Posted on 12/21/2010 3:21:43 AM PST by AbolishCSEU
Rochester, N.Y. – The City of Rochester has about 3,000 vacant buildings. Several of them have new occupants – homeless people – who moved in, changed the locks, and turned on the lights.
Legally, they’re known as “squatters,” people who live in a place without a deed or tenant agreement. They’ve been living in the houses for months without anyone noticing.
“It’s just wonderful to have a house, to have heat, to have food in your refrigerator,” said a woman who moved into a three-bedroom house last week with her two children, including a 3-week-old newborn.
(Excerpt) Read more at 13wham.com ...
yep i know. I used to work for gov’t subsidized housing (section 8) and it was sickening.
Squatter's laws? Is that like adverse possession? You mean if somebody takes up in the house they get to keep it? The town doesn't auction it for taxes? These tax funded law firms make me sick. Tell me I am missing something. So the tax payers pay for the heat, the electricity, food, and law fees?
You’ll notice they never choose to squat in a dump. The homeless could repopulate Detroit and would if the abandoned homes were up to their high standards.
What would that make me? (I guess a "sucker" at best! :( )
the reason why these houses are vacant in the first place is that the owners can’t sell them and are forced to rent to felonious, uber destructive drug dealers and welfare queens. The tenants move in and it looks as though they are going to be getting subsidized, then the subsidization stops and the tenants simply stop paying rent. The militantly pro tenant agencies and laws then allow the tenants to “squat” in these homes for months while an eviction drags out. If you have an existing mortgage on these houses you are doomed as it literally drains money. Most landlords simply walk away from the property as it is a lose/lose situation. Thus the vacancies. I could NOT sell the house I once lived in due to the drug dealing, prostitution, crime, etc. I rented it out for a few years which was a nightmare, then simply walked away when I could no longer afford to keep it in operation as I had lost my job; the only thing propping up that boat anchor. The sheer destructiveness of tenants who don’t give a damn and are “out to get whitey” is astounding.
In a perverse way, reducing the stock of foreclosed properties in such a manner would create some pressure to raise property values for everyone else.
Seems like so many people want the free ride and won't lift a finger to help them selves.
"Why do you trouble me with such things! The poor are always with us. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto the Lord that which is his." Close to the actual verse anyway.
Ben Franklin said poverty should be uncomfortable.
Y’know, maybe my thinking’s become twisted by this through-the-looking-glass world we’re living in, but if I were the owner of record of one of these squatted-in homes, I’d be worrying about what kind of liability some judge would level against me if someone or something got hurt or damaged while squatting in my property. You can’t tell me there wouldn’t be some lawyer out there who’d be willing to try to make a case of it, if they thought my pockets were deep enough!
They’d go after the banks. Just the other day we had a ne’er do well purposely drop soda on the floor of a mall and “slip” on it.
Some of the state funded law firms would go after you even if you had no money. As long as there is an entitled person willing to fight for anything, the bleeding billable hours will continue. (unless, of course, the Republicans have the balls to stop the funding for the “free” welfare lawyers))
Anyway, the owners have abandoned the property, in one way or another, and have signaled that they don't care. For instance, they don't even bother paying a monthly security bill. So, the bums, welfare scum, are putting the property to higher use. Frankly, I'd rather have them live on someones property, a owner who doesn't care, is dead, has abandoned the property, then in a public tax payer, unioned, pensions do-gooder shelter at my expense as a victim of tax crime.
From your lips to God's ears...
Agreed. Should be a motivator to get someone off their dead a^^ and moving forward.
I wonder how much fun it would be to sabotage these houses (non-lethally, of course) to make them unpleasant to live in.
Your story has played out many times. I have a friend that owns several rentals. I was looking at buying a double in the inner city one time and he gave me some sound advice - he told me that he NEVER rents to low-income people and never buys homes in marginal neighborhoods. All of his rentals are/were large homes in solid neighborhoods. He also required a significant security deposit. Consequently, he tends to rent to doctors and businessmen rather than drug dealers and such.
I ended up not buying the double, and I'm forever grateful. It was already bad then - it's worse now, I'm sure.
the libs like the guy in the video would sue YOU.
I advise anyone who is even thinking about buying a rental in the “hood” to RUN not walk away.
The entitled person can rig the electrical meter, figure out how to turn on the city water, get food stamps, heat, and a cell phone. No big deal. You, however, are going to have the wrath of all things free and legal upon you if you so much as tip a trash can over. Safety issue. Sanitary issue. Harrassment. Violation of civil rights. Assault. Disorderly conduct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.