I guess I’m the odd one out here, but squatter stories infuriate me. Signing a contract and then intentionally violating it is super unethical. The renting/income/ownership problem needs to be solved in other ways than letting people steal the property they’re living in. Letting people stay in properties without paying significantly increases landlord risk and causes shittier contracts and higher prices.
Also, if someone jas an eviction on their record, getting another rental is way harder. It’s good to discourage it so people don’t end up trapped unable to get another rental when they’re back on their feet.
Coming up with 20,000 dollars in a week isn’t a middle finger to squatters, it’s a complete lock out of the justice system to anyone who isn’t rich enough to be a land lord themselves.
This is peak, “the justice system protects everyone equally” bullshit.
Illinois is considered renter friendly. You only need to give a 7 day notice to pay or quit before you file an eviction for non-payment. You can give the notice if the rent is one day late. Not sure about TN but it’s probably similar.
Yeah, my silly Euro brain didn’t think it through.
Seems like Tennessee takes at least 4 weeks after being late on a single payment. They have to send a two weeks notice and then they can evict you in two weeks.
So it’s more like two weeks until they can evict you, and two weeks to pack your stuff.
When the two week notice is up, then the landlord can file what is basically a lawsuit. Then the tenant has to get served notice of when the court date is. So it could take a month or two just to get in front of a judge. Then if the tenant wants to contest the eviction and go to trial a new court date will usually be set for trial. Then if the tenant loses the judge will give them a certain amount of time to move.
This is talking about appealing an eviction to a higher court after a tenant loses. You can see how someone could abuse that system to stay for several more months by filing a frivolous appeal.
You can see at the end of the article that there was a judgement reached in error before the court date and the judge told them they would have to appeal. So in order to fix someone else’s mistake they would have to post a years rent when they were probably behind on rent anyway.
“the justice system protects everyone equally” bullshit.
Which is an extension of the “same rules for everyone” bullshit. A works with the existing law, B doesn’t. It’s just rules same for everyone, right? But group 1 needs A every day, and doesn’t need B at all, while group 2 is the inverse. Obviously laws benefit group 1, but due to the quoted thing being accepted as truth by many people, the injustice stands.
Same as with “territorial integrity” when it’s the integrity of some squatter state genociding or expelling people whose land it squatted on, and with clueless or malicious bystanders saying that those people should be happy that it doesn’t bite pieces off (spolier alert - it does that too now) their nation-state because “international laws” are “the same for everyone”.
I don’t think most people think “oh, some dude signing a contract and then violating it is super cool.” I think most people here realize that the working-class landlord who is renting out a single unit for a little extra cash is basically a unicorn these days and that the vast majority of rental units are owned by people and corporations who rent as their primary or sole source of income; and that the stories of renters deliberately destroying rental units are foregrounded by these large scale landlords as a tactic to erode public sympathy for renters. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, any time you have a system that can be exploited people will exploit it. What I am saying is that these situations happen far less often than ones like the linked article describes, where a tenant was evicted because they were told the incorrect court date.
How about we just do away with landlords entirely and make every property by default mortgagable so that apartment dwellers at minimum wage can still recoup some of their monthly housing costs when selling the apartment. There’s no reason this can’t be done. Most cheap old low-end apartments are worth relatively little (dependent on location and other factors, but still). If the market was flooded with them due to redistribution of shelter and an end to landlording, the prices would drop much further, potentially making theoretical down payments comparable with the first month’s rent + damage deposit. With the added bonus that no one steals your monthly payments. Housing co-ops are also great. There’s just no reason for landlords to exist. Shelter is a human right, and there’s no reason for a renting class to exist except to serve the interests of private landlords and enable the existence of a permanently impoverished working class.
A tenant who falls behind on rent isn’t a squatter they are still a tenant and normal procedures already allow for removing the tenant in a reasonable time frame. The issue that obtains some places is that courts are too poorly funded and over burdened to deal with issues in a timely fashion.
A squatter is someone who moves in without paying. This gets ugly when as above court issus applies and squatter situations get in line with normal eviction.
WA instituted an expedited process that allows for removal of folks who were never tenants with just police so this doesn’t happen.
That is a smart solution to actual squatting fully funding whomever handles your eviction cases is another.
If you want to take it to the next level look at Finland who almost eliminated homelessness by housing people who are temporarily in a bad way and Europeans generally providing support for those with health problems.
People who fall behind usually aren’t stealing from the landlord and celebrating they are usually falling into a financial hole and living every day in increasing stress as they scramble for a solution. Ask me how I know.
It’s technically a tenancy dispute, but the actual problem is the same. Someone occupies a residence wothout permission. I agree providing tiny home style emergency housing is fine - there are plenty in my area and they are valuable for the community - but saddling landlords with higher risk results in worse rates (assuming no rent monopoly in the area) and agreements for the majority of tenants who are paying rent without issue.
The actual problem is not the same at all. The squatter is unambiguously committing a crime. Their willingness to commit a crime and inability to have their own home is a massive predictor of problems up to and including the total destruction of your property and its sufficiently black and white that local law enforcement given a proper law can act within the hour to evict and arrest someone who has no right to be where he is.
The tenant who is behind on rent is a situation fraught with complexity which should be handled by a judge so that everything can be heard. What’s more having this whole process take at least several weeks is a good thing. I gives people time to come to a resolution to avoid eviction. To borrow money. To get paid and come up with the money. To make alternative housing plans. To make a plan with landlord to pay over time. This keeps families from being put out on the street promotes social stability and well-being. Having matters handled lawfully and carefully is an acceptable burden.
It also doesn’t increase rent because the small downside risk doesn’t magically make your property more valuable.
If you fault squatters in the midst of a homelessness crisis where upwards of 20 houses are left vacant for every unhoused person, you are either a landlord, or you have been oriented by the landowning class to ignore the massive economic and societal advantage that landlords have. To say that the issue comes down to squatters, and not to the hedge funds that are buying up streets-worth of housing at a time, is an affront to working-class people everywhere who are struggling more and more to obtain a home.
I say fuck yeah to squatters. Based. That is the “risk” that comes with being a landlord, and sometimes they strike out, so they can get fucked.
Meanwhile, Cartman’s classmate and frequent nemesis Kyle Broflovski, who did not read the Terms and Conditions when agreeing to download the latest iTunes update, is pursued by shadowy agents from Apple Inc., who wish to perform several intrusive acts upon him, informing him that he agreed to them when he downloaded the update. Kyle attempts to flee the men and is incredulous when his friends tell him they all read the entire Terms and Conditions when they downloaded the latest update. Kyle seeks refuge at his father Gerald’s law office. Still, the Apple agents taser Gerald, kidnap Kyle, and throw him in a cage with a Japanese man named Junichi Takiyama and a young woman who also failed to read the fine print of their purchased updates.
I guess I’m the odd one out here, but squatter stories infuriate me. Signing a contract and then intentionally violating it is super unethical. The renting/income/ownership problem needs to be solved in other ways than letting people steal the property they’re living in. Letting people stay in properties without paying significantly increases landlord risk and causes shittier contracts and higher prices.
Also, if someone jas an eviction on their record, getting another rental is way harder. It’s good to discourage it so people don’t end up trapped unable to get another rental when they’re back on their feet.
Coming up with 20,000 dollars in a week isn’t a middle finger to squatters, it’s a complete lock out of the justice system to anyone who isn’t rich enough to be a land lord themselves.
This is peak, “the justice system protects everyone equally” bullshit.
People usually get evicted because they didn’t pay rent for quite a while.
I don’t think rich people have that issue.
Illinois is considered renter friendly. You only need to give a 7 day notice to pay or quit before you file an eviction for non-payment. You can give the notice if the rent is one day late. Not sure about TN but it’s probably similar.
Yeah, my silly Euro brain didn’t think it through.
Seems like Tennessee takes at least 4 weeks after being late on a single payment. They have to send a two weeks notice and then they can evict you in two weeks.
So it’s more like two weeks until they can evict you, and two weeks to pack your stuff.
Rough
When the two week notice is up, then the landlord can file what is basically a lawsuit. Then the tenant has to get served notice of when the court date is. So it could take a month or two just to get in front of a judge. Then if the tenant wants to contest the eviction and go to trial a new court date will usually be set for trial. Then if the tenant loses the judge will give them a certain amount of time to move.
This is talking about appealing an eviction to a higher court after a tenant loses. You can see how someone could abuse that system to stay for several more months by filing a frivolous appeal.
You can see at the end of the article that there was a judgement reached in error before the court date and the judge told them they would have to appeal. So in order to fix someone else’s mistake they would have to post a years rent when they were probably behind on rent anyway.
Which is an extension of the “same rules for everyone” bullshit. A works with the existing law, B doesn’t. It’s just rules same for everyone, right? But group 1 needs A every day, and doesn’t need B at all, while group 2 is the inverse. Obviously laws benefit group 1, but due to the quoted thing being accepted as truth by many people, the injustice stands.
Same as with “territorial integrity” when it’s the integrity of some squatter state genociding or expelling people whose land it squatted on, and with clueless or malicious bystanders saying that those people should be happy that it doesn’t bite pieces off (spolier alert - it does that too now) their nation-state because “international laws” are “the same for everyone”.
I don’t think most people think “oh, some dude signing a contract and then violating it is super cool.” I think most people here realize that the working-class landlord who is renting out a single unit for a little extra cash is basically a unicorn these days and that the vast majority of rental units are owned by people and corporations who rent as their primary or sole source of income; and that the stories of renters deliberately destroying rental units are foregrounded by these large scale landlords as a tactic to erode public sympathy for renters. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, any time you have a system that can be exploited people will exploit it. What I am saying is that these situations happen far less often than ones like the linked article describes, where a tenant was evicted because they were told the incorrect court date.
How about we just do away with landlords entirely and make every property by default mortgagable so that apartment dwellers at minimum wage can still recoup some of their monthly housing costs when selling the apartment. There’s no reason this can’t be done. Most cheap old low-end apartments are worth relatively little (dependent on location and other factors, but still). If the market was flooded with them due to redistribution of shelter and an end to landlording, the prices would drop much further, potentially making theoretical down payments comparable with the first month’s rent + damage deposit. With the added bonus that no one steals your monthly payments. Housing co-ops are also great. There’s just no reason for landlords to exist. Shelter is a human right, and there’s no reason for a renting class to exist except to serve the interests of private landlords and enable the existence of a permanently impoverished working class.
A tenant who falls behind on rent isn’t a squatter they are still a tenant and normal procedures already allow for removing the tenant in a reasonable time frame. The issue that obtains some places is that courts are too poorly funded and over burdened to deal with issues in a timely fashion.
A squatter is someone who moves in without paying. This gets ugly when as above court issus applies and squatter situations get in line with normal eviction.
WA instituted an expedited process that allows for removal of folks who were never tenants with just police so this doesn’t happen.
That is a smart solution to actual squatting fully funding whomever handles your eviction cases is another.
If you want to take it to the next level look at Finland who almost eliminated homelessness by housing people who are temporarily in a bad way and Europeans generally providing support for those with health problems.
People who fall behind usually aren’t stealing from the landlord and celebrating they are usually falling into a financial hole and living every day in increasing stress as they scramble for a solution. Ask me how I know.
It’s technically a tenancy dispute, but the actual problem is the same. Someone occupies a residence wothout permission. I agree providing tiny home style emergency housing is fine - there are plenty in my area and they are valuable for the community - but saddling landlords with higher risk results in worse rates (assuming no rent monopoly in the area) and agreements for the majority of tenants who are paying rent without issue.
The actual problem is not the same at all. The squatter is unambiguously committing a crime. Their willingness to commit a crime and inability to have their own home is a massive predictor of problems up to and including the total destruction of your property and its sufficiently black and white that local law enforcement given a proper law can act within the hour to evict and arrest someone who has no right to be where he is.
The tenant who is behind on rent is a situation fraught with complexity which should be handled by a judge so that everything can be heard. What’s more having this whole process take at least several weeks is a good thing. I gives people time to come to a resolution to avoid eviction. To borrow money. To get paid and come up with the money. To make alternative housing plans. To make a plan with landlord to pay over time. This keeps families from being put out on the street promotes social stability and well-being. Having matters handled lawfully and carefully is an acceptable burden.
It also doesn’t increase rent because the small downside risk doesn’t magically make your property more valuable.
If you fault squatters in the midst of a homelessness crisis where upwards of 20 houses are left vacant for every unhoused person, you are either a landlord, or you have been oriented by the landowning class to ignore the massive economic and societal advantage that landlords have. To say that the issue comes down to squatters, and not to the hedge funds that are buying up streets-worth of housing at a time, is an affront to working-class people everywhere who are struggling more and more to obtain a home.
I say fuck yeah to squatters. Based. That is the “risk” that comes with being a landlord, and sometimes they strike out, so they can get fucked.
People lose money on investments all the time. Why should rental properties used as investments be any different?
My answer is no. Tough shit, people lose money on investments all the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HumancentiPad