NationStates

https://sf.curbed.com/2020/1/13/2106273 ... ies-crisis

So in November four women and their children ceased a home in Oakland. The home was claimed to be vacant for two years. A development company owns the home, and after a brief court battle the women have been evicted.

In my opinion there is a right way and a wrong way to solve problems and stealing houses is not the correct way to go about it. I believe if these women persist they will find housing in the state Prison system.

so NSG as you lean more left that I do what is your opinion ?

Real Estate prices in the inhabited parts of California (bay area) & Oregon (Portland-Eugene-Springfield) are ridiculously high. Not the property owners' fault (or perhaps it is, I don't know much on this subject), though I am not sure what to think of this.

Auze wrote:Real Estate prices in the inhabited parts of California & Oregon are ridiculous. Not the property owners' fault (or perhaps it is, I don't know much on this subject), though I am not sure what to think of this.

Actually by buying up and holding property creating artificial scarcity it kind of is their fault. The legality of what their doing doesn't really change the fact that what they're doing is exasperating the crisis.

There was an idea that I think got torpedoed that would put a penalty on unused properties. I liked that idea.

So wait hold on, are they squatters? If so good, in fact I have no idea why it takes so long to evict someone who is legally not allowed to be in a home they don't own.

Satuga wrote:So wait hold on, are they squatters?

Short answer: Yes
Long Answer: As far as I can tell, yes

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

Heloin wrote: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.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Auze wrote:Real Estate prices in the inhabited parts of California & Oregon are ridiculous. Not the property owners' fault (or perhaps it is, I don't know much on this subject), though I am not sure what to think of this.

Actually by buying up and holding property creating artificial scarcity it kind of is their fault. The legality of what their doing doesn't really change the fact that what they're doing is exasperating the crisis.

There was an idea that I think got torpedoed that would put a penalty on unused properties. I liked that idea.

Wouldn't property speculators knock more houses down, rather than paying the penalty?

Satuga wrote:

Heloin wrote: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.

They're doing fuck all with it, take it from them.

Personal experience of squatting was, be good quiet neighbours so no-one reports you (or if possible, even suspects you're a squatter). But if they day comes that police evict you, try to negotiate a few days to move your stuff out, but whether or not, you're going to have to go. Come by a week later tho, you might be able to move right back in.
I lived with piped gas but no electricity for a few months. It was plush!

Heloin wrote:

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

They're doing fuck all with it, take it from them.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the topic.

No one needs your advice about how to defend their rights. Direct action at the point of production.

Heloin wrote:

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

They're doing fuck all with it, take it from them.

It doesnt matter, they pay for it, its theirs to do what they want with their own property.

Satuga wrote:

Heloin wrote:They're doing fuck all with it, take it from them.

It doesnt matter, they pay for it, its theirs to do what they want with their own property.

Portable property that you have on private property, yes generally you're free to do what you like with it.
Houses are usually encumbered by laws, like fire safety or an obligation to pay rates. They're not just "property".

Satuga wrote:

Heloin wrote:They're doing fuck all with it, take it from them.

It doesnt matter, they pay for it, its theirs to do what they want with their own property.

I don't care. They want to waste their money doing fuck all then they can through their cash into a furnace. If they don't want to rent it out or sell it then take the house from them.

Heloin wrote:

Satuga wrote:It doesnt matter, they pay for it, its theirs to do what they want with their own property.

I don't care. They want to waste their money doing fuck all then they can through their cash into a furnace. If they don't want to rent it out or sell it then take the house from them.

I think they should be obliged to rent it out, but I wouldn't go so far if they won't. Just a little tax, on top of their regular land tax.

Satuga wrote:So wait hold on, are they squatters? If so good, in fact I have no idea why it takes so long to evict someone who is legally not allowed to be in a home they don't own.

California has a lot of due process in regards to kicking people out who are in apparent possession of a house.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Portable property that you have on private property, yes generally you're free to do what you like with it.
Houses are usually encumbered by laws, like fire safety or an obligation to pay rates. They're not just "property".

As long as the company pays all the taxes and fares for the house, as well as obeying safety regulations its literally their property, theres no it ands or buts about it. Whats the point of being a adult if you can just go squatting in other peoples property without having to pay for anything?

Heloin wrote:

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

They're doing fuck all with it, take it from them.

They are likely waiting to buy the house next door to knock it down and build a big house for Tech bro.

Satuga wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Portable property that you have on private property, yes generally you're free to do what you like with it.
Houses are usually encumbered by laws, like fire safety or an obligation to pay rates. They're not just "property".

As long as the company pays all the taxes and fares for the house, as well as obeying safety regulations its literally their property, theres no it ands or buts about it. Whats the point of being a adult if you can just go squatting in other peoples property without having to pay for anything?

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.

Heloin wrote:

Satuga wrote:It doesnt matter, they pay for it, its theirs to do what they want with their own property.

I don't care. They want to waste their money doing fuck all then they can through their cash into a furnace. If they don't want to rent it out or sell it then take the house from them.

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.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Satuga wrote:As long as the company pays all the taxes and fares for the house, as well as obeying safety regulations its literally their property, theres no it ands or buts about it. Whats the point of being a adult if you can just go squatting in other peoples property without having to pay for anything?

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.

Satuga wrote:

Heloin wrote:I don't care. They want to waste their money doing fuck all then they can through their cash into a furnace. If they don't want to rent it out or sell it then take the house from them.

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.

Satuga wrote:

Heloin wrote:I don't care. They want to waste their money doing fuck all then they can through their cash into a furnace. If they don't want to rent it out or sell it then take the house from them.

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.

They don't want to rent it or sell it then that's their problem, they don't need the house in that case.

Greed and Death wrote:

Heloin wrote:They're doing fuck all with it, take it from them.

They are likely waiting to buy the house next door to knock it down and build a big house for Tech bro.

Sounds like all the more reason to seize the house and give it to the squatters.

I feel bad for the people squatting, I’m sure they’re in this situation out of necessity but, well, the houses aren’t theirs so it’s understandable that they were evicted.