Should Squatters Be Allowed to Take People's Homes?

[Bodi]

Inspired by this story:

A New York City homeowner was arrested for unlawful eviction after arguing with squatters who, she says, stole her $1 million home last month.​

​

The New York Police Department took Adele Andaloro, 47, into custody after she attempted to change the locks on her Queens property that she inherited following her parents’ deaths, ABC Eyewitness News reported Monday. The standoff between Andaloro and the squatters occurred on February 29.​

​

In New York City, squatters can claim tenant rights after living on a property for 30 days. This tenant-protection law is much more generous than the one in New York’s statewide law, which requires squatters to remain on a property for ten years before gaining such rights. A squatter refers to any person who unlawfully occupies an uninhabited building without the landlord’s permission. Under New York City law, homeowners cannot change the locks, switch off utilities, or remove personal items belonging to their tenants from a property....​

This particular case involved two squatters being eventually removed, and then a third individual creating a roadblock by claiming to be a tenant, at which point the police refused to help, and instead arrested the owner:

She was told that the standoff is a landlord-tenant issue, meaning it has to be resolved in housing court rather than through the police. Andaloro indicated she would pursue an eviction filing in landlord-tenant court.​

​

Brian Rodriguez, the allegedly legal tenant, said that is the only way to settle the dispute. “You got to go to court and send me to court,” he said. “Pay me the money and I’ll leave or send me to court.”​

​

However, that might take longer than anticipated. According to the Rent Stabilization Association, resolving an eviction case filed in New York City takes an average of 20 months.....​

What a joke.

Squatters should be put in prison.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

"Sheriff... if you do not remove these people, I will."
- Me

 

[Slartibartfast]

And I will gain mention that squatters are low life scum not deserving of anyone's sympathy and they should not be entitled to show up at anyone's unoccupied property and be allowed to change the locks or stay. They should in the least be immediate tossed out on their asses. It would be better if they are arrested for burglary and put in jail.

Cool, that has nothing to do with the point of my comment, but feel free to keep ranting.

 

[Absentglare]

Dude, that's why the cops make a determination. If someone entered through a window or broke a lock and then replaced them, that's breaking and entering, regardless of whether he claims to "live there," if he's not the owner of the house or a tenant.

Absolute nonsense. If one is a squatter, one is by definition not a tenant. Tenants rights protect people who believe they are tenants. To be a tenant, you have to be renting the place from someone. You can't be under a mistaken impression that you're leasing a house from from somebody, ffs.

This was already explained in the thread. There are cases where someone thinks they are legitimately leasing from the landlord but they are actually living in an abandoned space. It’s not common, but it can happen, and police cannot resolve such a dispute.

Then they are a tenant, not a squatter.

They think they are a tenant, the landlord thinks they are a squatter- the point is, they have been living there for a significant amount of time and that automatically gives them some rights from immediate, possibly illegal, eviction at the hands of police.

That's why, as I said, the cops would look into it and if the person presented a lease, or payment information, or some reason to believe the person is a tenant, then the cop should decline to arrest. But, some dipshit in the house just claiming he lives there is not a tenant. Arrest, then he goes before the court within 24 hours and he can explain what he's doing there.

They can’t sort that all out to the satisfaction of the landlord, though. They gotta go to the courts.

That is why I said that if there is no probable cause to arrest for B&E, then there has to be a speedy process for eviction. The owner posts a 3 day notice to quit, and when the person does not leave, they file an eviction complaint and post it to the door. The court sets a date within a week or two, and the "tenant" can come to the court and present some information to suggest he has a right to stay there. In my state, if you are a tenant, then to prevent eviction you have to pay the rent due into the registry of the court until the court makes a determination on the eviction.


Quick eviction is the key, as states like NY are depriving homeowners of their property for months and years.....

It’s kind of exaggerated to say that they are deprived of property when they retain ownership. There may be a delay between when they show up to their abandoned property and when they regain complete control of that property. I think it’s fair to say we should process such evictions quickly, but I maintain that the proper place to sort it out is the courts. And I’d rather err on the side of the squatter, who would be made homeless, than the abandoning landlord, who may have to treat their abandoned property as though it is still abandoned a little while longer.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I approve of squatting in abandoned areas but said abandonment should be longer than 30 days.

I don’t as it frequently transpires in urban areas of the US. I can tell you as a law enforcer they represent increased drug use, neighborhood criminality, health and fire hazard increases. Even increases in the potential for sexual assault.

We had a unit that identified abandoned housing that forced foreclosing entities or owners to seal them properly including boarding them securely.

If they were orphaned properly we documented it and moved to have it turned over to the city and converted to affordable housing.

 

[Peter]

Which is primarily a problem in democrat run states and cities. That's were pretty much all of the tent cities are located. However giving squaters any rights whatsoever to inhabit homes that they do not own or rent is stupid at an insane level.

Would you prefer a property to stay abandoned forever and nothing can be done?
Obviously I've never had enough money to just abandon a house to rot but if I did I'd rather it eventually have a usefull purpose.

 

[Absentglare]

The problem is these people are extornionists and often they do this to extort cash from the owner. While waiting for their eviction hearing they’ll do things like turn up the gas and open all of the windows and leave the legitimate owner with 5000 dollar gas bills which they have to pay because renter protection laws don’t let you cut utilities on deadbeats

If you abandon property, you can rack up a 5000 dollar gas bill already, with no legal protection for squatters, whatsoever.

Here’s good advice: Don’t abandon property. The shennanigans you’re talking about are real and contemptible. But you could also show up to a property full of mold from a burst pipe that’s causing respiratory problems for the entire building.

The judicial system ought to provide a timely remedy. But you also wasted some property, and now you’re making it the public’s problem to sort out, so you might have to wait a bit. It wouldn’t seem like you were in a rush if you abandoned the property.

 

[Lursa]

Would you prefer a property to stay abandoned forever and nothing can be done?
Obviously I've never had enough money to just abandon a house to rot but if I did I'd rather it eventually have a usefull purpose.

They can be too expensive to update to code for business or residential tenants. It can take time to sell, get the $, renovate, etc. Locked up and boarded up dont necessarily mean abandoned. And they should be posted.

In the meantime, people that get into the building can fall and break a leg, or set it on fire and kill people, and the owners may be held liable.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

This was already explained in the thread. There are cases where someone thinks they are legitimately leasing from the landlord but they are actually living in an abandoned space. It’s not common, but it can happen, and police cannot resolve such a dispute.

There is not a situation where someone actually thinks they are legitimately leasing from a landlord but they are living in an abandoned space. There are cases where one CLAIMS to be legitimately leasing when they aren't, but if you are legitimately leasing there is one thing you must be doing.... paying rent. If one has paid rent, then one is not a squatter.

They think they are a tenant,

How -- how does one honestly think one is a tenant when one isn't paying rent? Did the landlord give them the keys? If the "squatter" says, "here, I have the keys" then clearly there is a court issue to resolve. But, if the "squatter" changed the locks and isn't paying rent, then he can't possibly be a ****ing tenant, ffs.

the landlord thinks they are a squatter-

Because they're not paying rent and the landlord didn't give them the keys.

the point is, they have been living there for a significant amount of time and that automatically gives them some rights from immediate, possibly illegal, eviction at the hands of police.

It shouldn't. But as I said, in the cases where there is insufficient cause to arrest, then the eviction process should be speedy. It doesn't take a year. It takes a hearing where the tenant shows up and presents evidence that he's a tenant, and has paid rent either to the landlord or into the registry of the court.s

They can’t sort that all out to the satisfaction of the landlord, though. They gotta go to the courts.

That's what I keep saying, but you keep ignoring it. The difference is, NY and other such states are jamming things up for months and even years. This is a hearing that can be set after a notice is posted to the door of the house. You hold the hearing, and when the squatter doesn't show up you enter a writ of possession and the cops come and boot the ****er out. If the squatter shows up, he can prove he paid rent to the landlord or into the registry of the

It’s kind of exaggerated to say that they are deprived of property when they retain ownership.

No, it's not an exaggeration at all. They are deprived of their property because they can't go in it. And they have to pay all the utilities and can't turn them off, and they can't care for the property or use it. They can't rent it out, and they can't live in it. The "ownership" you talk about becomes all responsibility and no benefit.

There may be a delay between when they show up to their abandoned property and when they regain complete control of that property. I think it’s fair to say we should process such evictions quickly,

Yes, that's what I said.

but I maintain that the proper place to sort it out is the courts.

Yes, that's what I said, and both the criminal prosecution and the eviction involve the courts.

And I’d rather err on the side of the squatter, who would be made homeless, than the abandoning landlord, who may have to treat their abandoned property as though it is still abandoned a little while longer.

What "erring" are you talking about? What's the error?

And, you want to presume that the squatter is in an abandoned house, but you claim the squatter you want to protect really believes he is in a lease/rental situation? How is the home abandoned if the squatter thinks he rented it?

Why are you willing to think a homeowner abandoned his property without court intervention? Why wouldn't you put the onus on someone who wants to live in a house to get a lease or file a suit to claim the abandoned house?

If you are suggesting that I can go around my town and monitor houses and if they look like nobody has gone in there for a while, I can just take it and start living there and I acquire some rights in it, say so. Is that what you think? If I did that, what should happen to me?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Would you prefer a property to stay abandoned forever and nothing can be done?
Obviously I've never had enough money to just abandon a house to rot but if I did I'd rather it eventually have a usefull purpose.

These people aren’t squatting in abandoned property. They’re targeting houses for sale or houses where owners have recently died

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If you abandon property, you can rack up a 5000 dollar gas bill already, with no legal protection for squatters, whatsoever.

No, you can’t. Because if you’re not purposefully wasting the gas your bill isn’t that high, I use my gas and my average gas bill is around 12 to 15 dollars a month

Here’s good advice: Don’t abandon property.

These people are not targeting abandoned property

The shennanigans you’re talking about are real and contemptible. But you could also show up to a property full of mold from a burst pipe that’s causing respiratory problems for the entire building.

These people aren’t occupying buildings to replace the pipes, I don’t know what kind of fantasy you’re living in

The judicial system ought to provide a timely remedy. But you also wasted some property, and now you’re making it the public’s problem to sort out, so you might have to wait a bit. It wouldn’t seem like you were in a rush if you abandoned the property.

These are not abandoned properties being targetted and in any event you have no right to the property just because you don’t believe it’s being used like it should be. If someone is paying property tax it’s not abandoned

 

[Roadvirus]

These people aren’t squatting in abandoned property. They’re targeting houses for sale or houses where owners have recently died

That is what's really sickening about these slobs. Adding a bigger burden on someone who has lost a family member by occupying their house and creating a monster legal nightmare for them.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That is what's really sickening about these slobs. Adding a bigger burden on someone who has lost a family member by occupying their house and creating a monster legal nightmare for them.

And they do. They claim they’re tenants, they do things like waste utilities on purpose, engage in illegal or unpermitted renovation, etc.

Right now the best option for dealing with these people is not to call the police and get told they have to go through civil court, it’s to conduct surveillance on the residence, wait until the squatter leaves, then immediately move in your own friend or relative, throw the squatters shit on the curb, change the locks and put the utilities in their (your friends) name. Because then the squatter has to sue to get back into the property and they won’t be able to prove they belonged there.

There’s a guy in California named Flash Shelton and he’s a squatter hunter that does this to get squatters out of peoples houses, basically under California law if you can retake possession of the premises while the squatter is away the cops can’t force you to let them back in and they hdvr to go to court to prove they were a tenant

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Would you prefer a property to stay abandoned forever and nothing can be done?
Obviously I've never had enough money to just abandon a house to rot but if I did I'd rather it eventually have a usefull purpose.

It's not abandoned properties that the squatter turds are moving into. It is homes that are owned and between renters as well as homes unnocupied when the owners simply pack up and go on vacation. How would you feel if you took a vacation from the UK to the USA for a couple weeks and upon your return to the land of tea and crumpets found your home occupied by squatters and all the locks changed?

 

[Peter]

It's not abandoned properties that the squatter turds are moving into. It is homes that are owned and between renters as well as homes unnocupied when the owners simply pack up and go on vacation. How would you feel if you took a vacation from the UK to the USA for a couple weeks and upon your return to the land of tea and crumpets found your home occupied by squatters and all the locks changed?

The law in the UK doesn't allow that.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

The law in the UK doesn't allow that.

Bravo!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The law in the UK doesn't allow that.

but you’re demanding the laws in my country allow that, so what gives?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

That is what's really sickening about these slobs. Adding a bigger burden on someone who has lost a family member by occupying their house and creating a monster legal nightmare for them.

....oh, but wait, what about the folks who broke in through a locked door, then changed the locks, but who really, honestly believed they were tenants? Don't they deserve some consideration?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

but you’re demanding the laws in my country allow that, so what gives?

It's the US, man. It's like the border. What is normal for every other country is a human rights abuse if the US does it.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Would you prefer a property to stay abandoned forever and nothing can be done?
Obviously I've never had enough money to just abandon a house to rot but if I did I'd rather it eventually have a usefull purpose.

The squatters are not fixing up abandoned property. They are breaking into locked doors, changing the locks.

How some random bloke knows which houses are abandoned and which houses are temporarily vacant, or under renovation, is beyond me.

I am rather amused or bemused by the folks who argue that we have this faction of people living in houses that they aren't renting, but somehow honestly believe they are renting, lol. It's like, "wait, what? I'm a tenant here! I haven't signed a lease and I'm not paying rent, but I could swear I'm a tenant...."