Private Property Rights

[glalt]

Squatters are in the US news lately. It appears that the squatters have more rights than the legal property owners due to liberal laws, especially like in NYC. What has it come to when a person has no rights to protect their legally owned property?

I can see that home owners will soon be going to jail for protecting their property. Tax paying citizens no longer have the law protecting them so they are forced to take the law in their own hands. Who can blame them?

[Khun Paul]

I say again, Land of the free, is now a questionable statement as shown by the last post, freedom is being eroded daily, by nameless faces and bureaucracy

[Whistler]

Squatters are in the US news lately. It appears that the squatters have more rights than the legal property owners due to liberal laws, especially like in NYC. What has it come to when a person has no rights to protect their legally owned property?

I can see that home owners will soon be going to jail for protecting their property. Tax paying citizens no longer have the law protecting them so they are forced to take the law in their own hands. Who can blame them?

Where has this beat up come from?

If a property is abandoned in the USA for a length of time, it can be claimed. Same in many countries. In the USA the length of abandonment varies between 7 and 20 years by state. Owners have full.legal rights to evict squatters in every state in America. There is a legal process to follow and most legal processes take a bit of time.

I love the term 'tax paying citizens' , full of outrage, the correct term on this issue is property owner, some of whom pay no taxes as that is part of the definition of an abandoned property.

[glalt]

These home owners have a deed and their taxes are paid up. How can that property be considered abandoned?

[Whistler]

Am i correct that Fox News is your source?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-hom ... ues-advice

Even this somewhat slanted article does not claim owners have no rights to evict squatters, they simply cannot take the law into their own hands, I cannot see a problem if they follow the law.

Some so called squatting is not a simple cut and dried illegal occupation, in British common law anybody possessing exclusive occupation for more than 20 years unopposed can claim title. My first house in Sydney was a Victorian terrace, but I had a huge yard that took up a lot of the centre of the block. When doing due diligence on my purchase, I found it was a surveying mistake dating back to 1848. I successfully claimed possessors title on this basis. Just one example of some of the complexities in property law. Follow the law and owners should have no problems. If owners have an investment property, it is a business and sometimes businesses incur legal expenses, tough.

It is interesting that Fox News failed to cover one of the major drivers on squatting in NYC, a crisis in low income affordable housing. Fox News doesnt give a rats sbout the plight of the poor, so no surprises that beat up this story that pales into insignificance compared to that housing crisis.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Am i correct that Fox News is your source?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-hom ... ues-advice

Even this somewhat slanted article does not claim owners have no rights to evict squatters, they simply cannot take the law into their own hands, I cannot see a problem if they follow the law.

Some so called squatting is not a simple cut and dried illegal occupation, in British common law anybody possessing exclusive occupation for more than 20 years unopposed can claim title. My first house in Sydney was a Victorian terrace, but I had a huge yard that took up a lot of the centre of the block. When doing due diligence on my purchase, I found it was a surveying mistake dating back to 1848. I successfully claimed possessors title on this basis. Just one example of some of the complexities in property law. Follow the law and owners should have no problems. If owners have an investment property, it is a business and sometimes businesses incur legal expenses, tough.

It is interesting that Fox News failed to cover one of the major drivers on squatting in NYC, a crisis in low income affordable housing. Fox News doesnt give a rats sbout the plight of the poor, so no surprises that beat up this story that pales into insignificance compared to that housing crisis.

Does that give the poor the right, moral or otherwise, to illegally occupy property that belongs to someone else? Have you become a spokesperson for the plight of the poor? The poor should follow the law and not create problems for property owners, no?

[Doodoo]

Various countries apply this each time a war comes about Examples would be UK vs Argentina, many Indian tribes vs Spain, UK, France etc conflicts in the African Continent

Its not just the poor creating problems

[Whistler]

Am i correct that Fox News is your source?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-hom ... ues-advice

Even this somewhat slanted article does not claim owners have no rights to evict squatters, they simply cannot take the law into their own hands, I cannot see a problem if they follow the law.

Some so called squatting is not a simple cut and dried illegal occupation, in British common law anybody possessing exclusive occupation for more than 20 years unopposed can claim title. My first house in Sydney was a Victorian terrace, but I had a huge yard that took up a lot of the centre of the block. When doing due diligence on my purchase, I found it was a surveying mistake dating back to 1848. I successfully claimed possessors title on this basis. Just one example of some of the complexities in property law. Follow the law and owners should have no problems. If owners have an investment property, it is a business and sometimes businesses incur legal expenses, tough.

It is interesting that Fox News failed to cover one of the major drivers on squatting in NYC, a crisis in low income affordable housing. Fox News doesnt give a rats sbout the plight of the poor, so no surprises that beat up this story that pales into insignificance compared to that housing crisis.

Does that give the poor the right, moral or otherwise, to illegally occupy property that belongs to someone else? Have you become a spokesperson for the plight of the poor? The poor should follow the law and not create problems for property owners, no?

Both owners and illegal squatters should be subject to the law.

I was formally involved in setting up a youth refuge in Sydney's Kings Cross area for poor children living on the street, does that make me a spokesman, was that a bad thing to do? I am an ex board member of a neighbourhood centre where we ran many programs for the poor (and the not so poor) communities, is that a bad thing too? Helping the underprileged is good for the community at large, poverty and crime go hand in hand. If people need a leg-up to get housing and employment, they can contrubute to a better community. Not blind handouts, it needs their hard work too, but some cannot do so without assistance.

My view LYM, is if you have a privileged life, it is a good thing to give something back, your comment about being a spokesperson for the poor says far more about you, than me.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Am i correct that Fox News is your source?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-hom ... ues-advice

Even this somewhat slanted article does not claim owners have no rights to evict squatters, they simply cannot take the law into their own hands, I cannot see a problem if they follow the law.

Some so called squatting is not a simple cut and dried illegal occupation, in British common law anybody possessing exclusive occupation for more than 20 years unopposed can claim title. My first house in Sydney was a Victorian terrace, but I had a huge yard that took up a lot of the centre of the block. When doing due diligence on my purchase, I found it was a surveying mistake dating back to 1848. I successfully claimed possessors title on this basis. Just one example of some of the complexities in property law. Follow the law and owners should have no problems. If owners have an investment property, it is a business and sometimes businesses incur legal expenses, tough.

It is interesting that Fox News failed to cover one of the major drivers on squatting in NYC, a crisis in low income affordable housing. Fox News doesnt give a rats sbout the plight of the poor, so no surprises that beat up this story that pales into insignificance compared to that housing crisis.

I have no idea what you mean when you say give back and not just financially?

But hey, not surprised that you have not given up on your stalking, and seem happy to go off topic to do so

C'mon Whistler, get your facts straight before you stalk people. Who went off-topic first, you or me?

[pipoz4444]

You also have to ask the question of how these squatters first gained entry into the the house since they were not born in it and were not invited into the house, by the Owner or another Authorized person, that first time. If they didn't walk through an open door (which is highly unlikely) then they surely must have broken a law in the first instance of entry.

Breaking and entering is broadly defined in the USA as "Entering of a building through force without authorization. The slightest force including pushing open a door is all that is necessary" .

One more longer definition is, "The criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime"

My interpretation of this is that if he/she doesn't own the how and does have authorization from the Owner to enter the house and he/she knowingly proceeds to open and or force that door to opens, then walks in, then he/she (the intentional squatter) has committed a crime (at least illegal trespass) with that first act of entering the house by force (slight or otherwise).

My interpretation only.

pipoz4444

[Whistler]

I am with you pip

[Laan Yaa Mo]

You also have to ask the question of how these squatters first gained entry into the the house since they were not born in it and were not invited into the house, by the Owner or another Authorized person, that first time. If they didn't walk through an open door (which is highly unlikely) then they surely must have broken a law in the first instance of entry.

Breaking and entering is broadly defined in the USA as "Entering of a building through force without authorization. The slightest force including pushing open a door is all that is necessary" .

One more longer definition is, "The criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime"

My interpretation of this is that if he/she doesn't own the how and does have authorization from the Owner to enter the house and he/she knowingly proceeds to open and or force that door to opens, then walks in, then he/she (the intentional squatter) has committed a crime (at least illegal trespass) with that first act of entering the house by force (slight or otherwise).

My interpretation only.

pipoz4444

That is my understanding too Khun Pipoz, although some may consider that to be...horrors of horrors...a right-wing view.

[glalt]

People have gone on extended vacations, come home and find their homes broken into and occupied by squatters who have changed the locks. Following the liberal laws takes them more than four months to recover their by then severely damaged homes. The liberal laws stink to high heaven. I wouldn't blame them for hiring some violent help to clean out their homes. Likely cheaper than hiring LEGAL lawyers and waiting for months to get their homes back. A gang of thugs could do the job quickly with the home owner denying hiring them.

[pipoz4444]

So let me pose a question

If I am the Owner of that house and I come back and find some undesirable squatters living in my house (assuming the locks are still the same as when I let)

Am I allowed to sign an agreement with Tenant of my choosing and then have that Tenant to move onto my house with under my permission (I can only assume I still have some rights as the legal Owner of that property) and so effectively take up joint occupation / tenancy of my house, at the same time as the undesirable squatters

Surely the fact that someone my be squatting in my house, cannot or does not take away my legal right as an Owner to lease my house to someone of my choosing and grant him/her access to the house?

pipoz4444