The "Squatter's Rights" Problem
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- i'm going to evict every single one of you living in my walls
-----
Join the community discord! ► / discord
Watch Us LIVE (And Click Dat Sub Button!) ► / shortfatotaku
SFO Arcade Archive Channel ► / gameboomer
Dev Kit Channel ► / @thedevkit
Dev & Friends Channel ► @DevAndFriends
Devonetized Channel ► @SFOBackups
-----
SUPPORT THE SHOW:
BTC:bc1q6udqgvfm9uaj59l24ut7f73wvsfu707kk6pn3m
SubscribeStar! ► www.subscribes...
Streamlabs! ► streamlabs.com...
Patreon! ► / shortfatotaku
Paypal! ► paypal.me/short...
Humble Bundle Affiliate Link! ► www.humblebund...
Amazon CAN Affiliate Link! ► amzn.to/322aFAa
Amazon USA Affiliate Link! ► amzn.to/30PLxgN
Amazon CAN Wishlist! ► www.amazon.ca/...
Amazon USA Wishlist! ► www.amazon.com...
-----
SFO-CIAL MEDIA! HYUK HYUK
DA TWEETS ► currently banned lol
DA FACES ► / sfotaku
DA GABS ► www.gab.com/sh...
DA MINDS ► www.minds.com/...
DA PARLERS ► parler.com/pro...
DA STEAMS ► steamcommunity....
-----
Credits:
Thumbnail ►
Background ►
Music ►
Video Synopsis: Dev tiptoed around the main issue using historical events, in times when civilizations were far less established, in order to avoid giving up his pretentious centrist position.
did i not say in the video "i think squatters rights are bs"??
kek
Take your meds, and try watching the video again, paying very close attention to the things he actually says.
putin logic
@@ShortFatOtaku
Dev you have a major problem in your community where like 50% of your comment section is full of retards who either hate you or *selectively* hate you every time you say the word “rightoid”
I don’t know how the fuck you fix this but these retards are annoying as fuck
If Uncle Sam won't protect your home, Sam Colt will. That is where this will eventually lead.
"You wanna lawyer!? Here's one from Smith and Wesson"-Sam.
Adverse appropiation happens due to you not protecting it in the first place
Property owner: "this is my glock 40, this is my problem solver"
Squatting invader: *gulp*
FWIW, it's common for police to bring guns to evictions for a reason. It would be very stupid to do this.
god willing
>Be illegal immigrant
>Break into private property
>Get additional rights and protections
GOD BLESS THE USA
OOHHH SAAAAYYY CAAAN YOOOOUUU SEEEE
Squatters rights are good. It gives us power to strike back against greedy landowners who keep houses empty on purpose. As someone who got their current house by squatting and winning a lengthy legal battle, I think more need to be empathetic to the plight of squatters, who are victimized in unjust evictions constantly.
Not a socialist country btw, it's totally different in Euope, see : ... Well that's the end of my presentation, thank you for your time
@@LeiSnowsbased, only sane person in the comments.
@@LeiSnows Okay time to yoink youre house now LMAO soycialism
There can't be a landlord tenant issue if they aren't tenants. There is no rental agreement, there is no rent. IIRC she inherited this property, and the idea that her parents could have medical issues and have to leave their home, die, and have the funeral and inheritance divided out, within that time somebody could break in and claim squatters rights because 30 days is asinine.
Most of the laws were written at a time when there were verbal lease agreements were common and they didn't want one owner have a verbal lease agreement with a tenant and then sell the house and now the new owner has no idea there are even tenants and just kick them to the street. Now these criminals use the law to their advantage.
A fake lease can be made in 10 minutes with your name on it.
@@TheBaldr And nobody in the entirety of the massive US of A has thought of changing that in these hundreds of years? OOOFFF.
@@TheBaldrfalse.
the new york 30 day squatters rights was passed recently, like 2019 recently.
seriously, what was the thought process for the 30 days thing? that's just insane...
The only rights a squatter has is picking their favourite number from 5.56, 7.62, .303, 9 or 12.7.
.357
12 g
Hello wild yuzusoft pfp.
Oh shit got real
.303? You clearing houses with Enfields?
lol I audit government databases for a living. The idea of the US government, or any state, keeping property records straight is so ludicrous, they can't even get medical transportation records right.
This is why I think having third parties notarize leases would be the best solution. This way we keep things decentralized while also making leases harder, if not downright impossible to fake.
@@jemm113 I'm amazed this isn't already a thing, so many other things need witnessed signing by a notary public but not on one of the most important documents anyone ever signs. Smdh we are stupid
We use a central system here in Texas (best country on Earth) at the county level. There is an electronic database for convenience, but paper deeds kept by the county clerk are the actual law. It's a good system, best of both worlds. County governments tend to have their act together (relatively speaking), because it's notihng but boring administrative jobs with little real power, so the work attracts the right sort of people. Nothing is perfect, but it's darn good.
@@SkorjOlafsen Texas' culture probably makes this viable as hell, even your corrupt politicians are still Texans, mostly.
Hell they can't even get the voter rolls to be correct.
( by design ).
And the squatters get free attorneys whilst the owner has to pay for the fight.
Doesn't that happen in almost all lawsuits where you are the defender?
I think it's a civil case. Do they give public defenders for civil cases?
@@danielutriabrooks477 no. This is for a civil case that the owner has to file. Usually, you are self funded on both sides. This is very different. These organizations have been set up so that the squatters don't pay a dime. The original intent was to provide legal services for unfair landlord tenant disputes. Squatters aren't tenants.
@@lisapop5219I see. Are those organizations NGOs or do they get some money from the goverment?
@@name-vi6fs no. That's why these organizations popped up. They were started (imho with good intentions) to provide counsel in legitimate landlord tenant disputes. Squatters aren't tenants.
I'm getting a power rack installed so I can literally squat in your walls
This is why everyone needs firearms
And a government that upholds Castle Doctrine.
So they don't go after you afterward...
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 This
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 As being seen in New York or California, if the government refuses to uphold the rule of law, or does it selectively, do you even have a law system?
To protect themselves against evictions?
If so, then I'm all for it.
@@marcusverschollen9634 Someone who owns a house is going to be able to bring more heat to a fight than a person squatting on their property, I wouldn't open that door.
"Squatter's Rights"?! I'll give you a right, I'll give you a left.
Give 'em the Ohio skibidi.
L.C.H.C.!!!
A double tap and a hole in the ground is good enough.
New York is hell. The legal owner is trying to sell the house and it was stolen from her, and the cops had the gaul to arrest her. If I were her, I’d say fuck the Homeowners Court, I’d go straight to the Supreme Court and sue the city for that.
I’d go Postal
Someone mentioned that the neighbors gathered in front of the house and let the squatters know just how welcome they are in the neighborhood, so they left not long after. I don't know if that's true, but it looks like vigilantism might be the only answer at this point.
@@Psykomancer And not just random bros the owner knows, it NEEDS to be the neighbors, the squatter needs to know that the entire environment around them is hostile and they cannot feel safe abiding in a stolen home.
Her issue was she tried to evict them herself, which was the crime.
When you abandon your property, you also abandon your rights.
In the UK at least you need to get a interim possession order ASAP, which will give the squatters 48 hours to vacate and prevent them from resquatting the property for a year.
@@GangsterFrankensteinComputer🤡
A property that is for sale or someone goes on vacation, that is not "abandoned"
Also none of these recent cases have been long term abandoned homes. There is even a case of a woman being murdered and stuffed in a duffle bag in the closet so that people could take and squat in her home.
Squatting should not be allowed. I have the deed, it's my house. Get out. Simple as that. Even in that NY case that guy admitted he was only there a few days, admitted he was there to take the house from her, and he had no deed or lease agreement. That's evidence enough right there that this is completely illegal. And what about the crimes he committed breaking into the home and vandalizing it?
It is incredibly weird for someone to even go on holiday for a week and not have your neighbours check come and water your plants for you.
And if you're trying to sell a property, you should have a significant amount of traffic from retaliators, prospective buyers, cleaners and gardeners.
A property would look an absolute state if it had been left to it's own for a whole month.
@@GangsterFrankensteinComputeryou're starting from the assumption that someone has plants in their house to water in the first place.
Also, in the US at least, it's quite rare for someone to move out of their house before selling it. If the house is for sale and empty, it's either bank-owned, new construction, a rehab, or former rental. Most people can't afford to pay 2 mortgages, and outside of bank-owned it would usually be the owner mowing the lawn.
@@GangsterFrankensteinComputer not everybody has plants and shit and trying to sell a house *can* be a longer process as well.
Especially, if you are just a private individual doing it on the side to your actual job etc.
This whole situation is whole issue is to the detriment of 2 people:
Lower end rich people with multiple homes and regular middle or even lower class people that inhereted.
This shit will never be an issue for large corporations and the ultra rich that probably have groundskeepers or staff on site...
@@giin97 yes, I need to check my privilege lol.
@@NoFlu it seems weird to me that you'd be selling a property but not have regular viewings, or keeping the place clean.
I also think it's weird that someone would start living in your house and your neighbours just wouldn't notice.
There's definitely some deeper issues at play here.
Squatters should have no rights. Plain and simple, if you don't own the property; you don't have any rights to be there once the owner evicts you.
Thats amazing and shit. but if your societal function does not support those at the bottom, they will do what they need to keep going. And theyre well more likely to justify something against someone who shows no empathy towards them.
Someone explained that the idea behind Squatter's Rights was someone would find an abandoned-home in the Wild West or some place back then, live there and spend years repairing it, then suddenly the original owner would come back. So it was like a solution to solving the dilema between the original-owner and the new owner who's put investment into the property.
Obviously in this day and age that is likely
@@CatgirlExplise6039 empathy ends when you steal something that is not yours.
@@CatgirlExplise6039ill have empathy when they arent invading.
@@CatgirlExplise6039Nice moral grandstanding. Hey, can I come live at your house and destroy what I want in it like a wild animal before leaving?
In New York where the time required is only 30 days, extending that time might be all that is needed. Steep penalties for forging documents to bamboozle law enforcement like the guy in the news report did would also help deter the criminals from taking advantage of the long time it takes to investigate.
It really just needs to be made so it takes effect after around a decade or a little more, as it is not a bad law in principle
@@danielutriabrooks477 Basically. The concept of squatter's rights is not bad, *IF* there is a solid recourse for property owners to defend their pre-existing deed in the event a property is not abandoned, but inactive.
DeSantis recently passed a law in Florida which allows you to kick out squatters immediately with heavy legal repercussions if you do so to a tenant. That way there's punishment for the criminal on both ends.
@@Harley_MitchellyYeah, altougth too many people here go internet tough guy and oppose the concept completely due to, well, abject ignorance
@@danielutriabrooks477 I'll give ignorance more credit here. This is not exactly the kind of rental law I'd expect most people to know, so most people in general are probably operating off that more intuitive understanding of how this works.
"The rightoids, of course, spin this as a failure of soft immigration policy." Dev, I appreciate the desire to be nuanced but how else are you supposed to read this? This is basic cause and effect, no "spin" needed.
I'm starting to think that since Dev is a filthy canuck, maybe he doesn't even realize that his understanding of English was somehow automatically affected by his location/birth place and he simply actually doesn't quite get the implications behind saying that somebody "spins" something in some way.
Because squatters' law is not necessarily the effect of the cause that is a "soft immigration policy". The two do not in fact have a direct causal link. They *may* in a given situation, but they do not *inherently*.
@@Vulgarth1 We've de facto allowed millions of unvetted individuals into the country through illegal means, in combination with many of those individuals coming from countries that are in near-lawless states of anarchy. Many of those individuals are then homeless due to no plan once they make it here, leading to some of them to invade homes. Squatters laws are the mechanism that makes dealing with that situation a pain in the ass, not the cause of the home invasion itself. The cause of the home invasion is the introduction of unknown criminal elements into the ecosystem.
@@Lich230 So you agree that squatters' law doesn't cause legal immigration.
@@Vulgarth1 The context directly before the quote in my original context is "So when you have an illegal immigrant who's angrily shouting in Spanish about how he's just learned about American squatter's rights law, and how he and his friends intend to start stealing property, it's no surprise to me that people would react negatively. This guy appears to be bragging with hate in his voice that he can simply break into your country and take from you with impunity."
To then say this being due to soft on immigration policy is "rightoid spin" is to claim that there is no proper casual link between soft on immigration policy and the presence of this individual being able to be in the country. That is ludicrous on its face, as if we properly enforced immigration law that person would not be here. At no point do I assert that the existence of squatters law directly causes illegal immigration, although as videos like the one in discussion get around I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they exacerbate it.
The idea of a libertarian socialist is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. You can't be a libertarian and a socialist, the two concepts are diametrically opposed and have completely incompatible values. It's like claiming to be a libertarian fascist.
Liberal socialists are just anarcho-communists that dislike the label and don't actually want to live by the principles of it. Their entire philosophy can be summarized as "I want government to give me thing".
I agree with this. Libertarian socialist doesn't mean jack shit because socialism requires some sort of centralized body to function (hence they are often riddled with bureaucrats) whereas libertarians are against centralization if at all to begin with. It's a contradiction, like an authoritarian anarchist.
"THEORY BRO!"
You as a human being can 1000% uphold contradictory axioms, that doesn't mean they can manifest into reality without so much compromise that the system either breaks down or bends in one direction or the other. So libertarian socialists can and do exist, but libertarian socialism in action is an oxymoron
Want until you hear about National Anarchism lol
I’m squatting on this comment
i'm squatting on the toilet
You can't! I have a lease and I have a right to be here
@@GameFuMaster The king upon his throne.
Hold on this is my fucking comment
Yah really it’s NYCs fault for allowing the squatters rights to kick in in 30 days. The is exceptionally short and stupid. Not only that but there needs to be harsher penalties for forging documentation to fool law enforcement. Though it’s not surprising that a bad state like New York would be this bad
30 days is a really long time for no one to visit a property though.
@@GangsterFrankensteinComputer Not if you just inherited it. Or for a number of other reasons. Only needing 30 days is just asking for trouble.
@@GangsterFrankensteinComputer You don't even need to be there for 30 days. Could be there for a week and just claim it was 30 days w/ some fra@udulent paperwork. It becomes a civil matter, you gain "tenants' rights" and it goes to the clogged court system for 2 years. Good luck getting the squatter out before he actually reaches 30 days.
@@GangsterFrankensteinComputer not really. You could go on a single cruise and get back to have them develop squatting rights. 30 days is also very easy to fake however well over a year will be much harder to fake. Add the fact that now you have to fight someone in a legal battle who can just up and disappear after the two years it takes for the battle to get through the slow courts. It’s a wonder that anyone still has a place in NY who ever leaves the state.
@@nobodyworthknowing8707 seems like there's much bigger issues if it's that easy to forge legal documents.
4:35 the feds don't want you to know this, but that stick you see in the woods is free, and you can take it home, i have 5000 sticks
Lol, hehehehe
Break federal law by collecting native bird feathers in the woods
Just dont do that in a national park
@@blackosprey2219 Is it owning them or collecting them? Cuz you could stroll across the border to Injun land and gank some of theirs lol, no Feds there
5000 sticks is a fire hazard and if you keep them to yourself then your local fascists cant embrace the bundle of sticks lifestyle 😢
If someone did this to me, I would go to jail for assault and battery guaranteed. I don’t give a fuck, let the jury decide my fate.
It only happens to low IQ people.
Dude, just don't get caught. Be smart ffs.
@@JohnSmith-wx9wj You can use 'em as fertilizer for your backyard, yknowhatImean?
when all is said and done, use your hot lead and take back your home
Happened to me, but luckily I live in Texas where we have castle doctrine and property rights. In 2019 I purchased an old firestation to convert into my woodworking shop and went by recently after purchase to disco er squatters were living there. I ended up changing the locks (which I was gonna do anyways) and installed cameras. Soon after the cameras caught them trying to break in. My local PD is awesome and caught the squatters the next day and gave them tresspassing warnings. Never saw them again.
In Houston last year, a lady had her renter property broken into, locks changed by the squatters, they forged multiple documents, lied in court multiple times, and it still took like a month to get them out. It really should be as simple as, get off my lawn.
they probably moved to new york to steal peoples houses there instead.
As an owner of a second vacation home; we actually pay a caretaker to look after the property. He walks the property once a week to check for any issues, taking pictures of the interior and exterior as he goes checking the lights and faucets and stuff.
All in all, it's a decent pay for like 30 minutes of work a week and it gives me and my family the peace of mind to know that our vacation home isn't falling apart or having problems. I assume it also protects me from squatters in this case since they'll have at most six days of "ownership" before I have to fly down and kick them out.
Exactly, it's a very easy problem to avoid if you actually think about it.
Blows my mind that people will just leave like $300,000-£1.5m completely unattended to.
As long as the property is in a place with a long enough period to establish squatters' rights, it should be fine. Part of me jokes that you could be paying a squatter to stay at the property lol
One good thing about squatting, it opened a new service. Hiring someone to live with the squatters and annoying them until they leave. Not really good but still interesting.
Quickly, call the Ankh Morpork Beggars Guild!
I think you're joking but this is basically a version of the broken window fallacy. Instead of using money for some more fruitful endeavor, it's just more overhead. This also an example of how crime drives poverty rather than the other way around.
Yep, that's a real thing now.
Yeah I am joking@@dycedargselderbrother5353
There's at least one guy going around as a counter-squatter, getting an actual lease from the owner and living in the occupied house and making an absolute nuisance of himself until the other people leave.
Guy's playing CS GO in real life.
Not all heroes wear capes.
Legend
Some of us Americans have come to the realization we are on our own as the govt often protects the criminal. Things will be handled accordingly without need for the "officials"
When the government fails to do its job, then it's up to the people. Any blood spilled is on their hands.
Dev totally misunderstood the squatter discourse. Almost nobody is caring about someone claiming a house after 10 years of abandonment. It's almost exclusively the moving in and pretending you have a lease situation.
i think it is an unreasonable valuing of the individual to ever respect a squatter under any circumstances, these are not contributors to society, and thus not people.
@@007kingifritCut it with the superiority complex, people far richer than you are far more evil than the ones in the video
@@danielutriabrooks477 that doesn't seem to respond to anything i said. how much money i have does not relate to the evil of squatting
@@007kingifritYou are saying that those that don't contribute to society (in a material way) are not people, trying to make a moral claim in something that is unrelated (and sometimes even contrary) to morality
@@007kingifrit Look if a house in the neighborhood has been left derelict for a decade such that it doesn't have windows or doors and parts of it have fallen down then if someone comes in, repairs the house so it looks like any other normal house then yeah they've provided value to society and I wouldn't object to them getting ownership rights.
That's not what the discussion is really about of course but saying "no not ever" is going too far.
It's more of an enforcement issue than people taking advantage of a legal loophole. The police are told that if anyone claims to have a landlord/tenant relationship, and the "landlord" denies it, they must believe it and refer the "landlord" to civil court. That's absurd: by that argument, the police could have instructions to take drunk drivers at their word that they are not drunk, e.g., on 4th amendment grounds.
This is essentially the same as the other lack-of-enforcement issues around the country. It isn't just that, for example, stealing less than $900 of stuff is a misdemeanor in California, it's that prosecutors won't bring charges and the criminals are back out on the street to steal another $900 of stuff. These are enforcement choices: it's still nominally illegal to steal things. It's still nominally illegal to claim that you have a landlord/tenant relationship when you do not. The criminals in all of these cases are simply taking advantage of lack of enforcement, not a loophole in any laws.
In other words, the "loophole" is lack of enforcement. Therefore it is mostly a lefty/progressive phenomenon.
This is effectively the nail on the head… you cannot have police utterly ignoring public order. If you force people to bankrupt themselves against unreasonable measures then you will find people no longer invest in a peaceful society, preferring violent resolution.
@@Xplora213 the police will respond to the violence though.
@@anilin6353 so what? They respond against reasonable people defending their rights and communities, but not the people creating the problem to start with?
You aren’t describing a police force, but brown shirts with extra steps.
@@Xplora213 It is called anarcho tyranny . You will not be left alone.
It shouldn't escalate to a landlord/tenant issue because someone who's stuffed into a sack in the middle of the night and left on the side of the highway 300km away is no longer a tenant.
🤣🤣🤣 I Love it!
Ironically, this happened, but it was the squatters who murdered and stuffed the owner into a duffel bag.
@@tooitchyWould anyone know they're missing?
That's if things go well. A squatter could wake up one night to broken knees or worse if it gets _really_ bad.
It's super effective
38 states have castle/stand your ground laws, either by legislation or by judicial precedent. That leaves 12 states.
Choose wisely. In most states the solution to this is going to cost less than a cup of coffee per person.
Well no it'll cost roughly 3-$5000.. That's the price of an ambulance.
@@TheHylianJuggalo bold to assume an ambulance will be called. Most Americans do not want to do the same job twice.
Unfortunately, there are great states with Democrat cities, which is why South Florida has issues
@@fatboytw78 My point is they will bring one anyway when you call.. That's standard procedure.
@@TheHylianJuggaloIt's no use, the internet tough guys finally found a place that takes them seriously, and they will never let it slip
The only time you will see Quebec law be more based than the rest of America
Depending on how heinous the squatters are, the best tactic as a homeowner is to come on property with a plumber and claim your doing a bathroom remodel and remove the toilets. This could backfire, but the squatters usually leave within a week.
You could also go all "home alone" and booby trap everything.
won't work if they are from india though
@@HenriqueGdeC Or Venezuela.
in new york you cant even turn off the water or power to people taking over your home so that would probably get you arrested too.
Check in with that video that went viral a while ago: Guys mom had a squatter problem, he signed a legit lease with her and moved in, and then kicked out the other squatters using the superior renter rights, and then 'broke' the lease with his mom so they were out.
I heard about that. This nonsense is sickening. You work for so many years to buy a house or property..usually the biggest thing you have ever bought and spend 30 years paying it off only for these idiots and criminals to think they have some sort of claim on it.
In the words of a radio DJ on GTA4:
"Squatters rights!? I'll give you a right, a left, and a kick to the fuckin head!"
dont forget. if you call the cops saying its a robbery, and some man is in your house, it will be dealt with right away
so how the fuck is it illegal immigrants could do this while legal and struggling citizens have been denied the ability to do this for however long abandoned houses and buildings have been sitting there?
Nothing about squatter's rights will protect undocumented immigrants from deportation. Otherwise, you could do this too if you wanted to find a place, live there, and improve the property for 5~20 years depending on state law.
that's why the guy in the first video is angry, because he is dealing with a bunch of rich idiot losers
I can't believe that it's even a question as to why squatters get rights in our day and age where the entire country has already been settled into liveable status.
There's no reason why if I am out of my home for more than a week, I return to someone who I didn't invite into my home, claiming that this house and the land it sits on that I worked for and or built with my own hands that he should own it because "it was empty when I got here!"
I can understand squatters rights if a house was abandoned enough to look like it was out of “life after people” and someone decided to live there
Note: when I mentioned that show I’m thinking like 15-20 years after someone last lived there
It's outdated law. Laws don't get repealed or amended unless they're causing a problem anyone cared about. Looks like this wasn't a notable problem until recently.
@@simonpetrikov3992it’s a situation that requires the discretion of a normal human being. It’s obvious when something has been left to disrepair for years, has had no owner/keeper & ends up as someone’s home. It’s really a simple situation. People take advantage of the language on the books & act out like dickheads
@@simonpetrikov3992 I remember the first Life After People special, and now I feel old, and I'm not even 30 lol
@@theeccentrictripper3863 I’m 24 but I’m going to be 25
Squatting laws don't actually sound that bad. If you've been maintaining a place for 30 years and no one has noticed or cared, maybe it should be yours.
30 days though? How does a law like that even get passed? 10 years a bare minimum seems slightly too short. Not *a long vacation* away from losing your house.
Two years seems fair to me. If you own a house but haven't been in it for over a year, that's one thing. But if you've been out of it for long enough that someone has been able to move in for over 700 days without you nothing and getting them removed, then you might not care that much about it.
But I'm going to also add that the person may be allowed to take ownership of the building, and the land that it sits on, and a lane or yard with it, but they should not be given the full lands which are associated with that property or the mineral rights of that land.
Most of the time, unfortunately, these squatters trash the property because they ultimately know it's NOT theirs, and so they feel no need to improve it or keep it clean
I don’t know about 2 years. Some squatter cases I read involve a family losing a grandparent or someone who owned a house that the family never knew about. While going through their assets years later, did the children find out there was another home, but it was already taken by squatters.
Exactly, I don't want to do away with the entire concept of squatter's rights - if a property has been well and truly abandoned, there's no reason someone else shouldn't be able to use it. The problem is how easy it is to squat in a property that is by no reasonable standard abandoned. A lot of these recent high-profile squatting cases involve a property that was recently sold or inherited and a squatter who was able to establish himself during the transitory period - incredibly easy to do if you're in NYC and you only need thirty days to pull it off (like you, I have no idea who on god's green earth thought that was a good idea).
There should be two milestones, one where you have earned the right to be a tenant and start paying rent upon the owner's rediscovery of their property, and a very long one where it's clear the place has been completely forgotten and abandoned by the owner.
Good video on the history of squatters rights, but that's not what these people are talking about. What they are using are laws governing tenant-landlord relationships. These are unintended consequences of laws to prevent landlords randomly kicking tenants out or anti Airbnb laws. For the New York one, once the squatters have occupied the property for 30 days, they are legally considered renters, and many make a living dragging homeowners through court. Usually they'll have a "contract" or supposed verbal agreement to rent the place.
"Unintended"
Thank you for pointing out what so many have missed.
I don't think having a central ownership registry would fix this problem in the US if everything else remained the same. While we call them squatters, they're not squatting like how the law talks about someone squatting in an abandoned home for a decade and building it up. This is people taking advantage of tenet rights laws. They aren't squatting with the goal of gaining the deed to a home, their goal is to take advantage of tenet's rights laws and rent for free for up to a couple of years, or until the owner pays them off.
The owner still has to pay property taxes and the utilities. Meanwhile, the squatter gets a free lawyer on the taxpayer's dime, and a tactic they use to hurt the homeowners is to leave the doors and windows open while the run the heat/AC on full blast. This is all to put pressure on the homeowner to just pay them off.
Sir Smith, and Mr Wesson might have some words for those folks....
This doesn’t make sense. Why would the owner leave any utilities connected in that circumstance? You are describing a set of circumstances that seem
Impossible to fathom. My rules might be different to yours though - and mine are definitely better LOL
Wait....why would the homeowner be forced to pay utilities? You do know that a simple phone call is enough to shut utilities off.....right? Even if the squatter forged a lease and got utilities turned back on, they'd be paying so....running the HVAC with the windows open would be no revenge.
Have you owned a home before?
@@Xplora213The city will prosecute you for cutting utilities because of tenants rights.
@@bbainter7880See below.
Even as an American here. I call complete bullshit on the concept on squatters right.
Can non-citizens claim squatter’s rights?
That's actually a good question, it may vary from state to state, that's all I can say for certain
In NYC they do.
@@patterofheads256Disturbing place.
Of course they can. Not all non-citizens are illegal immigrants, and under Biden illegal immigrants are no longer being classed that way since he's paroling them into the country en masse, as well as facilitating asylum fraud. You are permitted to stay in the country in both cases, even though you aren't a citizen and you entered illegally. It's bullshit, but it's how he keeps his new voting base from being deported.
Well they get gun rights so why the hell not right? The de facto do because they get gun rights
30 days in New York is insane, and is the main culprit in the story. The concept isn't necessarily flawed, but 30 days is nowhere near being considered "abandoned." Even if you are concerned about propery not being utilized, something like excessive property taxes after X years would be better than this.
As to why many are framing this as an issue stemming from the left, quite simply the stories that end up trending all feature in large cities within blue states, highlighting laws that are different than elsewhere. It is also viewed as being very congruant with policies and talking points around treatment of non-citizens.
At the end of the day this will seem insane to the average person and I foresee it will lead to a great deal of ammending or repealing of squatter's rights accross the US. I predict NY to be among them, and if not then the people there truely deserve what they vote for.
Squatters have the right to some buckshot and a shallow hole out back.
"Squatters? Don't know what you're talking about. I had a bear get inside and had to defend myself."
@@Y2KNW It was wild, I just walked into my house and this giant thing roared, I didn't have time to question whether he had a utility bill!
Honestly even if it didn't work I feel like that story would earn you an easier time in prison lol
And Landlords have the Economic Freedom to go to hell.
@@marcusverschollen9634 Seethe and cope, cope and seethe, "rebel".
@@olegdemianenko3054 okay Palpatine.
Will this be the future of home ownership? Squatting in people's houses? Shameful
Policies in progressive cities have made this a known problem for years now, and they do nothing to change it. Early on, it might be a mistake, but if it's perpetuated and enforced, it's enemy action.
That presupposes that squatters have rights 😂
I own this spot.
@@jaernihiltheus7817 I squat on your reply comments to this post and claim them for my own.
@@Harley_MitchellyBACK AWAY
@@jaernihiltheus7817 I squat on the reply to the reply to the reply and I claim it infinity no take-backs!
@@jaernihiltheus7817 I squat on yours with infinity to the infinite degree times infinite plus infinity!
Plus 1.
@@jaernihiltheus7817 Infinityth isn't a word, therefore with a value of null, meaning your 2x infinity loses to my infinity to the power of infinity times infinity plus infinity plus one.
SQUAT COMPLETE! This comment string is mine! Now get offa mah propertay!
If only abandoned homes were the only thing this applied to. Otherwise it is theft
that and giant mansion/land never used by the one percent. a landlord with 2 or 3 properties is the limit after that if you arent there to defend that home because you have 17 others to tend to then get fucked.
It’s theft either way.
@@ExPwner if you abandon something of value, that's your own stupid fault if you later regret it.
It's like those women who cry rape.
People should start taking back property owned by foreign interest groups and mega corporations like Black Rock that just sit on them.
@@ExPwnerAnCap lmao
Yeah, Americans are generally distrustful of the government I feel as a result of how the country was formed, feel free to tell my why I’m wrong if I am though
Ya, America was literally founded in rebellion against the government.
More along the lines of some of the things the British Colonial "Authority" were doing. For example, imagine today if you came home from work and found a squad of troops all sitting in your living room watching your TV, eating your food, and when you complain being told to go shove it. That's what Colonials had to deal with during the lead-up to the American Revolution (minus the TV of course), and was such an issue it was even made part of the Bill of Rights.
Honestly, I'd argue that it has more to do with the feds' suspicious actions in the last few decades. Things like the JFK assassination coverup, the multiple ATF massacres, the "weapons of mass destruction" in the Middle East, the outright lies they spread about Covid. It does not inspire much confidence that the feds are competent, trustworthy, or give a damn about normies, especially when they never face consequences for serious fuckups. The ATF massacres in particular resulted in no feds punished and directly led to the OKC federal building bombing as revenge.
@@Tank50us And the Continental Congress wanted to ban plays, we have a real problem of hating tyranny but seemingly only having flavors of tyrant for politicians lol
I'd say it's worked out pretty well, continent-spanning empire, Europe under our thumb, Japan as a protectorate, I'll take it
I am American and I hate the government. Almost all of it is completely an unnecessary murder machine. Everything the government does could be done better in other ways.
The same thing is "legal" here in Brazil. Since the police might not help, people normally call their friends and "throw a party for the new tenents"
The best counter I've seen for this is to sign a lease with a friend or family. Have them move in and have them call the cops. Suddenly there's a tenant with a lease and people without one.
But what if the tenant *makes a fake lease?* A lease is paper, after all...
@@Code7Unltd The real lease has an actual landlord signature on it. The fake lease does not.
@@dalegribble9101 Forgery can happen. The realtor could work with the squatter out a back door. You'd be surprised how unscrupulous squatters can be...
@@Code7UnltdI think you are being a little paranoid, you might as well say "but what if the squatter bribes my friend to let them in?"
The video had me wonder if there is career potential in being a "caretaker for hire" people just pay you $10 or whatever to live in their house one day a week.
having an eternal centrist take on every issue is just as irrational and insane as any other rigid way of thinking, and it really breaks under this topic I'd say, Dev.
sometimes one side is alittle bit more right that others, and for you, that just can't be true, this is revealing that you are plagued with your own ideology mind virus.
i literally said that i think squatters rights are BS, how is this eternal centrist
I'm glad you're talking about this. Sean from AJW also has been talking a lot about this issue recently. 11:30 He covered this story too.
Yes!
Someone breaks into you’re house and you get arrested for trying to remove them. What a sick joke, just another example of our government not actually carrying about its people and putting the lowest of the low first
Kindness to the criminal is cruelty to the victim...
This law makes sense during its feudal origins when most land was unsettled, but now it's completely illogical for the most part in the modern era.
All land on Earth is either Privately Owned or Government Owned.
(Though I fail to see much difference.)
Feudalism is the very ancestor of Capitalism.
You can't steal rocks from plenty of national forests anymore, yet you can just steal property? Hilarious
Property is theft. It's the people's property. Like your home. Your children. Your foreskin.
Dev is completely wrong on his understanding of Proudhon. What he’s fundamentally lacking is the contextual situation in which Proudhon was referring to. When Proudhon said that property was theft he was referring to feudal, lords, not that of simple ownership.
“I protest that in criticising property, or rather the whole body of institutions of which property is the pivot, I never meant either to attack the individual rights recognized by previous laws, or to dispute the legitimacy of acquired possessions, or to instigate an arbitrary distribution of goods, or to put an obstacle in the way of the free and regular acquisition of properties by bargain and sale; or even to prohibit or suppress by sovereign decree land-rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and optional for all; I would admit no other modifications, restrictions, or suppressions of them than naturally and necessarily result from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity and of the law of synthesis which I propound. This is my last will and testament. I allow only him to suspect its sincerity, who could tell a lie in the moment of death."-Pierre Joseph Proudhon
Maybe.
This boogaloo is getting more electric by the day.
Squatter: this is my house now
Texas Arnold: “Wrong!”
"You'll own everything and you'll be hostile."
Seorge Goros be like:
@@danielutriabrooks477 "War is gay." - Tzun Su
"Alexander wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer"
Happily
Dev seems to have missed the mark on the law here.
1. Adverse possession kicks in after years of occupation, and usually has other requirements for state if mind, etc. The squatters rights laws take the form of tenant protections for squatters. This is not an issue with the common law.
2. Most (if not all) jurisdictions in the US have recording statutes requiring deeds be recorded in a central registry, usually called an index. The act of registration gives superior title over one who has not registered, though specifics vary.
The only reform needed for this problem to go away is to stop assuming home invaders are tenants.
In some states the law seems somewhat reasonable. Takes about 10 years for the property to be considered abandoned for a squatter to be able to claim it, or something to that effect.
The main issue I see is someone blatantly breaking and entering a home that is not abandoned. If the owner shows up, then that should be the end of it, squatter gets out or is removed, pays for any damages, etc. That's not what's happening though for some reason. You have to take them to court, which is expensive and time consuming, and have to basically prove they shouldn't be there. It really shouldn't be that difficult, either they have a lease agreement, renters agreement, a deed to the property, literally anything to prove they have a right to be there, even if it was just a text from the owner saying "yeah you can stay for a week."
That recent case in New York is completely nuts. Under no circumstance should someone be able to break into YOUR house and be able to claim it just because they were there for a few weeks. People travel, be it for work, vacation or family, and just because you left to do something for a few weeks should not mean your entire life gets upended and you lose potentially thousands of dollars. It doesn't help that the process of removing squatters can take a few weeks at least, because at that point the squatter can basically claim the house, as I understand it.
I feel like you should be able to claim land untill in falls under commons. So if some let's their land rot away for 10 or so years i feel it should enter commons.
"Squaters hate him, homeowner has one simple tool to get rid of squaters forever!"
Try it in Texas you’ll be carried out in a ziplock bag
To get rid of squatters you don't need fancy papers from a court, just go to home depot you will find everything you need. there.
The problem with squatter's rights is that a big part of them are laws to protect tenants. How do you honestly say for sure that the person living in the house really is a squatter and not a tenant when the paper trail runs dry on one end?
Such a bizarre coincidence to finish Arizona, a Danny McBride satirical slasher movie about the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis and then have this be the vid Dev uploads super late. Not complaining however.
I suggest , if you have a squatter then sneak into your property late at night unnoticed , armed with a gun and then simple unalive the squatter. You can rightly claim that the squatter entered your house uninvited and that you then protected it and yourself. This of course applies primarily to the situation in the US.
Um… deeds are all recorded at the “Registry of Deeds”. You can easily prove who owns a property. This system exists and works in every county in America. It is the record of the lands TRANSFER, so you couldn’t find a deed and sell it except by fraud.
Squatters pretending they are a lease holder has nothing to do with the American system of deeds, but 100% to do with liberal cities hatred of landlords.
Claiming you paid to mow the grass over a month ago does not count as a material improvement to the land for adverse possession, and could only count as a lease in the STUPIDEST of jurisdictions, NYC and friends.
While true that every state has adverse possession laws , if I recall correctly, the range of time required is 10 to 30 years, with an average of like 21 years…
Apparently the police believed the squatters in the that news report without having to show proof of papers or ownership. They just said they were there for months (which I think isn't true, according to the owner) and the police went 'okay'. It's insane that someone can just steal your home so easily. Aba & Preach covered this and gave a good take on the matter.
What some people do to prevent break-ins is leave the lights on at all times when away. It gives the illusion that someone is home or at least awake at night. Or at least have someone you trust visit the property once every day or two to check in on things.
13:30 Peak example of "law≠moral" wild how she lost her house due to 30 days bs
leftists: colonialism is racist
also leftists: squatter rights are human rights
It should be legal to treat squatters, the same way it was once legal to treat horse thieves...
Poland has a set of "tenant protections" that are weaker but cause similar problems. It's supposed to prevent kicking ppl out to the curb (so much more pro-tenant than Anglos), cities have some social housing and charities also have some units so everyone who's able to stay sober (so shelter won't kick him out) ought to get a roof over his head. In practice however people who have the money will try to abuse it. If social housing is decent than it will be taken over by non-payers and units run out, then private owners can't kick non-paying tenants sometimes for years (meanwhile their property usually gets wrecked). So there's a big group of people just mooching the rent. This leads to property owners being super careful who to rent as you might get one of these guys who will pay for 3 months and then it will take 3 years to kick him (or more likely her and her kids) out. If social housing is crap its a little better incentive wise but of course the few people who really need it live in a devastated shit hole. Squatting is in law, but you need sth like 10 years so it really is not practical unless this is really abandoned.
Wasn’t squatters rights only for tenants cause of shithead landlords? When tf did it apply to any criminal who decided they want a free house?
A foreigner says he wants to invade your country, Dev sits around talking about the philosophy of squatters rights.
Why does this feel like the plot to a potential better call Saul episode
Because it is a (somewhat) obscure legal principle with a lot of potential benefits
Hate squatters… but owners (and banks) sitting on unused property for years on-end is part of what’s making housing costs so unreasonable.
There are some reasons why the banks won't just sell the homes again. Namely, the fact that some people just get down right vindictive when told to leave, and strip the place of anything useful (turning the place unlivable). This is mostly as a result of the Clinton era housing laws that essentially made it illegal for banks to turn away borrowers (even if they'd have a legit reason to do so, like poor job history or bad credit). They'd fail to pay the mortgage, get told to leave by the courts, and then strip the place and all but destroy it out of spite.
Then you have homeless who break into the place, sometimes mere hours after the previous group left and strip the place of anything they can sell (like wiring), which again, will render the place uninhabitable, which means the bank, effectively can't sell it because the law says they can't sell "money pits" (IE, places that require so much work to make livable, it isn't even funny).
I can almost guarantee you, that the banks that are forced to foreclose on a home would rather sell the place ASAP to recoup the costs, but thanks to either previous occupants, squatters, or homeless people wrecking the place, they just can't. The reason I say this... it costs money to foreclose, and the banks have to pay for that house every day it's unoccupied.
The vast majority of "unused" housing is in the process of being remodeled. Getting loans, planning, permitting, scheduling contractors.
@@minotaurei Thats the funny thing though, either it takes ages or it becomes a house for rent.
Of all things happening right now, the rent based economy we are going through is a nightmare.
Owning stuff is becoming more difficult nowadays.
@@minotaurei none of which is particularly cheap, easy, or fast thanks to our governments rules on those subjects
@@minotaureiIn Toronto an appreciable percentage of houses and condos are owned by overseas investors, who never occupy them and don't rent them out. The owner's goal isn't profit, it's storing wealth outside of the control of their local governments, or just speculation as prices keep rising. Renting it out would just be a hassle. In the US there have been investment groups buying up large numbers of houses across the country, and not renting them out. Conspiracy theories abound, but I suspect it's just the same thing.
There's plenty of abandoned and decrepit homes in Detroit for squatters to continue destroying
If you've been able to live in an abandoned building for like 5 years and have made a reasonable effort to upkeep it, fine, you can have it. If it's just been you and your crack pipes for the last 5 years you need to GTFO when I tell you to gtfo.
13:28 God this guy makes me wanna do things I can't say on UA-cam.
FAFO is our lesson here.
I love that Dev can see an actual video of the border being broken into AND can see an actual video of someone using squatters privilages as intended _AND STILL HAS THE FUCKING AUDACITY TO CALL PEOPLE "RIGHTOIDS" FOR POINTING IT OUT_
Why do you think that because they're Rightoids that Dev thinks that has anything to do with them being right or wrong? IMO Rightoids are more likely to be correct than Leftoids but that doesn't mean Rightoids don't have unhinged, clearly incorrect takes sometimes (just not generally on this topic)
Squatting helps the elites too, because they can subversively expand land boundaries and take over plots incrementally. This isn't uncommon in rural areas or where natural resources are involved as it's hard to legally "protect" these boundaries from the squatter system.
As a preservationist, I generally have mixed feelings on this issue. On one hand, I think if a house has been abandoned for a sufficient amount of time (like 10-15 years), then I wouldn't care all that much, admittedly. However, if you try to do some revitalization, it becomes a pain in the ass. They aren't going to let you renovate their homes for free, obviously as they dont have the money, and the house will likely continue to be shit until someone knocks it down. Dont ever get me started on the shit they bring in or leave in the buildings, it becomes so much damage that you couldnt even repair it if you tried. It's ultimately a lose-lose situation. I feel genuine sympathy for some homeless people, but I also realize the obvious negative effects that comes with allowing such behavior.
It frankly makes me chuckle when I hear the words "improve the property" in the same sentence as "squatter". The property is never EVER improved. They have the "right" to break in and live in your house, but they don't have any obligation to keep it in proper shape like someone you made an agreement with. And when they completely destroy it, and heaven forbid they actually get caught and taken to court - they're completely unaffected by any damages you're awarded because the squatters are completely penniless.
If you have no money, what do you care how much you "owe" someone or how many fines society imposes upon you. I've seen junkies and squatters in Finland literally rip up tickets and court summons etc in front of the police, because they know they're basically invincible. In fact, going to prison to them just means they can squat there under government funding for however long they're told to stay.
Food for thought: What happens in a castle-doctrine state in the US if squatters invade your property while you're not there?
The problem with squatters rights in NY is that it’s so short of a time span, 30 days. Thus you can inherit a home form a family member who might not have been living there for a while due to their health and find you have to take the squatter(s) to a 2 year civil court battle. Or worse you come back to your home after a long summer vacation and that same process, but all your property is theirs and you’re homeless. It’s also not so simple as they come in and squat, a lot now are making fake leases to drag out the fight because a lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.
Left bad.
UWOOHH IM SQUAAAAAATING
The guy is from Venezuela. And this is happening in Venezuela since chavez passed a law, youbcould take over a piece of agricultural land and later was expanded to apartments and houses in Cities and some times thr Invaders get invaded themselves
Wrong. Socialist "properties is theft" meant "Your property is theft,My property I own" IE #NIMBY
No. That's wrong.
The biggest problem I have with the modern squatters is that they *don't* keep the place clean or proper. They go in and break shit. If they *did* mantain the place, fix stuff without the owner knowing, and were polite, I don't think people would consider it a problem on the same level as the murder that *also* tends to happen in these areas.
Property is worth more then life
The property of someone who owns it is worth more than the life of someone whos willing to steal it.
I spent a chunk of my life obtaining it, you should be prepared to spend a chunk of your life to take it.
Any system where shady individuals have more rights than honest citizens is broken and needs to be fixed ASAP.
It's a shame SFO makes really informational content and then his comments get convested with Ryder Asher wannabes.
This is a clear violation of property rights.
And it's unironically the most important right since it's the base of liberal morality (The right of self-ownership is a part of the right to ownership).
This particular topic is a huge problem and requires no "spin" 😂It's just a huge issue that for some reason people on the left are more hesitant to talk about, until it's their homes that is.
"I'm going to break the law!"
[Gets caught]
"I'm in danger because I broke the law... *HELP ME!"*
DEAL WITH IT, *MORÓN!*
This is one where I'll actually have to disagree. Squatter's rights as a concept, I prefer to exist. However, there needs to be appropriate protections for owners so that this doesn't happen unjustly. The 30 day period is way too short, it should be closer to 5 years. It should also require improvement of the property, and be limited to citizens of the country. You need to actually have a stake in the land before being able to claim it as yours.
Property owners need to be able to evict those without a reasonable claim, without a doubt. There's just a point where , imo, the new resident has as much a claim to the land as the original owner.
I really strongly dislike it existing. If you have a large patch of land that you don't want developed, ultimately there shouldn't be a mandate requiring you to search it all in fear that a singular individual decided to move and squat onto it. That might not sound like a big issue, but when you go deep countryside where there are hundreds of acres for sale of undeveloped (And some cases, illegal to develop) land which an individual can own, it creates a problem where the only thing preventing abuse is an individuals desire to take over a piece of land or not.