60
Finally, a true hero defending the poor housing market that is doing so poorly….
How many of those SoCal homes had previously been taken over by bougie profit speculating developers and landlords?
I would support the squatters if it's always million + dollar residences that have just been sitting idle.
I think that's usually the case. Yeah, a squatter could be waiting in the bushes for you to go to work so they can break in and set up shop, but they'd know that would lead to a fight, so they'd aim for unoccupied houses where they'd be left alone
Recently, squatters took over a Beverly Crest mansion and turned it into a wild party house where hundreds of rowdy guests would show up every night.
In February, another group of squatters took over a Hollywood Hills mansion and used the property to produce OnlyFans content.
I hope these are the squatters he's focusing on and not desperate homeless people who found an unoccupied 2 bedroom house to sleep in.
Yeah, he needs to focus on homeowners who can afford to pay him, not those pesky middle income people
"Pesky middle income people" who own a house in L.A. that they aren't using?
He goes all over California
Which part of California does he go to where "pesky middle income people" have homes just sitting empty?
Bet you $100 he is breaking the law almost every time
Actually he's not, he is using a loophole whereby the owners sign an official lease with him for him to reside there.
The other tenant(s) do not have a lease and therefore are not within the legal right to complain.
edit: He also doesn't do it directly for profit, thus bypassing other laws. His site explains it in a youtube video here: https://squatterhunters.com/about/
The website doesn't really explain anything though, and even says that the laws should be amended
Why would the legal world take much longer and many more dollars to achieve what this guy can? Why wouldn't everyone just sign a lease to their friend?
If the landlord is aware of the squatters and then enters into a lease intended to deprive them of possession, how is that not just an end run around the law?
The website doesn't really explain anything though
The video does, but here's one that may explain it better:
https://www.the-sun.com/news/10824220/squatter-hunter-flash-shelton-evict-laws-business/
Why would the legal world take much longer and many more dollars to achieve what this guy can?
The court system here has a huge backlog, so it can literally take a year in MOST cases to get rid of them (if not longer like during Covid). An owner basically has to first call the cops who verify they are not a paying tenant, then weeks later file a petition with the city to have them removed within 90 days, then after 90 days, if they do not vacate, submit a court action to go to court. If they're a no show on the court date several months later, they will finally get forcibly removed a few weeks after the court date. All this because they, squatters have rights:
https://www.sapling.com/12143680/legally-rid-squatters-california
Why wouldn't everyone just sign a lease to their friend?
If you have friends willing to take the risk of getting injured or hurt in the process, sure, but I don't know anyone who would do that personally.
If the landlord is aware of the squatters and then enters into a lease intended to deprive them of possession, how is that not just an end run around the law?
As stated before, it's a loophole to the squatters rights linked above. Here is SoCal you either wait your turn for your day in court whilst they trash the place OR you do something like this. The law just hasn't caught up and thus why Squatter Hunter is lobbying for change.
Thanks, you did say to watch the video and I missed that, I'll give it a watch
The legal world takes longer because courts are backed up and it can take months to get any resolution.
People don't just sign leases to their friend because the intent here is to have him move into the home. Unless your friend is willing to move in in order to drive these people out, your plan won't work.
The lease allows him to live in the house despite the squatters illegally occupying the home. How can you honestly question whether the home owner is breaking the law when the squatters have no legal right to live in the home in the first place?
This guy just found a niche job as the bouncer for the 2nd/3rd/nth homes of the ultrawealthy, and he's trying, and apparently news outlets are helping to promote it as a good thing. Most people don't have a problem with squatters because they actually live in the house they own.
There are more empty homes in the United States than there homeless people.
But the market says the problem is there isn't enough home building going on. What a joke of a world we live in.
If we had a squatter living in our house, my wife would just tell them that I'm finally making the correct portion size when I cook dinner.
If a home is unoccupied, it should be a squatter’s right to occupy it.
If you can’t be arsed to find a tenant for a place, that place should be open season for tenants!
So let me get this straight.
If I spend my hard earned cash on a house. For any reason I leave for a while. Maybe my work requires I relocate for. (It doesn't matter what the reason is). Because I'm not there that means you can move in?
Talk about seriously entitled.
Or you buy a new house, and while your old house is on the market for sale, someone breaks in and claims it as their own while you're stuck paying for it, can't sell it, and run the risk of having it completely trashed.
The expressed sentiment obviously doesn't apply to regular people trying to sell their previous home.
I didn't see that distinction anywhere in the comment and OP was downvoted when they proposed a scenario where a regular person is temporarily gone from their home. This whole idea is quite absurd to be honest and doubly so for the way the proponents here seem to feel so smug and morally superior when suggesting it.
What’s even more entitled is you thinking you have a right to shelter you don’t even use when hundreds of thousands nation-wide cannot afford shelter due to people like you hoovering up unused homes.
You know what your attitude is called? Parasitical and greedy.
You do realize that some people get temporarily relocated for work, right? If I have to do a job for 3 months in Minnesota, it isn't long enough to rent my place in California because renter's rights won't allow me to kick them out when I get back. You think that's me being greedy and parasitical?
Well put
So a person earns money and spends it on something, and you think that is parasitic. A different person spends no money and uses something someone else paid for, and that isn't parasitic?
I agree that housing should be a basic human right. I agree that people owning many homes is problematic. But owning a second house that you use for vacations is not what is causing a housing shortage. Owning 5 homes and Airbnbing 4 of them IS part of the cause. Allowing corporations and foreign citizens to own homes is part of the cause. Me buying empty land and building a vacation house on land that has sat empty for millions of years isn't causing a housing shortage.
Thank you
Do you extend this sentiment to vehicles too? If I drive to work and park my car there, is it morally correct for someone to come steal it because they want to drive somewhere or sleep in it but don't have a car? After all, it's just sitting there unused, so I must be some entitled asshole for expecting it to be there when I'm ready to head home, right?
I also find it funny you chose the words parasitical and greedy when these squatters are quite literally feeding off the homeowners and selfishly taking something that doesn't belong to them. Your argument is not too different from a CEO who wants to cut worker pay and give himself a bigger bonus with the money.
I agree with you. How does one apply this logic to homes but not to cars, phones, bikes or anything else?
cars, phones, bikes
Since when are those essential to life, or whose availability constantly/consistently mean the difference between life and death?
Food, shelter, and clothing are the essentials that should have a base tier that anyone can leverage at low to no cost. Anything else is superfluous.
Theft is theft. I do not care if it's a bike a phone or house .
In my example what I was talking about was, while I was away I rented a placed for temporary lodging.
And that is vacuuming up lodging?
I still say you are entitled.
But moving on. Have a good day
Good, fuck squatters and fuck squatters' rights.
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
60 points (85.7% liked)
News
23275 readers
3499 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS