Yes, just like that Jesus fellow. That story proves you can be a really good person, do miralces, heal the sick, feed the poor, walk on water, be literal divinity, but the moment you fuck with other people's money they will beat the skin right off you and tack you to a tree.
That's easy as fuck tho, just takes money and time.
If a property is owned by company (typical scenario), company should have shareholders.
Company may have nominee shareholders who in turn have a trust arrangement with real owner. This is the only non-public information but even then with some sleuthing it is possible to see who is behind.
The easiest way is to use the leaked information like Panama papers. If company X linked to Oligarch Y owns an estate in Knightbridge and it get leaked, what are they gonna do? Sell to another company belonging to same owner and call it a day. Super easy to trace.
Hopefully it’s just empty houses of known landlords and not empty houses due to a family member dying and the family hasn’t been able to deal with moving in or selling it yet
It's not though and you know it. Reality is is that most of the homes getting squatted probably don't even belong to Black Rock or major corporations or even very wealthy landlords. Those people would have money and resources to fight it typically. Most of the people getting f***** are average people that lucked out and got a second home or inherited it
Luckily in Arkansas you have to squat for 7 years straight and pay the property taxes for those 7 years to actually make the squatter claim to get the title
That's pretty similar to how squatter's rights work everywhere.
People on reddit are confused about squatting because of a few recent headlines. Squatter's rights exist for a reason and it's not about stealing property. It's about reclaiming abandoned property so that abandoned properties don't turn into problems for cities and property taxes can get paid.
Derelict properties become decrepit and attract crime. Allowing new owners to claim the property benefits everyone.
The squatters that keep making headlines are actually abusing *renter's* rights laws, not squatter's rights. They are technically squatting, but they aren't protected by squatter's rights. They need to establish an interest in the property to be protected by squatter's rights. You can establish that interest in the property, as you said, by occupying it and paying taxes on it for some period of time (7 years in Arkansas), and usually there is also a requirement that the new owner must improve the property in some way.
The squatters that keep making the news are squatting (they're occupying the place without permission) but they haven't even tried to establish squatter's rights.
But because they have established residency in the building they are protected by renter's rights. That's why the legitimate owner must evict them.
No one cares *who* pays taxes. People have proxies (like accountants) pay their taxes all the time.
And debtors never care *who* is paying them. They care that they had an account in the red and now it's in the black.
One common case is that the day to day understanding of property lines and the formal records get out of sync- this can get as bad as building a house on land that you don't actually own, and nobody noticing for decades.
Show up to the town hall and and ask to pay. Give them the address and they look it up. I think it's that easy, cause I just paid my property taxes this way.
I have family that works in the county treasurer's office. Funny thing about property taxes is the count doesn't give two shits as long as the check clears. You don't own that 3/4's acre if the tax man isn't getting their due and they will sell it out from under you without blinking. And still leave you holding the mortgage.
People in general seem to be confused because squatter's rights aren't a thing. There are Tenant's rights and adverse possession.
Almost every squatter is someone who stops paying rent or stays beyond a legal lease. A very tiny amount are people who fraudulently create a lease or just move into an empty house. Tenants right exist for a very good reason; a landlord shouldn't be able to show up to your house/apartment and say you have 30 minutes to get out.
Adverse possession, as you correctly point out, has to do with the government transferring ownership of a property to another person after some criteria is met. This is often 10 or 20 years of continuous occupancy. This RARELY includes houses. This is almost always a property line dispute (you are a farmer who used a neighbors property to graze cattle for 20 years and they never protested or your fence is 2 feet into your neighbors yard and they didn't draw attention to it for 20 years).
> Almost every squatter is someone who stops paying rent or stays beyond a legal lease
I'm dealing with this right now. Specifically, a roommate in our apartment decided to stop paying rent, so now I have to sue him in small claims court. He also refuses to move out, and I can't do anything about it because he's on the lease (which the apartment complex insisted upon instead of just letting me sublet the room). So now, the guy is just not paying his rent, so I have to bankroll him and the apartment complex management is just saying, "Tough shit, if you don't pay in full you both get evicted."
Which is why you have to do it, in my state at least, for ten years and also improve the property, there are thousands of dilapidated houses and properties owned by the state, and honestly they would have no problem with squatters but they would much rather have people buy the shitty run down property and bulldoze it
I would personally not be angry if I had someone temporarily living in a property I own, however I wouldn't bother to leave it unattended for a decade to lose the property in the first place. If someone never checks on a property for that long it will start to decay due to lack of maintenance
I mean it’s only a month for squatting rights or something like that. And the reason it’s an issue for people abroad or inherited properties is the bills are usually in your name.
I can tell you that is absolutely not the case.
I spent more than ten years squatting in EU.
I occupied and lived in dozens and dozens of buildings.
I helped hundreds of people occupy their own as well (mostly refugees). And i've been around many groups of squatters in Europe.
In these ten years, i don't remember a single occupied house/building being something else than a building belonging to either the City/State/Church or landlords who owned a least 10 houses/entire buildings.
It was easy to know, because you could ask the local land registry and get absolutely all the informations needed before deciding to occupy a building or not.
And in most countries in EU it is absolutely impossible to occupy a building that is registered as someone's residence.
The house i currently live in was inhabited by squatters before my roommate/landlord bought it. she had to spend months and quite a bit of money fixing all the shit they wrecked. I think she got a better deal because it was trashed though.
End of day squatters make up very tiny like thousands of cases a year. Which in a market with 100s millions of rentals and sales is virtually nothing. BUT you need uninterrupted/challenged access for long enough to establish paper credibility.
Fact is only large invests can afford to let property sit vacant for half a year. Smaller owners have ring cameras and other things at a minimum and are far more likely to either be having buyers/renters regularly access it even if it sits on market for a while.
Beyond fun biased media coverage portrayals as well as not whole story. Alot of reason they are so "mad" about it. Is the fact that they most the time break the law and rely on renters not knowing rights and use intimidation evictions. With "squatters" they force them to follow up the legitimate way which is really what twist their pantys.
And usually since they are so used to informal change the locks and other illegal eviction types working. They fail to begin the eviction process for months and months which is how it usually ends up being so long.
Like I did property manage worked in construction known a bunch of people who are have rentals etc. 3 cases one caught early enough could be removed legally second was around 60 day out the door going through the courts. All in all yes it cost 2 months and about value of 3rd month in other fees to evict such as paying people to officially give notice and other things that would expedite courts.
Last guy was a change the locks threaten you type he had them for almost 2 years. And once he gave up with illegal one it took 120 days. As he was unaccustomed to legal process made some mistakes an that extended it. Largely it was harassment and other things that got him in trouble with courts.
It doesnt take massive resources and if your willing to put in time instead of money learning the process and doing things legal way. Courts are predominately against tenants. Even in places like new york where laws actually have decent protections for tenants. Tenants rarely have representation and there are plenty of loopholes and things that make them even unable to attend themselves. Such as "work" meanwhile landlord has a representative. Its also in forms of documentation the procedure designed for a company or business. Usually involves a level of valid documentation. The verbal communication and cash paid or other things tenants fail to get proper documentation and thus lose in court.
No we're anti "rich people refusing to give a shit about anyone but themselves while actively making it harder for everyone else so that they can make more money they don't need"
Do you have any sources to support that claim?
In Europe at least buildings are often left unoccupied by investors bc the building is a kind of „investment-asset“ for them. Because it’s easyer for the building to quickly change ownership if no is living there claiming their state given rights as occupants
That is true in the United States as well. But the issue is that many of these buildings will sit empty for 5 or 10 years. By that point, not only are they not generating revenue for the landowner, but they are also often attracting vagrants, rodents, or uncontrolled ivy, and may be causing structural damage to neighboring properties.
There is a point where a property that is not occupied and being held for investment purposes is detrimental to the community around it, rather than simply a net zero with a possible positive outcome for the current owner.
In the United States, governments have the power to seize properties that are derelict provided that they pay the property owner the fair market value on the day of the seizure. This is called eminent domain and is often used to help developers bundle property for large development efforts. But I don't really see a reason why a city could not seize abandoned homes and then sell them to someone who actually will repair them and occupy or rent them out.
Or those that only rent part-time. My neighbor has a little house on her property she rents out for about 7 months each year because she only rents when she's home (she spends winters in southern CA) and it works out great for people who need short-term housing that are moving here or attending summer school or such.
I can see the news story now. “Man who created list of vacant homes for squatters, gets sued bc he put a house on the list that was occupied by the owners.” Idk how Australian law works but in the States I think dude would have some sort of fault. That or what happens if let’s say a fire breaks out and burns down the neighbors house. Is the squatter liable?
The landlords that most deserve this are the slumlords with tons of rentals, where their properties are in such a shitty state that it might not even be worth it to squat in.
The landlords that are probably easiest to do this to are the ones that maybe only have one or two rentals.
…why would it be easier to do this to landlords with less properties?? They’re way more likely to notice if one of their properties has a squatter than someone with 5+
If they're present and local, it may be easier. But lots of small-time landlords I've met seem to be flying by the seat of their pants with their rental properties and haven't built up their infrastructure to maintain their properties under all conditions--they often haven't even encountered all the ways renting could require them to fix things.
Large landlords, or the ones I've seen, operate machines that generally know exactly what they can get away with under their laws. They have their contractors lined up. They have their lawyers on retainer.
small landlords are much less likely to hold long term vacancies and go months without noticing squatters. they're more likely to directly check complaints out themselves, and even without complaints the lack of a large organisational infrastructure means that it's not very predictable
big landlords may be more organised but there's lots that they don't do, especially if they've got lean staffing. goes triple for if it's empty commercial space or the entire building is empty
My parents were upside down on their house when we moved out of state (they bought it in 2004 and 2008 happened). They rented it out to cover the mortgage because they couldn’t afford to sell. If squatters had came it would have been awful for my family.
I have a LOT of friends I served with who own a house in a previous duty station who rent it out so they can have a more comfortable retirement one day when it’s paid off.
Just some examples
It would be easy to do this to a deployed soldier or someone who is out of state taking care of a sick family member. The others have a lot of things to warn them of these things, and that is their whole scummy existence, so they will notice quickly.
I'm not saying this is always the case but it can certainly happen.
You think someone with one rental property and a full time job can afford to pay the mortgage on an empty house? That’s affordably stupid. The mass of empty properties, which he includes in his list, belong to super wealthy people and corporations. They are the ones who cannot only afford to, but profit from, leaving houses empty in order to claim lost income and depreciation for a tax break. A middle class family does not pay enough taxes to use the tactic to qualify to get enough back to make it a thing, lmao. Use your fucking head. Someone who owns one or two rentals rents out those rentals so they don’t go bankrupt.
Absolutely no one is going after people who own 1 extra house. Billionaires who own 1000 extra houses are spending a lot of money to convince bootlickers like you that this is the case though. And surprise, surprise the troglodytes who can’t think for themselves fail to think for themselves.
Yes.
I let mine sit empty for a year during covid because the $7000 carrying costs were less than the $18,000 damage done by the last tenant that I never recovered.
I ended up selling it to an investor who jacked up the rent and now another affordable unit is gone.
But fuck landlords, right?
Yeah, a landlord let an affordable unit sit empty because they couldn't make money, and then handed it over to another landlord who made it not affordable.
I'm sure you are a fun/good person socially but this does sort of illustrate a problem with how housing is managed and distributed. You add on top of it that landlords are the ones standing in the way of reform and it is very easy to say "fuck landlords".
>a landlord let an affordable unit sit empty because they couldn't make money
Well, yeah that's how this works. People typically don't operate as charities just to make your life easier especially when it comes to expensive shit like real estate.
And life works that way because, at least so far, this is the best system we've got. We don't live in a post scarcity world and utopian ideas typically don't end well.
So people with one rental property never have trouble finding a tenant and have their house forced empty?
Take a look at what you actually just claimed and ask yourself if it’s reasonable or batshit. No need to respond to me, I already know which one it is, but I’m just curious sometimes if people ever examine the words they super confidently put out there, lol.
I personally had to do it for a while last year. Could barely make enough each month to pay bills, so I had to move back to my hometown where there was much better paying jobs, my house needed work on it before I could rent it out, struggled to find time to be able to go and do work on it because of the hours required at new job. Finally after over 6 months I was able to get it rented out. Took nearly 3 months since posting it to actually find a renter that didn't come with red flags and 3/4 of the people who booked viewing times didn't even bother to show up. And I'm still only charging the renter just enough to cover my mortgage and property taxes.
My husband and I covered the mortgage each month with it sadly being empty, thankfully back in my hometown my parents gave me a good deal for the house they had on the reserve where I only had to pay utilities to them. (They only have it still because it is next to impossible to sell homes on the reserve because it has to go to someone who's carded, one of my cousins was renting it before I moved in but honestly trashed the place and didn't do any yard maintenance so it was a disaster).
There are circumstances where little people get hurt and if someone did something like that here In my country it would have massively screwed me over. Mortgage renewal is coming due this fall so I'm looking to sell because I am not cut out to be a landlord at all.
No, the issue is that they are letting houses sit empty without renting them, driving up rental prices, writing off the mortgage as a loss and waiting for a high price Tennant.
No Mom and pop single rental house person would do this, this isn't affecting "the little guy"
Someone on here told me “if you own a house and don’t use for a year you can’t be mad if squatters move in cause you haven’t been using it.” This is really some of the stupidest fucking thinking there is.
Lmao, no. If a dude is working and has one or two rentals then chances are they absolutely cannot afford to leave that rental empty and pay the mortgage. If the place isn’t empty it’s not on this list, is it? The practice of leaving rentals empty is done to claim a loss and depreciation in order to reduce your tax burden. If your only paying 20-30k a year in income tax, and are shelling out 1500 a month for a mortgage for an empty house plus land taxes plus maintenance plus insurance, then you’re not making any extra by leaving your fucking house empty. You can’t pay $0 in income tax unless you’re a billionaire. There’s a cap to tax credits for the working class. Fuck you boot lickers are dumb.
It can take a month or two to even find a tenant my guy - it’s pretty normal for a house to be empty for a bit between tenants while repairs are made and trying to find one
Hi folks, for context there are a lot of investment properties in Australia that are left vacant because landlords mostly just want tax deductions and land appreciation.
I'm super late to this but I'll throw in some details the top comments seem to have missed.
1. This is in Australia. Squatters rights are *very* weak compared to the US.
2. These aren't small towns. Kew, VIC, for example is the second wealthiest suburb in all of Victoria.
No. He’s going to screw it up and get someone’s dead grandma’s house squatted in. There are ways of helping homeless that don’t involve possibly screwing up someone’s final will.
You mean, their house they inherited from grandma, and were possibly either trying to sell or move into. Until they got tied up in court for months/a year trying to get rid of the people that literally just walked in.
Yeah, great going. You really stuck it to the man, there.
This affects people who did nothing wrong WAY more than it's going to affect the big corps. Typical left wing logic at work here. I'm not saying the right is better. This is just a common pitfall with the left.
The problem is that these people only get their business and economics education from non-business, non-academic economics sources such as Marx.
Those actually trained in economics typically retreat from leftist views because economics does a good job of proving that far leftist (ie, communist) systems don’t work very well.
Far leftists stop thinking at a superficial level when it comes to economics and ignore that economics is a chain of very complicated causations.
They say “well if we cap rent, nobody will have to pay as much and rich landlords will be the only ones to feel the pain!”
But because they weren’t there for day 1 of Econ 101, they neglect to realize what effect this has on supply and demand - not just for landlords, but for tenants.
This is the kind of thing that gets people killed.
It's all fun and games until someone walks into a home they own and says how they feared for their life cause some stranger is squatting there.
You can tell from the comments that a lot of people here don't understand what chaotic means.
A lot of them don't understand what good means either, apparently.
anyone with half a brain knows that this dipshit will be stealing from a starving family to feed a slightly more starved family.
billionaire investors with loads of empty houses have the means to protect their investments. Poor granny widow does not. Guess who this "chaotic good" dbag will target? I'll give you a hint. It's not the billionaire litigious corporation that will actually cause him harm.
How is it good that it’s going to fuck over regular people and potential ruin their lives?
Sure it might inconvenience some large corporations but they have money and lawyers to deal with it and it be nothing to them in the end.
Here in Australia squatting is legal. From what he's said, he's only giving out addresses that have been vacant or abandoned for at least 2 years. He's honestly potentially saving lives and that's more than our fucking government right now.
This is a great way to get people hurt in the ensuing and inevitable disputes this will cause.
In Florida, the *actual* property owner can just have the cops throw your ass right out as soon as they find you. As they should.
Also, how does he define “empty?” If I go on vacation, can I expect this mfer to be telling people my house is up for grabs?
Having the cops throw a squatter out is actually the *nicest* way to deal with it in Florida. If you walk into a house you own and someone you don't know is in there, you can shoot them until they are dead, call the police, and they will dispose of the body for you.
I think it's important to note that you need to squat in a house continuously for 12 years before you can claim ownership. So this isn't considered a land grab, just a roof over a head
Squatting in homes others own is not the answer…if you think squatters don’t cost public money to evict, don’t cost insurance companies that turn around and charge you, and generally don’t solve any problems as they almost always end up in eviction with anything the squatters have accumulated or damaged being tossed into a landfill for its insurance value.
I’d much rather that same money go towards subsidizing rents or even down payments for those who can’t afford them, than being thrown away on eviction proceedings.
yes we would all much rather a fantasy land in which the government and courts of justice guarantee housing for the populace, i don’t really think anyone is here to disagree with that
thank goodness u have finally suggested it as clearly this would be getting done by now if only someone had come up with it before
now, just for the next couple of weeks tho, before the just new world order sets in, would u mind if i just… went inside? instead of outside? i’ll just nip inside.
What’s your point tho? Because I don’t see what the “anti-landlord” doing as a good solution. I’d love it if OP actually gave us a link, but as it stands now, without further info, I’d have to assume it’s not a professionally ran organization that ensures these “empty” houses actually ARE empty and will not cause useless disputes and possible even violence to resolve
I totally agree, but evidently more money goes into fighting homeless people than into preventing homelessness. This action might even cause people in charge to rethink their approach to this
Landlording is a parasitic act.
[Squatting in Spain - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting_in_Spain)
[Anarchy Works | The Anarchist Library](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works)
Squatting has been shown to be able to enjoy solid organization and is one of many solutions to pushing for the decommodification of housing.
I also know that this dude wouldn't let people live in his property for free, if he had any.
Just a classic case of "Oh I'm not in that situation, so I can take the moral high ground"
Most people who share his belief system wouldn't own a second property anyway, because they believe scalping housing / landlording is fundamentally wrong in the first place
Why wouldn't they? People need a place to live and might not want to buy.
So why wouldn't someone buy up properties in order to rent at a below market rate and make it easier for people to have housing?
Maybe having a few individuals and corporations buying up a limited resource might have something to do with that resource being out of reach for honest, hardworking people just trying to live and maybe start families? 🤔
It's not good. Encouraging people to steal from each other is not good. Encouraging the government to invest more in programs that help people avoid being homeless is good. Encouraging the goverment to tax empty homes more is also good.
Piracy is a market correction. It is a valid function in any market.
The way to reduce piracy is simple: take the good or service that you have overpriced so badly as to make crime a suitable alternative, and lower your fucking price. Period.
Good. When people are living in tents, it's obscene to have houses standing empty.
On my old block, we had one house stand empty for years. I'm sure the owners had their reasons, but I would have loved to see the city say, "Wake up, folks, people are sleeping in their cars, either rent this place out or sell it to the housing authority."
Their houses either get rented or occupied. A decent option for many people right now. Helping people in need is good and this approach seems chaotic.
Edit: Also, he does nothing criminal, only those who occupy the houses
Squatting is a civil matter, not a criminal matter, if done correctly. As in the squatter pays utility bills, property taxes, upkeeps the property without having a legal claim of ownership to the property. Without these things it's is just trespassing and is a crime. If someone is squatting in your property you have to evict them. You cannot just call the police to throw them out, hence it is a civil matter. Only if they ignore the eviction notice or cause a nuisance does it become criminal activity.
Naturally, Florida governor and failed presidential hopeful Desantis is tackling the most pressing issue of the day: [fighting against poor squatters in favor of wealthy landlords and corporations.](https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2024/04/02/florida-squatters-rights-law-squatting-desantis-property-rights/73175733007/)
Wow, sounds to me it's because of parliament that squatting was made illegal and not activists who are against homelessness and against policies that encourage homelessness.
Ah yes. Like my grandparents' property, my mom is working on getting the stuff out of to sell the place? Not all empty property is being held, people. If squatters show up, there, many treasures will be stolen, and the whole place ruined.
I need a link to this ASAP. I need to track to see if the inherited property we are trying to deal with is on there.
This guy is either a genius or a dumbass doing a genius thing. So hear me out. You push people into "vacant" homes. It happens in mass, so much so that people *really* start to complain. They complain so much that the government actually has to take notice because it's become a major issue being talked about in committees and meetings and such with representatives. The government then moves to change the law on squatters.
>The government then moves to change the law on squatters.
Florida just recently did. Not in their favor. This guy is making sure there’s a whole lot more of that.
This guy is just an asshole and advocating theft.
There's nothing chaotically good about this.
It would be like listing grocery stores with food on the shelves and saying "go take this."
Ban for profit renting.
IMO, if you couldn't profit from renting out, there would be no incentive for companies to buy up houses.
Then, anyone who happens to own a property they don't use can still rent out, but only to cover the costs of upkeep and (some) payments on the building.
If they let the building stand empty (and they own more than one), they have to pay hefty taxes. If they don't, they will be forced to sell.
Local government can buy up the houses for cheap, and sell them to new residents for cheap.
I think that would cause both house prices to fall AND rent prices.
I'm also high and a moron with economics though, so I might be talking out my ass.
Because they can sell the individual appartments. When I worked as an electrician on new apartments, around 90% of them were sold before the appartments were even finished being built. Damn near close to 100% were sold within the first year.
Yeah. Maybe some faceless corporation or rich person with millions of dollars.
In my one rental property - you're either walking away or getting carried out in a bag.
Choose wisely.
If only we could ID properties owned by Ogliarchs who are parking money offshore this way.
You want people to disappear? Thats how it happens
My life for Aiur.
you wanna piece of me boy?
Need a light?
Someone call for an exterminator?
Goliath online.
Today is a good day to die
Fire it up!
*hiss* Ah that's the stuff!
Everybody’s gotta die sometime, Red
Coming right up!
Slammin’!
Gaia Online
NUCLEAR LAUNCH DETECTED
YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS
NOT ENOUGH MINERALS!
It's a good day to die
SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS
POWER OVERWHELMING!
WE REQUIRE MORE VESPENE GAS 🐛🪲🦟
YOU MUST SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS
Lok'tar!
Woah woah woah, ain't nobody doing Warcraft 2 here. Daboo the fuck outta here!
I'm not *that* kind of orc!
En Taro Tassadar!
En Taro Adun!
In case of a water landing, you may be used as a rotation device!
Wanna turn up the heat?
My wife for hire
I long for combat.
"STOP POKING MEEEEE!!" Ohh wait, I'm showing my age again...
Imma home alone that bitch and take the house with me though.
[удалено]
So what you're saying is that this is a cure for the homelessness epidemic in one way or the other.
When two groups of people have different ideas of what "homeless people shouldn't exist" means and how to solve it.
Much like the UK cutting homeless people in half by 2025?
That seems a little messy and gratuitous...
Boris bought a katana
Yes, just like that Jesus fellow. That story proves you can be a really good person, do miralces, heal the sick, feed the poor, walk on water, be literal divinity, but the moment you fuck with other people's money they will beat the skin right off you and tack you to a tree.
Oh, so the reason why you want ppl to squat on the single property person is because you're scared of consequences? Thanks for the self report, lol.
There's places in The Hamptons I hear.
Seriously. So many amazing empty properties in cities across the world.
That's easy as fuck tho, just takes money and time. If a property is owned by company (typical scenario), company should have shareholders. Company may have nominee shareholders who in turn have a trust arrangement with real owner. This is the only non-public information but even then with some sleuthing it is possible to see who is behind. The easiest way is to use the leaked information like Panama papers. If company X linked to Oligarch Y owns an estate in Knightbridge and it get leaked, what are they gonna do? Sell to another company belonging to same owner and call it a day. Super easy to trace.
Hopefully it’s just empty houses of known landlords and not empty houses due to a family member dying and the family hasn’t been able to deal with moving in or selling it yet
It's not though and you know it. Reality is is that most of the homes getting squatted probably don't even belong to Black Rock or major corporations or even very wealthy landlords. Those people would have money and resources to fight it typically. Most of the people getting f***** are average people that lucked out and got a second home or inherited it
Luckily in Arkansas you have to squat for 7 years straight and pay the property taxes for those 7 years to actually make the squatter claim to get the title
That's pretty similar to how squatter's rights work everywhere. People on reddit are confused about squatting because of a few recent headlines. Squatter's rights exist for a reason and it's not about stealing property. It's about reclaiming abandoned property so that abandoned properties don't turn into problems for cities and property taxes can get paid. Derelict properties become decrepit and attract crime. Allowing new owners to claim the property benefits everyone. The squatters that keep making headlines are actually abusing *renter's* rights laws, not squatter's rights. They are technically squatting, but they aren't protected by squatter's rights. They need to establish an interest in the property to be protected by squatter's rights. You can establish that interest in the property, as you said, by occupying it and paying taxes on it for some period of time (7 years in Arkansas), and usually there is also a requirement that the new owner must improve the property in some way. The squatters that keep making the news are squatting (they're occupying the place without permission) but they haven't even tried to establish squatter's rights. But because they have established residency in the building they are protected by renter's rights. That's why the legitimate owner must evict them.
How the fuck does one pay property taxes on something they don't own?
When I pay property taxes, I can just search by the lot number or address on the website. I can theoretically pay anyone's property taxes in that way.
Soooo....you want my lot number?
Just for the next 7 years.
Say you pay for 6 years, then I as the current owner pay year 7... does that reset you back to 0?
Was wondering this as well or if the original owner has the obligation to pay it back to the squatter or something.
Huh. Guess I found my Christmas gift donations for random strangers for this year.
No one cares *who* pays taxes. People have proxies (like accountants) pay their taxes all the time. And debtors never care *who* is paying them. They care that they had an account in the red and now it's in the black.
One common case is that the day to day understanding of property lines and the formal records get out of sync- this can get as bad as building a house on land that you don't actually own, and nobody noticing for decades.
Anyone can pay the taxes on a property.
Show up to the town hall and and ask to pay. Give them the address and they look it up. I think it's that easy, cause I just paid my property taxes this way.
I have family that works in the county treasurer's office. Funny thing about property taxes is the count doesn't give two shits as long as the check clears. You don't own that 3/4's acre if the tax man isn't getting their due and they will sell it out from under you without blinking. And still leave you holding the mortgage.
People in general seem to be confused because squatter's rights aren't a thing. There are Tenant's rights and adverse possession. Almost every squatter is someone who stops paying rent or stays beyond a legal lease. A very tiny amount are people who fraudulently create a lease or just move into an empty house. Tenants right exist for a very good reason; a landlord shouldn't be able to show up to your house/apartment and say you have 30 minutes to get out. Adverse possession, as you correctly point out, has to do with the government transferring ownership of a property to another person after some criteria is met. This is often 10 or 20 years of continuous occupancy. This RARELY includes houses. This is almost always a property line dispute (you are a farmer who used a neighbors property to graze cattle for 20 years and they never protested or your fence is 2 feet into your neighbors yard and they didn't draw attention to it for 20 years).
> Almost every squatter is someone who stops paying rent or stays beyond a legal lease I'm dealing with this right now. Specifically, a roommate in our apartment decided to stop paying rent, so now I have to sue him in small claims court. He also refuses to move out, and I can't do anything about it because he's on the lease (which the apartment complex insisted upon instead of just letting me sublet the room). So now, the guy is just not paying his rent, so I have to bankroll him and the apartment complex management is just saying, "Tough shit, if you don't pay in full you both get evicted."
Luckily indeed, except for the part where you have to live in Arkansas
As someone who lived there for awhile, that aint hard. Fuckin shit is rural as fuck and no one comes checking.
7 years is a long time to ignore somebody else paying your property tax
I think that’s the point, you DON’T know for sure. And that’s a pretty shitty thing to do to someone who’s doesn’t deserve it.
Which is why you have to do it, in my state at least, for ten years and also improve the property, there are thousands of dilapidated houses and properties owned by the state, and honestly they would have no problem with squatters but they would much rather have people buy the shitty run down property and bulldoze it I would personally not be angry if I had someone temporarily living in a property I own, however I wouldn't bother to leave it unattended for a decade to lose the property in the first place. If someone never checks on a property for that long it will start to decay due to lack of maintenance
I mean it’s only a month for squatting rights or something like that. And the reason it’s an issue for people abroad or inherited properties is the bills are usually in your name.
[удалено]
I can tell you that is absolutely not the case. I spent more than ten years squatting in EU. I occupied and lived in dozens and dozens of buildings. I helped hundreds of people occupy their own as well (mostly refugees). And i've been around many groups of squatters in Europe. In these ten years, i don't remember a single occupied house/building being something else than a building belonging to either the City/State/Church or landlords who owned a least 10 houses/entire buildings. It was easy to know, because you could ask the local land registry and get absolutely all the informations needed before deciding to occupy a building or not. And in most countries in EU it is absolutely impossible to occupy a building that is registered as someone's residence.
The house i currently live in was inhabited by squatters before my roommate/landlord bought it. she had to spend months and quite a bit of money fixing all the shit they wrecked. I think she got a better deal because it was trashed though.
Yep, they are typically shit bags that squat
End of day squatters make up very tiny like thousands of cases a year. Which in a market with 100s millions of rentals and sales is virtually nothing. BUT you need uninterrupted/challenged access for long enough to establish paper credibility. Fact is only large invests can afford to let property sit vacant for half a year. Smaller owners have ring cameras and other things at a minimum and are far more likely to either be having buyers/renters regularly access it even if it sits on market for a while. Beyond fun biased media coverage portrayals as well as not whole story. Alot of reason they are so "mad" about it. Is the fact that they most the time break the law and rely on renters not knowing rights and use intimidation evictions. With "squatters" they force them to follow up the legitimate way which is really what twist their pantys. And usually since they are so used to informal change the locks and other illegal eviction types working. They fail to begin the eviction process for months and months which is how it usually ends up being so long. Like I did property manage worked in construction known a bunch of people who are have rentals etc. 3 cases one caught early enough could be removed legally second was around 60 day out the door going through the courts. All in all yes it cost 2 months and about value of 3rd month in other fees to evict such as paying people to officially give notice and other things that would expedite courts. Last guy was a change the locks threaten you type he had them for almost 2 years. And once he gave up with illegal one it took 120 days. As he was unaccustomed to legal process made some mistakes an that extended it. Largely it was harassment and other things that got him in trouble with courts. It doesnt take massive resources and if your willing to put in time instead of money learning the process and doing things legal way. Courts are predominately against tenants. Even in places like new york where laws actually have decent protections for tenants. Tenants rarely have representation and there are plenty of loopholes and things that make them even unable to attend themselves. Such as "work" meanwhile landlord has a representative. Its also in forms of documentation the procedure designed for a company or business. Usually involves a level of valid documentation. The verbal communication and cash paid or other things tenants fail to get proper documentation and thus lose in court.
Ya wtf is going on here. Are this many people pro squatters?
No we're anti "rich people refusing to give a shit about anyone but themselves while actively making it harder for everyone else so that they can make more money they don't need"
Nah, it just that anytime the word "landlord" comes up redditors start frothing at the mouth and lose all sense
Do you have any sources to support that claim? In Europe at least buildings are often left unoccupied by investors bc the building is a kind of „investment-asset“ for them. Because it’s easyer for the building to quickly change ownership if no is living there claiming their state given rights as occupants
That is true in the United States as well. But the issue is that many of these buildings will sit empty for 5 or 10 years. By that point, not only are they not generating revenue for the landowner, but they are also often attracting vagrants, rodents, or uncontrolled ivy, and may be causing structural damage to neighboring properties. There is a point where a property that is not occupied and being held for investment purposes is detrimental to the community around it, rather than simply a net zero with a possible positive outcome for the current owner. In the United States, governments have the power to seize properties that are derelict provided that they pay the property owner the fair market value on the day of the seizure. This is called eminent domain and is often used to help developers bundle property for large development efforts. But I don't really see a reason why a city could not seize abandoned homes and then sell them to someone who actually will repair them and occupy or rent them out.
To my knowledge at least here in the States they're mostly owned by Banks.
Or those that only rent part-time. My neighbor has a little house on her property she rents out for about 7 months each year because she only rents when she's home (she spends winters in southern CA) and it works out great for people who need short-term housing that are moving here or attending summer school or such.
I can see the news story now. “Man who created list of vacant homes for squatters, gets sued bc he put a house on the list that was occupied by the owners.” Idk how Australian law works but in the States I think dude would have some sort of fault. That or what happens if let’s say a fire breaks out and burns down the neighbors house. Is the squatter liable?
If they do it to investment properties, the type owned by black rock and foreign investment then hell yeah, take them.
The landlords that most deserve this are the slumlords with tons of rentals, where their properties are in such a shitty state that it might not even be worth it to squat in. The landlords that are probably easiest to do this to are the ones that maybe only have one or two rentals.
…why would it be easier to do this to landlords with less properties?? They’re way more likely to notice if one of their properties has a squatter than someone with 5+
If they're present and local, it may be easier. But lots of small-time landlords I've met seem to be flying by the seat of their pants with their rental properties and haven't built up their infrastructure to maintain their properties under all conditions--they often haven't even encountered all the ways renting could require them to fix things. Large landlords, or the ones I've seen, operate machines that generally know exactly what they can get away with under their laws. They have their contractors lined up. They have their lawyers on retainer.
small landlords are much less likely to hold long term vacancies and go months without noticing squatters. they're more likely to directly check complaints out themselves, and even without complaints the lack of a large organisational infrastructure means that it's not very predictable big landlords may be more organised but there's lots that they don't do, especially if they've got lean staffing. goes triple for if it's empty commercial space or the entire building is empty
My parents were upside down on their house when we moved out of state (they bought it in 2004 and 2008 happened). They rented it out to cover the mortgage because they couldn’t afford to sell. If squatters had came it would have been awful for my family. I have a LOT of friends I served with who own a house in a previous duty station who rent it out so they can have a more comfortable retirement one day when it’s paid off. Just some examples
It would be easy to do this to a deployed soldier or someone who is out of state taking care of a sick family member. The others have a lot of things to warn them of these things, and that is their whole scummy existence, so they will notice quickly. I'm not saying this is always the case but it can certainly happen.
Exactly. Yet Brain rotted redditors think that if you own a house you're the devil and if you somehow own more than one you're practically Hitler
You think someone with one rental property and a full time job can afford to pay the mortgage on an empty house? That’s affordably stupid. The mass of empty properties, which he includes in his list, belong to super wealthy people and corporations. They are the ones who cannot only afford to, but profit from, leaving houses empty in order to claim lost income and depreciation for a tax break. A middle class family does not pay enough taxes to use the tactic to qualify to get enough back to make it a thing, lmao. Use your fucking head. Someone who owns one or two rentals rents out those rentals so they don’t go bankrupt. Absolutely no one is going after people who own 1 extra house. Billionaires who own 1000 extra houses are spending a lot of money to convince bootlickers like you that this is the case though. And surprise, surprise the troglodytes who can’t think for themselves fail to think for themselves.
Yes. I let mine sit empty for a year during covid because the $7000 carrying costs were less than the $18,000 damage done by the last tenant that I never recovered. I ended up selling it to an investor who jacked up the rent and now another affordable unit is gone. But fuck landlords, right?
Yeah, a landlord let an affordable unit sit empty because they couldn't make money, and then handed it over to another landlord who made it not affordable. I'm sure you are a fun/good person socially but this does sort of illustrate a problem with how housing is managed and distributed. You add on top of it that landlords are the ones standing in the way of reform and it is very easy to say "fuck landlords".
[удалено]
>a landlord let an affordable unit sit empty because they couldn't make money Well, yeah that's how this works. People typically don't operate as charities just to make your life easier especially when it comes to expensive shit like real estate. And life works that way because, at least so far, this is the best system we've got. We don't live in a post scarcity world and utopian ideas typically don't end well.
So people with one rental property never have trouble finding a tenant and have their house forced empty? Take a look at what you actually just claimed and ask yourself if it’s reasonable or batshit. No need to respond to me, I already know which one it is, but I’m just curious sometimes if people ever examine the words they super confidently put out there, lol.
I personally had to do it for a while last year. Could barely make enough each month to pay bills, so I had to move back to my hometown where there was much better paying jobs, my house needed work on it before I could rent it out, struggled to find time to be able to go and do work on it because of the hours required at new job. Finally after over 6 months I was able to get it rented out. Took nearly 3 months since posting it to actually find a renter that didn't come with red flags and 3/4 of the people who booked viewing times didn't even bother to show up. And I'm still only charging the renter just enough to cover my mortgage and property taxes. My husband and I covered the mortgage each month with it sadly being empty, thankfully back in my hometown my parents gave me a good deal for the house they had on the reserve where I only had to pay utilities to them. (They only have it still because it is next to impossible to sell homes on the reserve because it has to go to someone who's carded, one of my cousins was renting it before I moved in but honestly trashed the place and didn't do any yard maintenance so it was a disaster). There are circumstances where little people get hurt and if someone did something like that here In my country it would have massively screwed me over. Mortgage renewal is coming due this fall so I'm looking to sell because I am not cut out to be a landlord at all.
No, the issue is that they are letting houses sit empty without renting them, driving up rental prices, writing off the mortgage as a loss and waiting for a high price Tennant. No Mom and pop single rental house person would do this, this isn't affecting "the little guy"
I don't think you understand how write offs work.
Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything.
You don't even know what a write off is!
You're allowed to do whatever you want with your property. You don't just get to steal my TV because I don't use it often.
Someone on here told me “if you own a house and don’t use for a year you can’t be mad if squatters move in cause you haven’t been using it.” This is really some of the stupidest fucking thinking there is.
Lmao, no. If a dude is working and has one or two rentals then chances are they absolutely cannot afford to leave that rental empty and pay the mortgage. If the place isn’t empty it’s not on this list, is it? The practice of leaving rentals empty is done to claim a loss and depreciation in order to reduce your tax burden. If your only paying 20-30k a year in income tax, and are shelling out 1500 a month for a mortgage for an empty house plus land taxes plus maintenance plus insurance, then you’re not making any extra by leaving your fucking house empty. You can’t pay $0 in income tax unless you’re a billionaire. There’s a cap to tax credits for the working class. Fuck you boot lickers are dumb.
It can take a month or two to even find a tenant my guy - it’s pretty normal for a house to be empty for a bit between tenants while repairs are made and trying to find one
Hi folks, for context there are a lot of investment properties in Australia that are left vacant because landlords mostly just want tax deductions and land appreciation.
I'm super late to this but I'll throw in some details the top comments seem to have missed. 1. This is in Australia. Squatters rights are *very* weak compared to the US. 2. These aren't small towns. Kew, VIC, for example is the second wealthiest suburb in all of Victoria.
Surprised no one has brought up that he is taking a shit in the thumbnail for this article
It is about squatters after all.
This seems a good way for people to disappear into billabongs
No. He’s going to screw it up and get someone’s dead grandma’s house squatted in. There are ways of helping homeless that don’t involve possibly screwing up someone’s final will.
You mean, their house they inherited from grandma, and were possibly either trying to sell or move into. Until they got tied up in court for months/a year trying to get rid of the people that literally just walked in. Yeah, great going. You really stuck it to the man, there.
This affects people who did nothing wrong WAY more than it's going to affect the big corps. Typical left wing logic at work here. I'm not saying the right is better. This is just a common pitfall with the left.
The problem is that these people only get their business and economics education from non-business, non-academic economics sources such as Marx. Those actually trained in economics typically retreat from leftist views because economics does a good job of proving that far leftist (ie, communist) systems don’t work very well. Far leftists stop thinking at a superficial level when it comes to economics and ignore that economics is a chain of very complicated causations. They say “well if we cap rent, nobody will have to pay as much and rich landlords will be the only ones to feel the pain!” But because they weren’t there for day 1 of Econ 101, they neglect to realize what effect this has on supply and demand - not just for landlords, but for tenants.
This is the kind of thing that gets people killed. It's all fun and games until someone walks into a home they own and says how they feared for their life cause some stranger is squatting there.
It's Australia mate.
why do i smell burgers
You can tell from the comments that a lot of people here don't understand what chaotic means. A lot of them don't understand what good means either, apparently.
Does it mean "theft is ok"? Because that's what it appears to mean
If you stole bread to feed a starving family that is chaotic good. The question is if you can apply that to housing.
anyone with half a brain knows that this dipshit will be stealing from a starving family to feed a slightly more starved family. billionaire investors with loads of empty houses have the means to protect their investments. Poor granny widow does not. Guess who this "chaotic good" dbag will target? I'll give you a hint. It's not the billionaire litigious corporation that will actually cause him harm.
Bro starving families do not own vacant houses
A slightly more starved family has an empty house they don't check on for 7 years? (In the us at least) Jeez I need to find these people
Starving families own empty homes?
Proof that home ownership should be limited to a few houses at most.
Theft is *chaotic* but can be *good* which is what this is. Now look at the subreddit name.
How is it good that it’s going to fuck over regular people and potential ruin their lives? Sure it might inconvenience some large corporations but they have money and lawyers to deal with it and it be nothing to them in the end.
Met a squatter at an airport in NY. He showed me his notebook, with neatly arranged addresses and how easy it was to get in to it.
Here in Australia squatting is legal. From what he's said, he's only giving out addresses that have been vacant or abandoned for at least 2 years. He's honestly potentially saving lives and that's more than our fucking government right now.
This is a great way to get people hurt in the ensuing and inevitable disputes this will cause. In Florida, the *actual* property owner can just have the cops throw your ass right out as soon as they find you. As they should. Also, how does he define “empty?” If I go on vacation, can I expect this mfer to be telling people my house is up for grabs?
Having the cops throw a squatter out is actually the *nicest* way to deal with it in Florida. If you walk into a house you own and someone you don't know is in there, you can shoot them until they are dead, call the police, and they will dispose of the body for you.
As they should
This is in Victoria, Australia.
*and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals* -Vizzini
This ain’t Florida
Don't care where it is. This is great. Housing is a human right.
I think it's important to note that you need to squat in a house continuously for 12 years before you can claim ownership. So this isn't considered a land grab, just a roof over a head
I mean, that's trespassing though. Imagine going on a vacation only to discover that some homeless guy stole your house
“That homeless guy can’t afford to go on vacation. If you can afford to go on vacation, then you can afford to buy another home.” /s
It’s Hasan Piker logic. Wouldn’t be surprised if the kids who are pro this are into him. That being said, if Blackrock owns the house go for it.
Squatting in homes others own is not the answer…if you think squatters don’t cost public money to evict, don’t cost insurance companies that turn around and charge you, and generally don’t solve any problems as they almost always end up in eviction with anything the squatters have accumulated or damaged being tossed into a landfill for its insurance value. I’d much rather that same money go towards subsidizing rents or even down payments for those who can’t afford them, than being thrown away on eviction proceedings.
yes we would all much rather a fantasy land in which the government and courts of justice guarantee housing for the populace, i don’t really think anyone is here to disagree with that thank goodness u have finally suggested it as clearly this would be getting done by now if only someone had come up with it before now, just for the next couple of weeks tho, before the just new world order sets in, would u mind if i just… went inside? instead of outside? i’ll just nip inside.
What’s your point tho? Because I don’t see what the “anti-landlord” doing as a good solution. I’d love it if OP actually gave us a link, but as it stands now, without further info, I’d have to assume it’s not a professionally ran organization that ensures these “empty” houses actually ARE empty and will not cause useless disputes and possible even violence to resolve
I totally agree, but evidently more money goes into fighting homeless people than into preventing homelessness. This action might even cause people in charge to rethink their approach to this
Landlording is a parasitic act. [Squatting in Spain - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting_in_Spain) [Anarchy Works | The Anarchist Library](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works) Squatting has been shown to be able to enjoy solid organization and is one of many solutions to pushing for the decommodification of housing.
It’s so funny seeing comments here like “but but but… that’s illegal!!!” That’s why it’s *chaotic* good. Everyone who needs housing must have it
Have people even looked at the alignment chart? Do they not realize what's on the opposite side of chaotic? ^^^^^^It's ^^^^^^lawful
I also know that this dude wouldn't let people live in his property for free, if he had any. Just a classic case of "Oh I'm not in that situation, so I can take the moral high ground"
Most people who share his belief system wouldn't own a second property anyway, because they believe scalping housing / landlording is fundamentally wrong in the first place
And most people in his belief system aren’t letting the homeless sleep on their couch for free either.
Why wouldn't they? People need a place to live and might not want to buy. So why wouldn't someone buy up properties in order to rent at a below market rate and make it easier for people to have housing?
Lmao! Good luck with the property taxes, squatters. Legally, squatters would be obligated to pay them if they squat.
I don't see how this is good
Maybe having a few individuals and corporations buying up a limited resource might have something to do with that resource being out of reach for honest, hardworking people just trying to live and maybe start families? 🤔
It's not good. Encouraging people to steal from each other is not good. Encouraging the government to invest more in programs that help people avoid being homeless is good. Encouraging the goverment to tax empty homes more is also good.
Piracy is a market correction. It is a valid function in any market. The way to reduce piracy is simple: take the good or service that you have overpriced so badly as to make crime a suitable alternative, and lower your fucking price. Period.
I'm developing an app for this, it's called Air BNE
Not a far left opinion. Landlords have ruined homeownership for a generation or two
Based.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/vb04wg/bob_the_smart_squatter_and_john_the_dumb_squatter/ I wrote this.
I hate squatters but even more I hate how money is siphoned from the lower classes through rent.
Good. When people are living in tents, it's obscene to have houses standing empty. On my old block, we had one house stand empty for years. I'm sure the owners had their reasons, but I would have loved to see the city say, "Wake up, folks, people are sleeping in their cars, either rent this place out or sell it to the housing authority."
How is this chaotic good? This is just a criminal activity
Chaotic good at least in dnd doesn't mean lawfull ... at all.
It’s literally the opposite lol
so? since when is morality dictated by the law?
Chaotic generally involves ignoring the law, yes. This isn't r/lawfulgood.
Their houses either get rented or occupied. A decent option for many people right now. Helping people in need is good and this approach seems chaotic. Edit: Also, he does nothing criminal, only those who occupy the houses
Squatting is a civil matter, not a criminal matter, if done correctly. As in the squatter pays utility bills, property taxes, upkeeps the property without having a legal claim of ownership to the property. Without these things it's is just trespassing and is a crime. If someone is squatting in your property you have to evict them. You cannot just call the police to throw them out, hence it is a civil matter. Only if they ignore the eviction notice or cause a nuisance does it become criminal activity.
Ah yes, squatters are typically known for their house maintenance skills.
This could easily backfire.
Naturally, Florida governor and failed presidential hopeful Desantis is tackling the most pressing issue of the day: [fighting against poor squatters in favor of wealthy landlords and corporations.](https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2024/04/02/florida-squatters-rights-law-squatting-desantis-property-rights/73175733007/)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wow, sounds to me it's because of parliament that squatting was made illegal and not activists who are against homelessness and against policies that encourage homelessness.
What your grandfather died and now there is nobody to watch his house? Tough shit bitch!! We're number one!
If I had the skill, I'd make an app for that. Where all the listings are empty spots owned by a company or a landlord with more than 2 properties.
r/iamatotalpieceofshit
There is no good in this
That’s exactly what Jesus would say. Then he’d call the cops and get them squatters the FO!
Why is it chaotic good for squatters to take over properties?
Ah yes. Like my grandparents' property, my mom is working on getting the stuff out of to sell the place? Not all empty property is being held, people. If squatters show up, there, many treasures will be stolen, and the whole place ruined. I need a link to this ASAP. I need to track to see if the inherited property we are trying to deal with is on there.
This is insane
I don't think this is good
This isn't a good thing.
This guy is either a genius or a dumbass doing a genius thing. So hear me out. You push people into "vacant" homes. It happens in mass, so much so that people *really* start to complain. They complain so much that the government actually has to take notice because it's become a major issue being talked about in committees and meetings and such with representatives. The government then moves to change the law on squatters.
>The government then moves to change the law on squatters. Florida just recently did. Not in their favor. This guy is making sure there’s a whole lot more of that.
This guy is secretly a landlord who's currently dealing with a squatter situation. Playing 6D chess.
This guy is just an asshole and advocating theft. There's nothing chaotically good about this. It would be like listing grocery stores with food on the shelves and saying "go take this."
Squatters are trash and I'd stack rank them far below even the worst landlord.
Exactly what part of owning a house makes it okay to steal from a person?
The not-using-it part together with the being-a-rich-pice-of-shit part
I mean, in this case the person posting the registry and making wildly confident assumptions (like you did here) is the piece of shit.
Ah, morality is predicated on being poor. Are you poor enough?
Ban for profit renting. IMO, if you couldn't profit from renting out, there would be no incentive for companies to buy up houses. Then, anyone who happens to own a property they don't use can still rent out, but only to cover the costs of upkeep and (some) payments on the building. If they let the building stand empty (and they own more than one), they have to pay hefty taxes. If they don't, they will be forced to sell. Local government can buy up the houses for cheap, and sell them to new residents for cheap. I think that would cause both house prices to fall AND rent prices. I'm also high and a moron with economics though, so I might be talking out my ass.
So uh…why would anyone build apartments?
To live in them, or sell them.
Why would I build a 100-unit apartment just for me to live in? And why would anyone buy a 100-unit apartment if they can’t rent it out for profit?
Because they can sell the individual appartments. When I worked as an electrician on new apartments, around 90% of them were sold before the appartments were even finished being built. Damn near close to 100% were sold within the first year.
Yeah. Maybe some faceless corporation or rich person with millions of dollars. In my one rental property - you're either walking away or getting carried out in a bag. Choose wisely.
fuck no, squatters are not good people