NYC - Woman locks out squatters in her home, gets arrested for changing the locks

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

What if one believes that Taxation=Theft? Then what?

Then there is no abandonment.
The owner is in perpetuity and passes to his heirs.

 

[PAF]

As was noted, who decides that?

Government, when they condemn and eminent domain a property for having grass too long?

Brother, we had a discussion years ago, and I remember you were opposed to the idea of firemen dragging hoses across your property without your permission, even if the fire they were fighting was threatening your own property.

Holy cow, I forgot but now I remember that!

Nothing has changed and I completely stand by that. The question is, how and when is a property deemed abandoned, and if actually abandoned, at what point can it be homesteaded by another in order to put said land to use?

I have to admit that I have no clear answer to that, but it is something to ponder.

 

[Anti Federalist]

At what point do you think is reasonable?

And there's that magic word again.

A man may own a piece of property in a residential area and decide that he's going to erect a pig waste and fat rendering plant on it, right in the middle of a bunch of residential homes.

Clearly that is not reasonable and his actions on his property will have a direct effect on the neighboring properties.

In a high trust, high IQ, homogenous society an honest man would not entertain such an idea and a dishonest one would be sued, without government zoning or heavy handed restrictions.

But that is not what we live in any more, and as more cabrons like Juan Carlos there invade and cover the nation in the unwholesome third world flood, we'll see more and more of that, and more and more heavy handed restrictions on what you can do with your property.

That is, until the Marxists have enough power and arm the invaders and appropriate all private property and savings, like Hugo Chavez did.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Holy cow, I forgot but now I remember that!

Nothing has changed and I completely stand by that. The question is, how and when is a property deemed abandoned, and if actually abandoned, at what point can it be homesteaded by another in order to put said land to use?

I have to admit that I have no clear answer to that, but it is something to ponder.

I am of the mind that, unless you have clear title and ownership has been passed legitimately from one entity to you, then you are not the owner.

Let those properties that are truly abandoned, be taken into a town or charitable management trust to be maintained and put up for sale.

 

[PAF]

And there's that magic word again.

A man may own a piece of property in a residential area and decide that he's going to erect a pig waste and fat rendering plant on it, right in the middle of a bunch of residential homes.

Clearly that is not reasonable and his actions on his property will have a direct effect on the neighboring properties.

In a high trust, high IQ, homogenous society an honest man would not entertain such an idea and a dishonest one would be sued, without government zoning or heavy handed restrictions.

But that is not what we live in any more, and as more cabrons like Juan Carlos there invade and cover the nation in the unwholesome third world flood, we'll see more and more of that, and more and more heavy handed restrictions on what you can do with your property.

That is, until the Marxists have enough power and arm the invaders and appropriate all private property and savings, like Hugo Chavez did.

AF, please leave immigrants out of this. IMO it is muddying up the conversation. At what point is property deemed abandoned if the owner is nowhere to found [dead for all I know] and it is disintegrating into nothing while directly and negatively affecting property owners in that local vicinity? Do you just live with it, with no award of damages to your property?

Let those properties that are truly abandoned, be taken into a town or charitable management trust to be maintained and put up for sale.

Why let government take control of it, and who would get that money upon sale???

 

[Anti Federalist]

Holy cow, I forgot but now I remember that!

Nothing has changed and I completely stand by that.

But see, that is not being reasonable.

To allow your own home to burn down, because you were not there to give firemen the permission to cross your property to fight the original fire, in your neighbor's house, is more than unreasonable.

That's cutting off your nose to spite...no, that is tearing your whole face off to prove a ideological point that is, at it's core, unreasonable.

 

[PAF]

But see, that is not being reasonable.

To allow your own home to burn down, because you were not there to give firemen the permission to cross your property to fight the original fire, in your neighbor's house, is more than unreasonable.

That's cutting off your nose to spite...no, that is tearing your whole face off to prove a ideological point that is, at it's core, unreasonable.

The fact that I reside here and did not abandon my home, if it were to burn and affect other property owners, I would be fully liable for damages. Once again, my goodness, we are talking about abandonment.

 

[Anti Federalist]

AF, please leave immigrants out of this

I cannot, because that is what started this discussion, foreign invaders using bleeding heart tenant law to illegally squat and acquire property.

Why let government take control of it, and who would get that money upon sale???

I answered the question as to what to do about truly abandoned property that is a public menace.

I recall, years ago when I was living in Palm Beach, there was a notorious ghetto and a row of crack houses on a street called Tamarind Ave.

The crime, murder and mayhem got so out of control the county sheriff hired an excavating firm, condemned all the shacks on the whole street and had them drive three CAT D-9s right down the center of it and leveled the whole damn thing down to bare sand. That's an extreme solution, but it worked.

It doesn't have to be government, like I said, it could be a charitable trust.

But this problem can be easily solved, without giving the green light to the invading army to just start squatting in every house that has some uncut grass or peeling paint.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The fact that I reside here and did not abandon my home, if it were to burn and affect other property owners, I would be fully liable for damages. Once again, my goodness, we are talking about abandonment.

I understand that you are looking for a solution or answer to address true abandonment, and I think I have.

But in the fire example that were talking about, there are many things in life that can not ever be replaced by a damage claim check.

What priceless heirlooms might have gone up or family pets...the list is endless.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Why let government take control of it, and who would get that money upon sale???

Give it back to the taxpayers at the end of the year.

 

[PAF]

I cannot, because that is what started this discussion, foreign invaders using bleeding heart tenant law to illegally squat and acquire property.



I answered the question as to what to do about truly abandoned property that is a public menace.

I recall, years ago when I was living in Palm Beach, there was a notorious ghetto and a row of crack houses on a street called Tamarind Ave.

The crime, murder and mayhem got so out of control the county sheriff hired an excavating firm, condemned all the shacks on the whole street and had them drive three CAT D-9s right down the center of it and leveled the whole damn thing down to bare sand. That's an extreme solution, but it worked.

It doesn't have to be government, like I said, it could be a charitable trust.

But this problem can be easily solved, without giving the green light to the invading army to just start squatting in every house that has some uncut grass or peeling paint.

Here, there are buildings which are completely dilapidated. Lot's of them, in fact. They have been abandoned for years. Once in while, somebody comes along, pays the buck to buy it, completely renovates it, and then sells it for profit. Recently, a community group of people took over quite a few of those homes and are currently renovating them in order to donate them to low-income locals. I've seen a few of them finished and done, and it appears that the low-income folks are actually appreciative and taking good care of them. They have brought values up so obviously that is good for the community.

I haven't looked at the tax-rates or anything, or what jobs those folks are working, but at least some are taking interest in improving the community.

Sorry to take the thread off-topic, I'm still wondering at what point is something considered abandoned while respecting private property rights [not looking for government requirements/solutions].

 

[ClaytonB]

... surrounding property values within a community...

This is the first sip on your way to guzzling down the entire punch-bowl of Marxist kool-aid, and it's part of the reason that the US today is an unrecognizable 3rd-world hell-hole compared to the nation that our Founders established. You have no property claim to the effect of my property on "surrounding property values". If the Clampetts have the money to buy the Beverly Hills estate next door to you, and they set up a chicken coop on the roof, that's their business. If you can't stand the sound or sight of chickens, the world's a big place -- sell your bespoke, postmodern-architecture Beverly Hills estate and go find somewhere else to live. "Eyesore laws" are the first step to Marxist tyranny.

If we still had a functioning Constitution, we wouldn't have to argue about this -- States could try it and crash-and-burn, while States with common-sense could stick to the obvious principles of freedom. But the Constitution has been rufied, and so we're stuck trying to force a "national code" for every detail of community law onto every part of the country, from NY high-rise condos, to Louisiana trailer parks. And people wonder why everything is politics now...

 

[PAF]

This is the first sip on your way to guzzling down the entire punch-bowl of Marxist kool-aid, and it's part of the reason that the US today is an unrecognizable 3rd-world hell-hole compared to the nation that our Founders established. You have no property claim to the effect of my property on "surrounding property values". If the Clampetts have the money to buy the Beverly Hills estate next door to you, and they set up a chicken coop on the roof, that's their business. If you can't stand the sound or sight of chickens, the world's a big place -- sell your bespoke, postmodern-architecture Beverly Hills estate and go find somewhere else to live. "Eyesore laws" are the first step to Marxist tyranny.

If we still had a functioning Constitution, we wouldn't have to argue about this -- States could try it and crash-and-burn, while States with common-sense could stick to the obvious principles of freedom. But the Constitution has been rufied, and so we're stuck trying to force a "national code" for every detail of community law onto every part of the country, from NY high-rise condos, to Louisiana trailer parks. And people wonder why everything is politics now...

That's the problem with folks who don't read context, and selectively section out parts they want to hear while disregarding the rest. I shouldn't even have to state that I am a full believer/supporter of private property rights and contract rights, I have posted many times concerning that topic.

Did you even bother to read the conversation? In a nut shell:

I know that if a house that has sat vacant for years/decades with a caved in roof began to affect my home (wind blowing debris into my yard and/or smashing my windows), and I attempted to locate the owner with no resolve, and the community/town was unable to locate or do anything about it, I would do what I need to do, including homestead it if I wish.

 

[ClaytonB]

Did you even bother to read the conversation? In a nut shell:

Yep. I'm carving out that specific point in order to avoid having to write a 13,000-word essay to respond to everything. I also sometimes do that to, when it's worthwhile.

The point I'm trying to highlight isn't about your beliefs, rather, it's about the beliefs of Americans, generally. It is widely held that "the public" has many "property claims" in the private property of individuals (and corporations). This is the legal foundation on which most Marxist policy stands. In certain jurisdictions, based on zoning, you may have a "property right" to the sunlight falling on your house, meaning, your neighbors cannot construct any structure so tall that it would obstruct your sunlight. But this property right itself is actually saleable, and so a mega-corp developer that wants to build a high-rise can purchase the sunlight-rights from the surrounding properties onto which the high-rise will cast its shadow. As it stands, there is nothing opposed to property-rights since all buyers of real estate in that area know that that's how the rules of real estate are structured in that specific market. The problem is that the State has the power to ex post facto rewrite those rules, and when their private-sector buddies grease their palms well enough, that's exactly what happens. The effect of whatever that rule-change happens to be, is that the values of the properties held by their buddies skyrocket. And all of this is possible because we have a flawed belief that the State (or "the public") has some kind of ill-defined "property right" in anyone's private property whenever it decides to. In short, the zoning planners have the authority to simply remove the sunlight-rights of people living in a particular zone by a simple wave of the administrative wand. And when the palms of such planners are sufficiently well-greased to that end, that's exactly what happens. Thus, we see that this principle of the general-public having some kind amorphous and unbounded property right in the private property of all citizens is the legal foundation of Marxist tyranny. Today, it's sunlight rights we seize. Tomorrow, it's just the entire property deed itself. It's a sliding scale that goes from "eyesore" laws to State ownership of all property.

 

[PAF]

Yep. I'm carving out that specific point in order to avoid having to write a 13,000-word essay to respond to everything. I also sometimes do that to, when it's worthwhile.

The point I'm trying to highlight isn't about your beliefs, rather, it's about the beliefs of Americans, generally. It is widely held that "the public" has many "property claims" in the private property of individuals (and corporations). This is the legal foundation on which most Marxist policy stands. In certain jurisdictions, based on zoning, you may have a "property right" to the sunlight falling on your house, meaning, your neighbors cannot construct any structure so tall that it would obstruct your sunlight. But this property right itself is actually saleable, and so a mega-corp developer that wants to build a high-rise can purchase the sunlight-rights from the surrounding properties onto which the high-rise will cast its shadow. As it stands, there is nothing opposed to property-rights since all buyers of real estate in that area know that that's how the rules of real estate are structured in that specific market. The problem is that the State has the power to ex post facto rewrite those rules, and when their private-sector buddies grease their palms well enough, that's exactly what happens. The effect of whatever that rule-change happens to be, is that the values of the properties held by their buddies skyrocket. And all of this is possible because we have a flawed belief that the State (or "the public") has some kind of ill-defined "property right" in anyone's private property whenever it decides to. In short, the zoning planners have the authority to simply remove the sunlight-rights of people living in a particular zone by a simple wave of the administrative wand. And when the palms of such planners are sufficiently well-greased to that end, that's exactly what happens. Thus, we see that this principle of the general-public having some kind amorphous and unbounded property right in the private property of all citizens is the legal foundation of Marxist tyranny. Today, it's sunlight rights we seize. Tomorrow, it's just the entire property deed itself. It's a sliding scale that goes from "eyesore" laws to State ownership of all property.

Well said, I don't disagree with any of that. But, just to clarify, the topic that I was focusing on had to to with legitimate abandonment of property. And if said property was legitimately abandoned, what rights do I have to homestead it, as well as so-called "squatters" who put that property to use. To clarify: I am not speaking about squatters who squat on non-abandoned land.

 

[susano]

For what it’s worth, Judge Jeanine Pirro on The Five, who was a Judge in New York, explained that what the woke DAs, Judges and Police have done is applied tenants rights law to what should be classified as trespassers. The “squatters” should be arrested for trespassing. They don't meet the criteria for adverse possession.

As I assumed, it’s a case of a woke system twisting or ignoring the law.

See, that's it. As usual, it doesn't matter what the law says when the system ignores it. Same thing happening with the border. Same thing happening with really dangerous and violent criminals.

 

[susano]

IMHO if I vacate a property that has value and no longer go there or update/upgrade it, that is my business. If at some point in time the taxes are not paid and the county takes possession then I guess I lost my right of ownership. If taxes are paid then I have not abandoned it. My guess is if your Grandfather had 10,000 acres in Nebraska and didn't live there and hadn't been there for a very long time and the farm house was run down, he wasn't giving the property away to anyone that wanted to stay there.

I have a friend who married into a wealthy Costa Rican family and she lived down there for 20 years. She came back to the US because she said stealing is considered okay in Latin America and virtually everything has to be nailed down. Though there are laws against it, the police and prosecutors look the other way because it's just accepted that you grab what you can, when you can, and good for you. So, my friend's husband owned some land down there and his brother built a house on it and nobody caught and it became his. Caused a big shitstorm in the family. When you talk about open land that nobody is checking up on, I could see a situation like that happening. Use it or lose it. Now, in some states where mineral rights are a big thing, I could also see the adverse possession attempt not working out but, maybe, if the mineral rights are underground the squatter would be in the clear since they're on top. Dunno! Glad I don't have to worry about it. My husband and I dealt with a near squatter situation and it was awful.

 

[susano]

Here, there are buildings which are completely dilapidated. Lot's of them, in fact. They have been abandoned for years. Once in while, somebody comes along, pays the buck to buy it, completely renovates it, and then sells it for profit. Recently, a community group of people took over quite a few of those homes and are currently renovating them in order to donate them to low-income locals. I've seen a few of them finished and done, and it appears that the low-income folks are actually appreciative and taking good care of them. They have brought values up so obviously that is good for the community.

I haven't looked at the tax-rates or anything, or what jobs those folks are working, but at least some are taking interest in improving the community.

Sorry to take the thread off-topic, I'm still wondering at what point is something considered abandoned while respecting private property rights [not looking for government requirements/solutions].

Where do you live that has all of this abandoned property? Would those be a case of where local government became the "owner" and auctioned them off? I never see anything abandoned around me but I live in the semi burbs where people moving to. I'm in the Grand Rapids area witch, unfortunately, is booming, but there are other towns where I imagine there are abandoned properties but I'm sure that cities or townships control them. In Detroit there were hundreds, maybe thousands of abandoned properties and many were bulldozed for community farms. I'd like to know if anyone is paying property taxes on those.

 

[PAF]

Where do you live that has all of this abandoned property? Would those be a case of where local government became the "owner" and auctioned them off? I never see anything abandoned around me but I live in the semi burbs where people moving to. I'm in the Grand Rapids area witch, unfortunately, is booming, but there are other towns where I imagine there are abandoned properties but I'm sure that cities or townships control them. In Detroit there were hundreds, maybe thousands of abandoned properties and many were bulldozed for community farms. I'd like to know if anyone is paying property taxes on those.

When I said here, I meant the vicinity, Youngstown, the next town over across the line. Years ago where I worked, all one could hear were gun shots on a day to day basis, per capita worse than even Detroit. Since then the crime has gone down and there is interest in revitalizing the area. Back in the day there were shot up homes that were going for an average $500-$1,500, but nobody in their right mind would touch them. Owners were either killed or simply fled without selling, a perfect example of abandonment. Very recently, some of the homes were able to be restored, others had to be completely torn down and built from the ground up. On occasion when I ride past the area I see more of those properties being revitalized.

Taxes there are still on the high side due to being in the city, as compared to surrounding townships where taxes are lower but home cost is high. The city auctioned some of them off, other homes/properties investors offer to take possession for pennies on the dollar. As far as taxes, I've never heard of anybody being able to escape that, other than previous owners who bolted and left everything behind.

As far as squatters, I'm sure there are some, but are they really squatters if the property was truly abandoned? I guess in a sense they are, but then I tend to view that as homesteading ;-)

 

[susano]

When I said here, I meant the vicinity, Youngstown, the next town over across the line. Years ago where I worked, all one could hear were gun shots on a day to day basis, per capita worse than even Detroit. Since then the crime has gone down and there is interest in revitalizing the area. Back in the day there were shot up homes that were going for an average $500-$1,500, but nobody in their right mind would touch them. Owners were either killed or simply fled without selling, a perfect example of abandonment. Very recently, some of the homes were able to be restored, others had to be completely torn down and built from the ground up. On occasion when I ride past the area I see more of those properties being revitalized.

Taxes there are still on the high side due to being in the city, as compared to surrounding townships where taxes are lower but home cost is high. The city auctioned some of them off, other homes/properties investors offer to take possession for pennies on the dollar. As far as taxes, I've never heard of anybody being able to escape that, other than previous owners who bolted and left everything behind.

As far as squatters, I'm sure there are some, but are they really squatters if the property was truly abandoned? I guess in a sense they are, but then I tend to view that as homesteading ;-)

I knew someone who bought a HUD house for a dollar. Had to bring it up to code. He is a carpenter and did a great job. Didn't save the neighborhood, though, because it was hood and still is. My bf and I lived a block over with crack hoes across the street and kids in diapers out at midnight. Lost cause.

So, it sounds like you're in the "rust belt" and I can see there being a lot of abandoned homes. Maybe whole towns. Gary Indiana probably has tons! I think getting involved in taking on any kind of property like is for people in their 20s because it's so much work.