Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »

1
0

Soon to be Evicted from House Squatting

By Onvacation follow Onvacation   2020 Jan 13, 12:58pm 279 views   19 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


"One of the homeless mothers who has been living in a vacant West Oakland house since Nov. 18 scoffed Saturday night at an offer by the house's owner to pay to move them out and shelter them for the next two months, calling the offer "an insult.""

https://m.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/Update-Moms-Call-Offer-For-Temporary-Housing-An-14968732.php?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=socialflow&fbclid=IwAR2--HPqWFnnJFO1mIs-nYS_2ogLHRgNkxY30y_nDi_bb_CJILkgbZzKXZ8
1   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2020 Jan 13, 12:59pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

They want to buy the house, but they don't want to pay for it.
2   OccasionalCortex   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 13, 3:21pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
They want to buy the house, but they don't want to pay for it.


And why should they? The 'squatters rights' laws supports them more than the owner -- despite that those laws really don't when you read them. But hey! Everyone including the judge involved is a Virtue Signalling Democrat...so.
3   mell   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 13, 3:32pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Obummer's daughters?
4   Ceffer   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 13, 5:42pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The owner needs 'Squatter Begone' fumigants. Maybe some of Gwyneth Paltrow's vagina candles will do the trick.
5   willywonka   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 13, 6:34pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Exactly why reparations. Honky fucks.
6   Automan Empire   ignore (2)   2020 Jan 13, 7:05pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

OccasionalCortex says
The 'squatters rights' laws supports them more than the owner


One does not simply squat on it to get title to a property. I've looked into the process after noticing some genuinely abandoned rural properties here in California. They'd have to start by paying all of the back property taxes and maintaining them current. They'd have to conspicuously and continuously use the property for something on the order of 5 years. Then they'd have to prevail in a quiet title action. (ETA They could invest all of this time money and effort, jump through all the legal hoops, and STILL not get title, even without another living person claiming senior interest in the property at any point in the proceedings.)

None of these things matter, because the squatters are due to be evicted by the sheriff within 5 days. I hope the owner gives the squatters NOTHING when this happens, but a big press conference declaring, "You being insulted by my offer was itself a greater insult," then puts on a Willy Wonka hat and shouts, "You get NOTHING! Good DAY!"
7   E-man   ignore (0)   2020 Jan 13, 7:31pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

“The judge's ruling means the mothers have five business days before the Alameda County Sheriff will evict them....After Friday's court ruling, Moms 4 Housing posted on Twitter that "The moms, and the community behind us, will not leave the property."

The sheriff will remove them if they don’t leave. It’s good to know that the rule of law prevails at the end of the day.
8   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2020 Jan 13, 7:37pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

One does not simply squat on it to get title to a property. I've looked into the process after noticing some genuinely abandoned rural properties here in California. They'd have to start by paying all of the back property taxes and maintaining them current. They'd have to conspicuously and continuously use the property for something on the order of 5 years. Then they'd have to prevail in a quiet title action.

You may be confusing "Squatter's Rights" with "Adverse Possession."
9   Automan Empire   ignore (2)   2020 Jan 13, 7:50pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
You may be confusing "Squatter's Rights" with "Adverse Possession."


The people in the article are the ones who have it twisted. The tenants' "squatters rights" have run their course, hence the imminent eviction. They apparently thought they had the rights of someone who had prevailed at the adverse possession process.

I hope they don't cause deliberate damage to the property on their way out.
10   Ceffer   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 13, 10:42pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What do you do with people who can't even do free shit right?
11   HEYYOU   ignore (46)   2020 Jan 14, 7:42am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

E-man says
The sheriff will remove them if they don’t leave. It’s good to know that the rule of law prevails at the end of the day.


It would be great if the laws applied to everyone equally.

Corporations are people = People are corporations.
"How These Fortune 500 Companies (Legally) Paid $0 In Taxes Last Year"

Work your asses off,RepCons. How much did you idiots pay in taxes in 2019?

https://fortune.com/2019/04/11/amazon-starbucks-corporate-tax-avoidance/
13   Ceffer   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 18, 8:06am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What happened to the dignity of stealing shit with righteous indignation? Why wait for third party free shit from the Guv when you can seize your own?

Don't they realize that being knocked up in a ditch confers sanctity and privilege?
14   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2020 Jan 18, 8:09am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ceffer says
What happened to the dignity of stealing shit with righteous indignation?

The house was worth more than $1,000.
15   Ceffer   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 18, 8:21am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
The house was worth more than $1,000.



This is why math is evil. What White Privilege ASSHOLE put the speed limit on non-felonious mugging using racist math?
16   NoCoupForYou   ignore (5)   2020 Jan 18, 8:28am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

A University of California-Los Angeles professor made her views on climate change public in a recent op-ed, questioning American private homeownership in response to climate change, particularly California’s forest fires.

Professor Kian Goah, assistant professor of urban planning at UCLA, whose expertise includes urban ecological design, spatial politics, and social mobilization in the issues of climate change and global urbanization, argued in an op-ed for The Nation that what makes the California forest fires even worse is urban planning. Its subtitle reads, "if we want to keep cities safe in the face of climate change, we need to seriously question the ideal of private homeownership."

“Yes, climate change intensifies the fires—but the ways in which we plan and develop our cities makes them even more destructive. The growth of urban regions in the second half of the 20th century has been dominated by economic development, aspirations of homeownership, and belief in the importance of private property,” she writes.

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=14183&fbclid=IwAR1-N-C5lMHzrJMCw2MJZswcwU4tIbYXMscWok3CFMraa2oy5jSNcF9Si-g

How about questioning Tenure?
17   Tenpoundbass   ignore (16)   2020 Jan 18, 9:29am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The founding fathers gave us the 2@ so we could defend our homes.
There's no reason to ever be a victim of it. Just walk in start doing spring cleaning, getting junk out of the house, and shoot the first intruder that tries to stop you.
Pro Tip aim for the head, so the Commie Theif can't lawyer up with his Liberal Lawyer fuck and meth buddy and sue you.
18   Ceffer   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 18, 9:42am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

NoCoupForYou says
Professor Kian Goah, assistant professor of urban planning at UCLA

"Congratulations to Professor Goah, for reducing Urban Planning to the dog's breakfast babble mouth standards of Ethnic and Sexual Diversity studies with bullhorn propaganda agenda dressing!"

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions