Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
There was a relatively new owner, also elderly, who derived income from harvesting lumber, and as outpostinmass2 pointed out, his dwelling was in violation of sanitary codes meant to safeguard water supplies, and the river. In addition, he did not have trash pick up, and there was no access road. He simply left his trash outside.

I'm going to guess that the land-owner was OK for a while with the squatter being there, until he started talking to a lawyer who told him about the effects of a squatter on his land's resale value, as well as potential liability from the squatter's actions.

29 posted on 08/05/2021 4:43:25 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: PapaBear3625

Apparently the new owner was initially unaware of his presence, and has tried to “work with him” (through lawyers) for several years. The main issue for the town is the litter and sanitary conditions. My cousin-in-law’s grandfather-in-law was an old German guy, in his eighty’s who lived in a house without electricity or indoor plumbing. (”I don’t know vhy zeese young kids, dey tink dey need all zeese conveniences.” I admit, I’m spoiled.) It was a neat as a pin, and had a perfectly adequate outdoor latrine and hand pump. His son wanted to build him a modern house, but he wouldn’t hear of it.


38 posted on 08/05/2021 5:53:07 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Diana Moon Glampers for Secretary of Education! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson