Virgos Groove Posted March 31 Posted March 31 13 minutes ago, Archetype said: 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. I'm gonna have to disagree here. It's like @Communion said: if you're paying the utilities for months, have your mail sent there, and have all your belongings there, you are absolutely a tenant. Only extending tenant laws to legalized tenants is exactly what slumlords want. If there are unlegalized tenants, it's the landlords' fault for not offering (or refusing to offer) a contract. They're the ones managing the "business". Sure, people should research their rights and demand a contract, but the balance of power between a tenant and a landlord is never equal, especially when the former is in a precarious situation. 4 1
Communion Posted March 31 Author Posted March 31 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Archetype said: You're inventing grandiose fictional narratives in your head No one's inventing anything. You're simply refusing to recognize how your argument is offensive to people who have experienced homelessness. It's one thing to unknowingly be insensitive, but you double-down that you have an understanding of housing law, even when the rhetoric is overtly dehumanizing to poor people. You didn't answer the question - why would someone repeatedly take hundreds of dollar from someone if not in agreement to provide housing? "Well they don't have a written lease so they don't have rights" - except these laws we're discussing, very much, in effect provide them such rights. Which is why the right-wing in America and landlords are trying to cause some imagined hysteria to dismantle them. "Even a high schooler should know you should get a lease". Do poor people have an abundance of housing to choose from and can be picky? What happens when the dismantling of these rights mean people get evicted in just 24 hours in harsh summers or freezing cold winters? What is the answer for when someone dies because they went from housed to homeless in the middle of December? Go to a homeless shelter? The very same people fear-mongering about squatters' rights don't want homeless shelters to be built either! Edited March 31 by Communion 1
dawnettakins Posted March 31 Posted March 31 Fake news. The squatters rights is an ancient policy which has no business still bring around today. Especially when it's being used by criminals and scammers trying to live rent-free and keep propery away from rightful property owners. Imagine defending and being okay with that! NY could learn a thing or 2 and start protecting legitimate tenants instead of people gaming and scamming the system. 1 1
John Slayne Posted April 1 Posted April 1 yet another terrible take from TYT, does anyone still pay attention to them?
Archetype Posted April 2 Posted April 2 On 3/31/2024 at 4:24 PM, Virgos Groove said: I'm gonna have to disagree here. It's like @Communion said: if you're paying the utilities for months, have your mail sent there, and have all your belongings there, you are absolutely a tenant. Only extending tenant laws to legalized tenants is exactly what slumlords want. If there are unlegalized tenants, it's the landlords' fault for not offering (or refusing to offer) a contract. They're the ones managing the "business". Sure, people should research their rights and demand a contract, but the balance of power between a tenant and a landlord is never equal, especially when the former is in a precarious situation. Yea, I see what you mean, but if a person has zero legal claim to being a tenant, then IMO they are simply not a legal tenant. This is such an extreme minority instance, especially in the US. The problem with utilities, mail, and belongings, etc is that anyone, and I mean anyone, could pay utilities, forward their mail, and drop off their belongings to any location. I can easily sign up on my electricity provider's website to pay for my neighbor's electricity, can easily change my address to theirs, and can put my belongings on their balcony. In fact, I still get bank statements and unpaid utility bills from the prior tenant, who also left some belongings inside when I moved in. There are so many massive, easily exploitable loopholes here. An obvious solution is to legally require all landlords to issue lease agreements with tenants, and for a tenant to have signed a lease agreement with the landlord to be consider a legal tenant, otherwise the landlord can be held accountable in some way by law. I do think it is the responsibility of a landlord AND tenant do the simple research regarding a lease agreement, and for tenants especially to refuse the offer of housing if no lease is to be provided *unless* they accept the possibility of sudden and immediate eviction at any moment. So many aspects of life require minor-research, especially something as important and expensive as housing, so I do not think it's unreasonable to ask people to figure this part out. On 3/31/2024 at 4:38 PM, Communion said: No one's inventing anything. You're simply refusing to recognize how your argument is offensive to people who have experienced homelessness. It's one thing to unknowingly be insensitive, but you double-down that you have an understanding of housing law, even when the rhetoric is overtly dehumanizing to poor people. You didn't answer the question - why would someone repeatedly take hundreds of dollar from someone if not in agreement to provide housing? "Well they don't have a written lease so they don't have rights" - except these laws we're discussing, very much, in effect provide them such rights. Which is why the right-wing in America and landlords are trying to cause some imagined hysteria to dismantle them. "Even a high schooler should know you should get a lease". Do poor people have an abundance of housing to choose from and can be picky? What happens when the dismantling of these rights mean people get evicted in just 24 hours in harsh summers or freezing cold winters? What is the answer for when someone dies because they went from housed to homeless in the middle of December? Go to a homeless shelter? The very same people fear-mongering about squatters' rights don't want homeless shelters to be built either! No, you did indeed invent a fictional scenario in your head while ignoring a majority of what I wrote. You do this a lot, I normally just don't bother to respond. You are talking about using "offensive" language when I'm plainly speaking about what is and what isn't considered legal occupation by law, and I'm not writing policy or enacting any laws in place. I care about legally protecting tenants AND property owners from being exploited by one another, not just on half of the equation. Quote You didn't answer the question - why would someone repeatedly take hundreds of dollar from someone if not in agreement to provide housing? They would do so because they want to profit off an unfilled space, a space which might not be considered a legally habitable apartment by city/state law and should not be rented to anyone for housing. They are maliciously using desperate people who cannot afford anything else or do not know any better. However, a landlord can still draft up a lease for a legally non-habitable space and this would be considered enough legal documentation for a tenant to have protections, but that also allows a tenant to sue the landlord for not providing legally required accommodations. OR... they are simply doing a favor, such as a friend or relative informally "renting" out an extra room or couch to another friend or relative. Perhaps there are more reasons! Quote "Even a high schooler should know you should get a lease". Do poor people have an abundance of housing to choose from and can be picky? What happens when the dismantling of these rights mean people get evicted in just 24 hours in harsh summers or freezing cold winters? What is the answer for when someone dies because they went from housed to homeless in the middle of December? Go to a homeless shelter? Landlords should not be allowed to rent a space to someone without a legal document to prove this agreement. Call it a lease, or something else, but not having some sort of legal documentation regarding the agreement between the landlord and the tenant should be illegal. Like I said above to the other poster, exploiting loopholes in the current law is very easy to do. If this wasn't the case, no one could be suddenly and randomly evicted on a moment's notice. The point is, the status-quo allows both parties to be exploited by one another. The problem needs to be solved via both ends and not just focused on half of the equation. Having selective empathy isn't helping anyone here.
Communion Posted April 2 Author Posted April 2 1 minute ago, Archetype said: I care about legally protecting tenants AND property owners from being exploited by one another Property owners can't be exploited because to be a landlord is to inherently exploit others. Your idea of what constitutes legal rights and who has them is at odds with current reality. 1 1
Archetype Posted April 2 Posted April 2 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Communion said: Property owners can't be exploited because to be a landlord is to inherently exploit others. Your idea of what constitutes legal rights and who has them is at odds with current reality. That is factually incorrect, and unfortunate for you. 4 minutes ago, Communion said: Your idea of what constitutes legal rights and who has them is at odds with current reality. In our current reality, a rental lease is the only legally binding agreement to prove lawful occupancy. To state otherwise, is, once again, delusion. If you want to change that, run for congress. Edited April 2 by Archetype 2 1
Recommended Posts