Should squatters have rights?

[minteK917]

Depends on what we call squatters. Here there is still protection on people that made some place their home, you need to give them a warning and a clear 3 months(yes even if they didnt pay) to move out, the same 3 months you gotta give to your landlord should you leave so he can start looking for someone.

[PACOX]

The people who tend to exploit 'squatters right' arent who the laws are intended for.'

Imagine if you purchased a home and lived there for some time. 5, 10, 15 years. Then someone of a recently deceased person comes along and says their that was their grandfather's land and now theirs by inheritance, GTFO. When you bought the land you thought you made a 100% legal purchase. You've lived there for x years and established legal residence. Maybe you have kids and thats all they know. Or say down here where we have hurricanes that can destroy a piece of property, then that property goes untouched for years. No one is sure who owns it because the land hasnt been touched in years and no one can contact the last known owner, so you go through the process to acquire and develop it.

Squatters' rights are meant to protect you from litigation and eviction from a property that deemed vacant or abandoned.

It most 'squatter' stories, the squatter has moved into someones seasonal/rental property thats hasnt been abandoned by any means. The owners are simply out of the area or the place hasn't been sold yet. These squatters are full of shit and know they're exploiting a system.

[arandomuser]

no, and ithink those cities with the homeless people gotta start putting them in a nice comfy jail cell before they start losing elections to rwnjs

[PACOX]

San Francisco has 30k vacant homes and about 10k homeless people with prices so high many were priced out of their homes.

In that case, I believe the government should intervene.

1) Contact the homeowners, give them time to respond. If theres no response then they get a notice that the government will cease and sell the property in x amount of time.

2) Incentivize reasons to let go of vacant homes/property. I don't believe in just taking property because they are using it the way they want. A lot of good disenfranchised people have and still lose their property because someone comes and says they have a 'better' use for it - thats not fair. Incentives don't always have to be monetary either, just like wanting to fill the properties is not 100% monetary. If they go someone who is holding on to grandma's house and say, 'hey, we have this family here thats living out of hotels. they really need a home. we'll give you $x for the property.' Someone is would be a lot more willing to work out a deal than just getting a phone call from some developer who wants their land for unknow reasons - most people are going to think to gentrify the area.

[D3thray]

Depends what we're talking about.

If we're talking about simple "I'm here, and I ain't leavin!", fuck those people. Call the cops and have them arrested.

If, however, they're A> resident in the location for a year or more without other legal right to the property (renters don't qualify), and B> the homeowner has not told them to get out in that time, then I can see justifying a transfer of legal ownership; the original property owner has essentially abandoned the home.

And ensuring housing isn't abandoned and left to rot is important; if it takes squatters taking over to change that, so be it.

There are some issues in certain jurisdictions about this, and to be clear, if the homeowner has gone to the police to register a complaint about the squatters within that year's time, IMO, that's all the confirmation they need. I don't think it should be set by how long they manage to remain, once the complaint is made by the original owner, that's establishing the timeline for the "one year" that I mentioned.

IIRC in some jurisdictions something like this is on the books, but the squatter has to be using and maintaining the property as if it is their own (they can’t just be hiding out in the attic or something) to have any legal claim after a set amount of time.

[Vankrys]

same right as every citizen.
fair trial, day in court, face his accuser, right of being represented by lawyer.

Beyond that, depending of the law of the land, people can qualifies for social safety program.

[Thepersona]

Depends what we're talking about.

If we're talking about simple "I'm here, and I ain't leavin!", fuck those people. Call the cops and have them arrested.

If, however, they're A> resident in the location for a year or more without other legal right to the property (renters don't qualify), and B> the homeowner has not told them to get out in that time, then I can see justifying a transfer of legal ownership; the original property owner has essentially abandoned the home.

And ensuring housing isn't abandoned and left to rot is important; if it takes squatters taking over to change that, so be it.

There are some issues in certain jurisdictions about this, and to be clear, if the homeowner has gone to the police to register a complaint about the squatters within that year's time, IMO, that's all the confirmation they need. I don't think it should be set by how long they manage to remain, once the complaint is made by the original owner, that's establishing the timeline for the "one year" that I mentioned.

Here in Chile we have a law that, roughly says: If someone gets to live in a vacant property (flats/houses/fields) for 5 years, and the original homeowner says nothing about it, they can keep it, if they have paid water/electricity bills.

[josykay]

Here in Chile we have a law that, roughly says: If someone gets to live in a vacant property (flats/houses/fields) for 5 years, and the original homeowner says nothing about it, they can keep it, if they have paid water/electricity bills.

Yeah, but the problem is, that mostly the owner, no matter if private person, bank, company what ever does say something in those cases that cause dispute.

[Boricha]

The right to party.

/badumtish

[Dsonsion]

Extrapolating this graph specifically to housing, I think it's not too difficult to see that there are a lot of houses in the hands of people who already have one. A considerable amount of them are held vacant for the purpose of market speculation, so I don't think it's too much of a bad idea for homeless people to stop being homeless in one of them.

[Shadowferal]

No, they should be imprisoned.

Well, that certainly would give them a room with a bed, and a couple of square meals...(more like watery mush...)
But I'm certain that imprisoning families that can't afford housing isn't an answer.
Although for-profit prisons would love it. They could charge a great deal more when it came to children too!

[ParanoiD84]

I dont think so, get your own place.

Unless they have legal right to the place other then that gtfo.

[Rigel]

In that case, I believe the government should intervene.

1) Contact the homeowners, give them time to respond. If theres no response then they get a notice that the government will cease and sell the property in x amount of time.

2) Incentivize reasons to let go of vacant homes/property. I don't believe in just taking property because they are using it the way they want. A lot of good disenfranchised people have and still lose their property because someone comes and says they have a 'better' use for it - thats not fair. Incentives don't always have to be monetary either, just like wanting to fill the properties is not 100% monetary. If they go someone who is holding on to grandma's house and say, 'hey, we have this family here thats living out of hotels. they really need a home. we'll give you $x for the property.' Someone is would be a lot more willing to work out a deal than just getting a phone call from some developer who wants their land for unknow reasons - most people are going to think to gentrify the area.

So instead of letting someone buy a property and do whatever they want with their assets, you want to force the owner to do something he obviously doesn't want to--if he did he would already have done it. I also like your idea of freedom being that government will take property and sell it.

[Rigel]

Extrapolating this graph specifically to housing, I think it's not too difficult to see that there are a lot of houses in the hands of people who already have one. A considerable amount of them are held vacant for the purpose of market speculation, so I don't think it's too much of a bad idea for homeless people to stop being homeless in one of them.

I think it's a bad idea. What if I want to sell said house that you put homeless in? Because i need cash to to do something else with my money, I now have to wait months for the homeless to leave because of eviction laws. Now my business is tied up because you want to punish me for being successful enough to be able to speculate on real estate. Freedom at it's finest.

- - - Updated - - -

So what?
They shouldn't have the right to do whatever they want.

I'm sorry, I just noticed you are saying you are located in the Netherlands, You must not understand how laws work in America. We do have the right to do what we want with our assets as long as it stays within city/county codes. It's called freedom.

[zenkai]

So what?
They shouldn't have the right to do whatever they want.

You shouldn't have the right to do whatever you want by giving someone else the power to do whatever they want? Nice logic.

[Molis]

The squatters that force people out of their house, or do not pay rent for a year but stay should be arrested.

I could see a case for squatting on abandoned properties if they took care of it etc.

[PACOX]

So instead of letting someone buy a property and do whatever they want with their assets, you want to force the owner to do something he obviously doesn't want to--if he did he would already have done it. I also like your idea of freedom being that government will take property and sell it.

Its like you only half comprehend the comment.

[tumppu]

Regular human rights, yes.

Rights to the property they are squatting on, none.

[Shadowferal]

Philly wanted to reclaim a vacant lot cleaned up by a resident. The Pa. Supreme Court ruled in his favor.


Frank and Nicole Galdo with their kids on the playset that now occupies a vacant lot owned by the city.
Philadelphia wants to take the property back; Galdo claims he is entitled to the land because of a legal doctrine known as "adverse possession."