Virgos Groove Posted March 31 Posted March 31 You're telling me TYT are a bunch of frauds who haven't offered a valuable opinion since the first Obama administration... 2 1
JBJT2786 Posted March 31 Posted March 31 I mean....I know why Desatan is doing this but.... We seen all the horror stories with squatters why is this a bad thing again?
Communion Posted March 31 Author Posted March 31 3 minutes ago, Virgos Groove said: You're telling me TYT are a bunch of frauds who haven't offered a valuable opinion since the first Obama administration... Me waiting. for our resident professional managerial class members to rush in and argue that poor people actually deserve to have all of their material possessions ripped out of the place they live at a moment's notice by virtue of being poor: 2
GraceRandolph Posted March 31 Posted March 31 Ana Kasparian is angling for that Candace Owens spot at the DailyWire. 1 1
Elusive Chanteuse Posted March 31 Posted March 31 I didn't know being pro squatter was a democrat policy position. 7 2
Arthoe Posted March 31 Posted March 31 Not surprised after hearing Cenk's psychotic opinions about hating homeless people and wanting to imprison them or cause bodily harm to them. TYT unfortunately has become a catalyst for radicalizing uncommitted liberals towards right-wing populism. 1
Princess Aurora Posted March 31 Posted March 31 (edited) Not me thinking they were talking about banning squatting at the gym Btw I never liked them, I remember how they treated Britney back in the day. That says a lot about them Edited March 31 by Princess Aurora 1
Communion Posted March 31 Author Posted March 31 Just now, JBJT2786 said: I mean....I know why Desatan is doing this but.... We seen all the horror stories with squatters why is this a bad thing again? Because squatters' rights in most scenarios don't actually refer to homeless people living in an abandoned place. That's not a phenomenon that regularly occurs. Proponents of these kinds of bills argue that a lease is the only evidence someone lives somewhere and not utilities or other legal docuemtnation. If someone is homeless... how are they affording to not just turn on but have utilities in their name for that residence across multiple months? Here's a simple question. If someone has been: Living somewhere and paying their rent in cash for 10 months Has multiple utilities in their name or their mail regularly goes to this address Does that person then deserve to be subject to an immediate eviction with their possessions put on the street with no prior notice? 1
Virgos Groove Posted March 31 Posted March 31 6 minutes ago, Communion said: Me waiting. for our resident professional managerial class members to rush in and argue that poor people actually deserve to have all of their material possessions ripped out of the place they live at a moment's notice by virtue of being poor: Yes, it's very sad that these people have been thrown into destitution and live a life of poverty and hardship, but have you considered that I don't like looking at them on my way to Starbucks? 4
DAP Posted March 31 Posted March 31 Someone show Cenk what a tenants' union is so he can have a heart attack 1
Communion Posted March 31 Author Posted March 31 41 minutes ago, Elusive Chanteuse said: I didn't know being pro squatter was a democrat policy position. Not hating poor people usually is one, but given Democrats' collapsing share of working class voters, I imagine your hatred of poor people aligns with why we're here. 1
Archetype Posted March 31 Posted March 31 (edited) 1 hour ago, Communion said: Here's a simple question. If someone has been: Living somewhere and paying their rent in cash for 10 months Has multiple utilities in their name or their mail regularly goes to this address Does that person then deserve to be subject to an immediate eviction with their possessions put on the street with no prior notice? Yes, if they lack documented legal approval from the property owner to live there. What you are describing is quite literally a "favor" and favors have no legal standing. Why is this so difficult to understand? Edited March 31 by Archetype 1
Communion Posted March 31 Author Posted March 31 (edited) 1 minute ago, Archetype said: Yes, they lack documented legal approval from the property owner to live there. A property owner who accepted cash payments from someone for months on months did not give that person approval to reside in the residence? Huh? Then... what were those payments for? Will the eviction come with an immediate refund of all the rental payments made? Edited March 31 by Communion 2
Communion Posted March 31 Author Posted March 31 2 minutes ago, Archetype said: What you are describing is quite literally a "favor" and favors have no legal standing. Oh? It went form worse to worser? You're outright supporting slum lords. Some of you are so Insanely privileged you have no idea what it's like to be poor and the kind of exploitation you encounter or... you're the very people doing the exploitation of poor people in question. Do you own property? Would the rental authority in your region consider you a landlord in good standing if your rentals were investigated?
Virgos Groove Posted March 31 Posted March 31 12 minutes ago, Archetype said: Yes, they lack documented legal approval from the property owner to live there. What you are describing is quite literally a "favor" and favors have no legal standing. You are so close to getting it.
Archetype Posted March 31 Posted March 31 6 minutes ago, Virgos Groove said: You are so close to getting it. Fill in the gap and maybe I'll change my mind?
a_d_22 Posted March 31 Posted March 31 i live in florida 8 months of the year and desantis is an idiot but why the hell should squatters have any sort of protection? it's one of the few good laws desantis has passed 2 1
Virgos Groove Posted March 31 Posted March 31 1 minute ago, Archetype said: Fill in the gap and maybe I'll change my mind? Landlords will rent to tenants without giving them a legal document (many times outright refusing to), meaning they don't have to follow any kind of rental laws. If they decide to expell a tenant, and said tenant takes it to court, it'll get dismissed because, as you said, it was "a favour" in the eyes of the law. 3
BlueTimberwolf Posted March 31 Posted March 31 1 hour ago, Communion said: Because squatters' rights in most scenarios don't actually refer to homeless people living in an abandoned place. That's not a phenomenon that regularly occurs. Proponents of these kinds of bills argue that a lease is the only evidence someone lives somewhere and not utilities or other legal docuemtnation. If someone is homeless... how are they affording to not just turn on but have utilities in their name for that residence across multiple months? Here's a simple question. If someone has been: Living somewhere and paying their rent in cash for 10 months Has multiple utilities in their name or their mail regularly goes to this address Does that person then deserve to be subject to an immediate eviction with their possessions put on the street with no prior notice? This seems like a very specific, and most likely rare scenario. And the government shouldn't be encouraging people to not have a lease. Nor should these utilities companies be providing a service to someone who has no legal right to be in that residence. 1
bad guy Posted March 31 Posted March 31 So you're saying TYT stands for nothing and are just political grifters who go wherever the wind blows (or in their case where the cash flows)? This is shocking. OT: The bill is about to **** over tenants' rights instead of just simply amending the law regarding actual squatters. But that's Florida for you. 1
Archetype Posted March 31 Posted March 31 16 minutes ago, Communion said: Oh? It went form worse to worser? You're outright supporting slum lords. Some of you are so Insanely privileged you have no idea what it's like to be poor and the kind of exploitation you encounter or... you're the very people doing the exploitation of poor people in question. Do you own property? Would the rental authority in your region consider you a landlord in good standing if your rentals were investigated? You're inventing grandiose fictional narratives in your head, which is unfortunately common for you, to deflect from discussing what is actually in the comment you're replying to. I don't know what inner issues are causing this for you but I wish you well. 3 minutes ago, Virgos Groove said: Landlords will rent to tenants without giving them a legal document (many times outright refusing to), meaning they don't have to follow any kind of rental laws. If they decide to expell a tenant, and said tenant takes it to court, it'll get dismissed because, as you said, it was "a favour" in the eyes of the law. First off, thank you for responding with this information. I do disagree with some of the terminology here. I understand that in extreme circumstances someone would pay a property owner without an agreement for housing, but that is, once again, a non legally binding favor. They don't have any sort of tenants rights because they are not a legal tenant. If landlords are being deceitful and exploitative, they deserve to be fully punished by law, possibly even banning them from being a landlord indefinitely or having property repossessed. However, this is also the extreme risk of relying on someone's "word" to provide you with a roof. Also, this is not a complicated or complex concept to understand or learn about. Teenagers know about the concept of a lease agreement. Google is right there. It's not a privileged thing to have a lease agreement or know what it is. 1 1
Communion Posted March 31 Author Posted March 31 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Virgos Groove said: Landlords will rent to tenants without giving them a legal document (many times outright refusing to), meaning they don't have to follow any kind of rental laws. If they decide to expell a tenant, and said tenant takes it to court, it'll get dismissed because, as you said, it was "a favour" in the eyes of the law. Let alone then that the purpose of laws like this are not only to weaken the case for a renter later on in court but to *expedite* the process of physically removing the renter and making them homeless by allowing police to essentially forcefully evict someone if they cannot provide a physical lease agreement then and there. How is someone now homeless and out on the streets meant to have the means to pursue a legal civil case for wrongful eviction? 18 minutes ago, BlueTimberwolf said: This seems like a very specific, and most likely rare scenario. A poor person renting a room out for cash on a weekly basis or renting an apartment or house that would fail several safety inspections and thus is being offered at a lower rate without a formal lease by a landlord is 10000x more likely of a scenario to occur than a mythical invasion of homeless people somehow setting up in hundreds of homes across rich suburbs and this hoard of homeless people setting up utilities or mailing addresses or other public documentation of resdience without the owner of the home noticing for months. Whatever crime you think is happening is imagined. You're being duped by anti-homeless mania to support chipping away at the rights poor people have. Laws like this are worded how they are to target poor renters, not "squatters". Because a "squatter" is simply someone who is entitled to the same legal protections as a legal tenant, which includes the proper eviction process. Squatters' rights don't give someone permanent residence? You just, as a landlord, have to follow the law. These laws are on the books to incentivize landlords to follow regulations and get formal leases. If you're complaining about some imagined homeless squatting problem, it sounds like it's time to move the housing market away from private landlords and eliminate any risk of lawbreaking and legal grey area where private individual landlords can wrongfully evict poor people. Edited March 31 by Communion 2 1
Recommended Posts