First, squatters of this type are taking advantage of laws intended to protect renters from predatory landlords. Wherever you stand on people appropriating unused property, these laws need to stay in place even if they’re made more specific.
Second, news outlets like this will always quote a “guns and drugs” case and not the mom with three kids seeking employment or homeless vet cases.
Third, with security cams and doorbells being so cheap, there’s no reason why this should be an issue, especially for a large real estate rental company. That alone puts me in “cry me a river” mode. Notice again that the article lists interviews with individual homeowners but is actually profiling the impact on a rental company.
IMO owning an unoccupied house thats off-market, or prohibitively-priced is probably a gambling chip.
IF there are ANY families in the same county that are homeless, it should begin being taxed as a gambling-chip. Sell-it very soon or it may used for a free shelter for however it remains unoccupied by the owner.
No, they mean the same thing, at least in my familiarity with the phrases. “Cry me a river” means that I don’t care to hear about their complaints, even if their tears were enough to fill a river, because I think they’re not legitimate.
You encapsulated this perfectly, thank you. As a side note, speculative ownership of housing is a violent crime and should be punished as such, at least while there are any homeless people anywhere.
Being from California (and earlier from New York), that’s very much the intention. Both states (and municipal laws in places like LA, SF, and NYC) make the landlords have to jump through a lot of hoops before an eviction can take place, and the tenants can file for protection.
I know that things vary from state to state, but I’ve only been a renter in NY, NJ, and CA. I’ve also successfully sued a landlord for over $100k in damages and expenses.
I’m talking about the very specific laws that prevent people from being evicted if they’ve been residing on a property for N months without following a very deliberate and drawn out legal procedure so that landlords cannot evict a family from their home of many years because of some missed rent payments or because they want to upgrade the place so they can charge more to a new tenant. Those are the laws that keep the sheriffs from just kicking down doors, at least in some states.
I’m not taking a moral position on squatting. My friends and I squatted in an abandoned house while I was in high school, although most of us didn’t live there full time. If I noticed someone squatting tomorrow, especially in a corporate owned home, I would not have seen it. But the laws that I’m talking about were designed to protect tenants from having their lives unfairly disrupted, and I’m arguing that even if people are against squatters, we still need to protect tenants’ rights.
renters rights are a whole separate issue. while I object to the language of “rights” altogether, I think adverse possession is good and ownership in abstentia is bad. so I side with the people who need homes over those with more than they need.
no. the governments that currently control the several states actually all have squatters rights (adverse possession) laws still on the books. the person to whom i was replying was conflating squatters rights with renters rights.
your comment seems to imply that somehow the squatters rights were eliminated at some point, but they never were.
Okay,
here is a link to the wiki page for the original song from 1953, and here is a yt link to a modern cover you’ve probably heard.
And finally, here is a short history of the cultural shift from the 15th century the song is referencing. The name finally changed in the 1930s hence the cultural relevance of the song in the 1950s.
I hope that helps with the reference. Have a great evening!
Yes it is, I mixed up the names. Go figure a guy tries to reference a song from 70 years ago about a governmental shift from 570 years ago got the details wrong lol.
So sorry to wrack your noggin. I’ll put it in a simpler way;
First, squatters of this type are taking advantage of laws intended to protect renters from predatory landlords. Wherever you stand on people appropriating unused property, these laws need to stay in place even if they’re made more specific.
Second, news outlets like this will always quote a “guns and drugs” case and not the mom with three kids seeking employment or homeless vet cases.
Third, with security cams and doorbells being so cheap, there’s no reason why this should be an issue, especially for a large real estate rental company. That alone puts me in “cry me a river” mode. Notice again that the article lists interviews with individual homeowners but is actually profiling the impact on a rental company.
IMO owning an unoccupied house thats off-market, or prohibitively-priced is probably a gambling chip.
IF there are ANY families in the same county that are homeless, it should begin being taxed as a gambling-chip. Sell-it very soon or it may used for a free shelter for however it remains unoccupied by the owner.
I have no issues with raising property taxes on non-owner occupied housing, and having them even higher on unoccupied housing.
Hell, the basic idea behind squatter’s laws is that the squatter is actually doing something with the land instead of a derilect landlord.
If a bank isn’t immediately selling the foreclosed home, they should lose it.
All good points—did you mean “tiny violin mode”, or have I been misunderstanding that song for a long time?
No, they mean the same thing, at least in my familiarity with the phrases. “Cry me a river” means that I don’t care to hear about their complaints, even if their tears were enough to fill a river, because I think they’re not legitimate.
“Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it.” Is a favorite expression.
I always liked the similar variation: “Cry me a river, build a bridge and jump off it.”
Ooo.
I’m going to to have to steal this. For variation,
Could be both: “I will now play ‘Cry me a river’ on the world’s tiniest violin.”
You encapsulated this perfectly, thank you. As a side note, speculative ownership of housing is a violent crime and should be punished as such, at least while there are any homeless people anywhere.
>squatters of this type are taking advantage of laws intended to protect renters from predatory landlords.
what makes you think that’s the intention?
Being from California (and earlier from New York), that’s very much the intention. Both states (and municipal laws in places like LA, SF, and NYC) make the landlords have to jump through a lot of hoops before an eviction can take place, and the tenants can file for protection.
I know that things vary from state to state, but I’ve only been a renter in NY, NJ, and CA. I’ve also successfully sued a landlord for over $100k in damages and expenses.
squatters rights precede the founding of the United States and have nothing to do with renters rights. You’re just wrong about why these laws exist.
You’re talking like a Sovereign Citizen.
I’m talking about the very specific laws that prevent people from being evicted if they’ve been residing on a property for N months without following a very deliberate and drawn out legal procedure so that landlords cannot evict a family from their home of many years because of some missed rent payments or because they want to upgrade the place so they can charge more to a new tenant. Those are the laws that keep the sheriffs from just kicking down doors, at least in some states.
I’m not taking a moral position on squatting. My friends and I squatted in an abandoned house while I was in high school, although most of us didn’t live there full time. If I noticed someone squatting tomorrow, especially in a corporate owned home, I would not have seen it. But the laws that I’m talking about were designed to protect tenants from having their lives unfairly disrupted, and I’m arguing that even if people are against squatters, we still need to protect tenants’ rights.
I would have thought that was abundantly clear.
renters rights are a whole separate issue. while I object to the language of “rights” altogether, I think adverse possession is good and ownership in abstentia is bad. so I side with the people who need homes over those with more than they need.
Bet… but the issue is the government who currently controls the land and enforces the laws.
You don’t go breaking Constantinople’s laws because they were once different in Istanbul.
this is incoherent
You’ve been handed context so you don’t have to hurt your silly little wrists typing. does the comment make sense now?
no. the governments that currently control the several states actually all have squatters rights (adverse possession) laws still on the books. the person to whom i was replying was conflating squatters rights with renters rights.
your comment seems to imply that somehow the squatters rights were eliminated at some point, but they never were.
Okay, here is a link to the wiki page for the original song from 1953, and here is a yt link to a modern cover you’ve probably heard.
And finally, here is a short history of the cultural shift from the 15th century the song is referencing. The name finally changed in the 1930s hence the cultural relevance of the song in the 1950s.
I hope that helps with the reference. Have a great evening!
Yes it is, I mixed up the names. Go figure a guy tries to reference a song from 70 years ago about a governmental shift from 570 years ago got the details wrong lol.
So sorry to wrack your noggin. I’ll put it in a simpler way;
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.