profitable than other industries over time, or leaving it vacant in anticipation of a proposed property development project that's still in the works or being discussed with the details worked out with relevant partners. Second of all, property speculation is not necessarily a bad thing, in particular if the property market has crashed and prices have fallen dramatically, speculators seeing that real estate prices are unduly-low and anticipating the market will eventually bounce back will start buying up those properties, which ensures the real estate market recovery happens at an earlier period of time, allowing homeowners' real estate values to recover faster than otherwise. Speculation only occurs when speculators think they can buy low and sell high.