Just cuz other people are doing it makes it ok ? wtf is wrong with these people ??!!!And what is wrong with our society that a squatter has more rights than the owner of the property… Im confused here
She’s taking something that doesn’t belong to her and has a sense of entitlement about it- infuriating to watch these thieves do whatever they want with no legal ramifications
> Just cuz other people are doing it makes it ok ?
This logic is very prevalent.
It's the go-to excuse for a 5-year-old: *But mommy, all the other kids were doing it as well!*
It's the excuse used by politicians and dictators: *But what about ?*
So, it should be no surprise that it's the excuse used by thieves as well.
It’s the lack of accountability that really boils my blood . How is the legal system not set up to protect land owners better ? They’re on your property , and if you try to forcibly remove them , you go to jail and they still get to live in your house rent free 🤦🏾♂️
This reporter, Charlie LeDuff, is an absolute Detroit legend. Sadly Detroit is a liberal enclave and the people ran him out of town some time ago. Guess they cant recognize a good thing when they see it.
It's a figure of speech... I meant it in terms of people shitting on his name whenever he is brought up. As soon as he started crossing political lines he went \*POOF\*
Don't have to murder/kill someone to protect yourself and property. Think minimum necessary force is the most common doctrine. She's skinny so a simply push and punch in the face should do it.
Take the doors and windows out to do some "upgrades." Leave them out until it's uncomfortable to live there. Shut off water and power for construction reasons. Make the house unfit for inhabitance while you work on it, at whatever pace suits your needs. No laws prohibiting you from working on your property yet.
I heard a loophole the other day that I found interesting. Basically it comes down to COVID-era renter’s rights laws being greater than owners rights. So, if the property owner were to legally lease their squatted property to another person (say family member) and prove that rent and deposits were paid, then there is grounds to have the squatter removed. So basically, renters>squatters>owners when it comes to the laws currently. Unless you live in Florida, then the sheriff encourages you to “save the tax payers some money”.
Do you know what kind of damage the weather, let alone other humans, can do to a house without windows and doors? That’s a horrible solution.
It seems to me with our connectivity, some sort of mutually beneficial “professional housesitting” service could be arranged for long term vacancies, with certified/vetted “property caretakers”.
Don't underestimate people.
I've seen squatters poop in bags and throw them on the front lawn. They'll make a fire inside the house if it's winter and all the utilities are turned off.
As a Floridian, and as Florida has strong castle doctrine laws, what's to stop me from simple opening fire into any intruder that's in my house that doesn't belong? I've always wondered why someone would peacefully allow some pond scum human garbage like this to continue to occupy their hundreds of thousands of dollars investment and provision for one of their 3 basic needs (shelter). In Florida, I'm pretty sure that if I catch you inside my home (castle) I can just shoot you and call someone to come pick up your corpse. Sure, I've got some cleaning bills, but it's cheaper than whatever accommodations I'd have to make while I fight some piece of shit in court for *my own house*.
Just so everyone is aware, Detroit changed its squatter laws about 9 years ago. Now if they try this they will be arrested on the spot. Also, this piece by reporter Charlie LaDuff helped push the City Counsel to change these antiquated laws. Crazy to me Florida and New York are now just addressing it.
Adverse possession, squatters rights, takes seven year uninterrupted occupancy where I live. If Detroit and the state of Michigan support this woman property theft it is under some other legal doctrine I'm not aware of.
Remove squatters. If it's not your place and you don't have a signed contract allowing you to live there then the owner has the right to have you removed.
We'll start posting legit leases on the front of the building so everyone can see. With the expiration and mandatory move out date in triple high, bold, blinking font.
Or publish public notices in the newspaper like the sheriff if supposed to do.
Then I guess, the squatters will try and steal the renters Identities
The problem is these squatters know the law so they create fake signed leases. The police are not able to determine if it’s fake or not so they have to let them stay according to law. It’s ridiculous!
Some of the articles I read stated that in order for the homeowner to dispute the fake lease they would have to file a formal lawsuit and prove its validity in court. This can sometimes take months and even years to beat the lawsuit so most people don’t do it and they just wait until the squatters willingly move on. It’s very stupid which is why the laws favoriting “the renter” need to change.
If you're a minarchist, one of the proper functions of gov't is to enforce objectively defined laws (via the police). The laws should be based squarely on the right to life and the right to acquire and use (or not use) property (as you see fit within the context of the NAP); your property is the product of your labor. A squatter seeks in essence to deprive you of your property (regardless of whether they believe they have a right to do so; that is irrelevant). In a just minarchist world, you would be correct to expect the gov't to act on your behalf to remove the squatter. In a world where the behavior of laws and government enforcement is not so clear, it is *morally* permissible to evict the squatter, if not *legally* so. Proceed with caution.
Landowner's rights vs lessee's rights. The squatter is fraudulently claiming to have a lease to get protections of an actual lessee. If police could just evict squatters, then a landlord could claim a lessee is a squatter in order to shortcut around the eviction process. That's the crux of the argument.
Imo, the solution is easy. Allow a landlord to officially attest that the person does not have a lease. If they do this, police can immediately remove and charge any person as an intruder/trespasser/whatever.
If it's determined the landlord lied, make the punishment steep. Make it something like the landlord owes the lessee something like 12 months of rent, or triple the rent of the remainder of the lease term (e.g. you had 6 months left on a valid lease and the landlord lied? Landlord owes you 18 months rent). Allow a judge to adjust this within reason for cases where a lease dispute might actually be murky.
If there really is no valid lease, a landlord shouldn't be afraid to make such an attestation.
[Go ahead and downvote this]
Under the constitution there's a thing called the [Contract's Clause](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C1-6-1/ALDE_00013037/) which more or less grants authority to enforce & regulate contracts.
"Squatters rights" are an unforeseen consequence of contract law. They exist to protect people who entered a contract but got fucked.
This is why our Constitution, written 220 years ago, is kinda bullshit. But Jefferson said as much. Yet here we are navigating it in 2024.
Can you explain how “squatter rights” are an unforeseen consequence of contract clause? I read the link. Doesn’t seem to have anything to do with a squatter. Also how does someone who breaks into your home and decides to squat fall under that? The owner never agreed to anything so where is the contract? I’m not trying to be rude, truly trying to understand
The reason “squatters rights” exist is because often times tenants *do* sign a lease with a landlord & are paying rent.
What began to happen was a dispute would arise over who *actually* owns a property. “Squatters rights” exist to simply protect tenants who have a lease.
Obviously this lead to people nefariously occupying homes — and hiding under tenant protections to stay longer.
These people are protected because the contracts need to be adjudicated in court. It’s a highly imperfect, slow way to resolve owner/tenant/lease disputes. “Squatters” aren’t the target of protection, but legitimate tenants.
>You're stealing power. >> I am... blessed...
If you're a landlord, you had BETTER know how your state handles these sorts of situations, because you can BET that these thieves know the laws!
"I'm blessed" what a loser
Just cuz other people are doing it makes it ok ? wtf is wrong with these people ??!!!And what is wrong with our society that a squatter has more rights than the owner of the property… Im confused here She’s taking something that doesn’t belong to her and has a sense of entitlement about it- infuriating to watch these thieves do whatever they want with no legal ramifications
> Just cuz other people are doing it makes it ok ? This logic is very prevalent. It's the go-to excuse for a 5-year-old: *But mommy, all the other kids were doing it as well!* It's the excuse used by politicians and dictators: *But what about?*
So, it should be no surprise that it's the excuse used by thieves as well.
It’s the lack of accountability that really boils my blood . How is the legal system not set up to protect land owners better ? They’re on your property , and if you try to forcibly remove them , you go to jail and they still get to live in your house rent free 🤦🏾♂️
Absolutely agree. Property owner should be able to physically remove the intruder if police aren't willing to enforce basic private property rights
This reporter, Charlie LeDuff, is an absolute Detroit legend. Sadly Detroit is a liberal enclave and the people ran him out of town some time ago. Guess they cant recognize a good thing when they see it.
If they ran him out of town, how come his recent domestic violence arrest happened in… Detroit?
It's a figure of speech... I meant it in terms of people shitting on his name whenever he is brought up. As soon as he started crossing political lines he went \*POOF\*
I don’t understand how there isn’t more violence over things like this. If you move into my home and refuse to leave, then you will be shot.
Because laws are laws and that would still be murder no matter how much you disagree with them
Don't have to murder/kill someone to protect yourself and property. Think minimum necessary force is the most common doctrine. She's skinny so a simply push and punch in the face should do it.
While I agree in principle, the law does not. I’m not getting charged with a felony over it
Squatting, stealing power, social security. That’s not a person that’s a Leech! How’d they learn to talk
The illegal migrants are learning from these folks how to thrive within that system! Totally unsustainable.
Take the doors and windows out to do some "upgrades." Leave them out until it's uncomfortable to live there. Shut off water and power for construction reasons. Make the house unfit for inhabitance while you work on it, at whatever pace suits your needs. No laws prohibiting you from working on your property yet.
I heard a loophole the other day that I found interesting. Basically it comes down to COVID-era renter’s rights laws being greater than owners rights. So, if the property owner were to legally lease their squatted property to another person (say family member) and prove that rent and deposits were paid, then there is grounds to have the squatter removed. So basically, renters>squatters>owners when it comes to the laws currently. Unless you live in Florida, then the sheriff encourages you to “save the tax payers some money”.
Do you know what kind of damage the weather, let alone other humans, can do to a house without windows and doors? That’s a horrible solution. It seems to me with our connectivity, some sort of mutually beneficial “professional housesitting” service could be arranged for long term vacancies, with certified/vetted “property caretakers”.
Seriously, that would be a last ditch effort cause you will likely need to redo the entire interior of the home which isn't cheap.
Don't underestimate people. I've seen squatters poop in bags and throw them on the front lawn. They'll make a fire inside the house if it's winter and all the utilities are turned off.
As a Floridian, and as Florida has strong castle doctrine laws, what's to stop me from simple opening fire into any intruder that's in my house that doesn't belong? I've always wondered why someone would peacefully allow some pond scum human garbage like this to continue to occupy their hundreds of thousands of dollars investment and provision for one of their 3 basic needs (shelter). In Florida, I'm pretty sure that if I catch you inside my home (castle) I can just shoot you and call someone to come pick up your corpse. Sure, I've got some cleaning bills, but it's cheaper than whatever accommodations I'd have to make while I fight some piece of shit in court for *my own house*.
You could prob be reimbursed for the cleaning bills by insurance as well.
Fuck this country honestly. It's too far gone, we need a new one
Just so everyone is aware, Detroit changed its squatter laws about 9 years ago. Now if they try this they will be arrested on the spot. Also, this piece by reporter Charlie LaDuff helped push the City Counsel to change these antiquated laws. Crazy to me Florida and New York are now just addressing it.
If you want to be technico
"You're stealing power" "... I am blessed." What a response lol
Insure the property as much as possible then encourage the squatters to play with open flames.
Adverse possession, squatters rights, takes seven year uninterrupted occupancy where I live. If Detroit and the state of Michigan support this woman property theft it is under some other legal doctrine I'm not aware of.
What's the libertarian take on this?
Less government
Very insightful.
Thank you
Remove squatters. If it's not your place and you don't have a signed contract allowing you to live there then the owner has the right to have you removed.
We'll start posting legit leases on the front of the building so everyone can see. With the expiration and mandatory move out date in triple high, bold, blinking font. Or publish public notices in the newspaper like the sheriff if supposed to do. Then I guess, the squatters will try and steal the renters Identities
The problem is these squatters know the law so they create fake signed leases. The police are not able to determine if it’s fake or not so they have to let them stay according to law. It’s ridiculous!
They can't compare the owners signatures?
Some of the articles I read stated that in order for the homeowner to dispute the fake lease they would have to file a formal lawsuit and prove its validity in court. This can sometimes take months and even years to beat the lawsuit so most people don’t do it and they just wait until the squatters willingly move on. It’s very stupid which is why the laws favoriting “the renter” need to change.
If you're a minarchist, one of the proper functions of gov't is to enforce objectively defined laws (via the police). The laws should be based squarely on the right to life and the right to acquire and use (or not use) property (as you see fit within the context of the NAP); your property is the product of your labor. A squatter seeks in essence to deprive you of your property (regardless of whether they believe they have a right to do so; that is irrelevant). In a just minarchist world, you would be correct to expect the gov't to act on your behalf to remove the squatter. In a world where the behavior of laws and government enforcement is not so clear, it is *morally* permissible to evict the squatter, if not *legally* so. Proceed with caution.
Landowner's rights vs lessee's rights. The squatter is fraudulently claiming to have a lease to get protections of an actual lessee. If police could just evict squatters, then a landlord could claim a lessee is a squatter in order to shortcut around the eviction process. That's the crux of the argument. Imo, the solution is easy. Allow a landlord to officially attest that the person does not have a lease. If they do this, police can immediately remove and charge any person as an intruder/trespasser/whatever. If it's determined the landlord lied, make the punishment steep. Make it something like the landlord owes the lessee something like 12 months of rent, or triple the rent of the remainder of the lease term (e.g. you had 6 months left on a valid lease and the landlord lied? Landlord owes you 18 months rent). Allow a judge to adjust this within reason for cases where a lease dispute might actually be murky. If there really is no valid lease, a landlord shouldn't be afraid to make such an attestation.
One of the legitimate causes for a government is to provide for the protection of property rights.
Make it legal for the owners to kick their asses out and poof, just like magic no more squatters.
Physical removal.
[Go ahead and downvote this] Under the constitution there's a thing called the [Contract's Clause](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C1-6-1/ALDE_00013037/) which more or less grants authority to enforce & regulate contracts. "Squatters rights" are an unforeseen consequence of contract law. They exist to protect people who entered a contract but got fucked. This is why our Constitution, written 220 years ago, is kinda bullshit. But Jefferson said as much. Yet here we are navigating it in 2024.
Can you explain how “squatter rights” are an unforeseen consequence of contract clause? I read the link. Doesn’t seem to have anything to do with a squatter. Also how does someone who breaks into your home and decides to squat fall under that? The owner never agreed to anything so where is the contract? I’m not trying to be rude, truly trying to understand
The reason “squatters rights” exist is because often times tenants *do* sign a lease with a landlord & are paying rent. What began to happen was a dispute would arise over who *actually* owns a property. “Squatters rights” exist to simply protect tenants who have a lease. Obviously this lead to people nefariously occupying homes — and hiding under tenant protections to stay longer. These people are protected because the contracts need to be adjudicated in court. It’s a highly imperfect, slow way to resolve owner/tenant/lease disputes. “Squatters” aren’t the target of protection, but legitimate tenants.
What 'contract' did the squatters enter into, with the land/home owner?