First, squatters of this type are taking advantage of laws intended to protect renters from predatory landlords. Wherever you stand on people appropriating unused property, these laws need to stay in place even if they’re made more specific.

Second, news outlets like this will always quote a “guns and drugs” case and not the mom with three kids seeking employment or homeless vet cases.

Third, with security cams and doorbells being so cheap, there’s no reason why this should be an issue, especially for a large real estate rental company. That alone puts me in “cry me a river” mode. Notice again that the article lists interviews with individual homeowners but is actually profiling the impact on a rental company.

When I was homeless and super desperate for a roof over my head I'd pull up some real estate app and filter by foreclosures. They were always empty and I never got bothered by anyone. Do gotta be super sneaky in case there's neighbors or something but there was almost always a window unlocked or something.

Holmes told Channel 2 consumer investigator Justin Gray that he used his life savings to buy a DeKalb County home out of foreclosure eight months ago as a rental property.

Aaaaaaand there goes all my sympathy...

I don't know much about American laws, and I strongly believe that basic housing should not be for-profit.

With those caveats, if a house is empty for such a long time that squatters can claim it (7-20 years according to Google), then I think it's not only okay to claim residence there, I think it's the morally correct thing to do.

Obviously, there are exceptions to anything, but generally speaking, it sounds like society could use more of this.

You know who probably won’t have a problem with squatters? People who buy houses to live in them.

Hard to feel bad for a fucking landlord. Get a real job loser.

It's my opinion that housing is so basic a need that no house should be allowed to use for a gambling chip.

The 'housing market' needs to be broken in favor of individual ownership. (For many, speculation has driven ownership out of reach.)

Only individuals may purchase individual homes, and must agree to occupy them as their primary and only residences until they sell and vacate them. (Live-in landlords included, e.g. boarders.)

As part of the deal, they must first find another individual buyer (under the same terms) for their present home.

(Futher stipluations needed, but none that permit violation of the above principle. )

I felt bad for the dude until I got to the part that it was a rental property.

Not all landlords are scum but enough of them are that everyone in the business is tainted.

Living indoors should be a human right. Charging for shelter should be illegal, same for food and water...

Gray sent this story to Instagram after it aired and they removed the account for violating the app’s terms of service.

Well, thank goodness making a second account is so hard ...

I'm mostly confused as to why an instagram account is in any way relevant to squatters.

oh noooo people getting a roof over their head boo hoo

They aren't playing by the rules so why should we? Buy houses with their family money and sit on them then campaign for stricter zoning laws to keep out competition.

"This is stealing and needs to be looked at that way,” said a property owner

😂