Posted on 12/21/2010 3:21:43 AM PST by AbolishCSEU
Well that lady’s story really pulls at your heart but the crux of the matter is property rights. We have to protect the right to own property. This group is organized and has a communist agenda. They need to be stopped.
My pal in FL was commenting on the temps in the 20s and 30s the last couple of weeks.
One way bus tickets to San Freakcisco or some other "sanctuary" city would be appropriate. They would be most welcome there! < /sarc >
“Then you may evict them for tax liens if they’ve taken possession of the property. I’m not defending them; I explained a legal process.”
The “legal process” you “explained” is called “adverse possession” and involves a series of events and situations by which to establish a case of ownership.
Adverse possession will not be recognized by courts until it has occurred for quite a number of years. The bums squatting in these homes won’t be there long enough to “build a case” for such. They are nothing more than transients of opportunity.
Further reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
A rental agreement will do just fine. Go to microsoft word, help, office on the web, and search for rental agreement. Fill it out, make up a name, and you are in. Deadbeats have no computer you say? Library, acorn, social workers, etc will help them print it up. As far as the posters on this thread that can't understand why these people live up north, it is painful to know. Just go through the toll booth in Maine, and you are now eligible for everything from rent and heat to food stamps and cell phones. No need to prove you have ever contributed a dime to society. Just come and get it.
“Moochers and Looters”
“The sheer destructiveness of tenants who don’t give a damn and are “out to get whitey” is astounding.”
Not sustainable though. Sooner or later, the human locusts will run out of other people’s houses to trash, just like Maggie Thatcher once said, “Sooner or later you run out of other people’s houses to trash.” :)
(BTW, sorry you got caught in a failing neighborhood. I imagine the financial losses were awful.)
It was often applied in settling unused land; I’m not making it up or supporting it. It has nothing to do with anyone paying anything for the squatters.
You’re obviously a very learned person; I said I did not support anything about this, but was merely explaining possible ramifications.
I think with the Hmong & Somalis it may have been a question of which state was most interested in having them re-settled there (there may have been federal aid attached). As for the Latinos, I think they’d live anywhere there was work (originally), and now they’ll live anywhere someone will feed, clothe, and house them if they won’t work. I remember a story years ago of immigration raids on salmon canneries in ALASKA (the illegals were Mexican, and working).
I’m not even supporting the woman, just describing the law. I don’t care if they lock her ass up.
I know it is colder there than most people realize (with frost effecting citrus and ice delaying the space shuttle launches), but we’ve had the same temps here in NJ and will have them for a few more months. I couldn’t imagine snow in Miami...
With all due respect to you and not blaming you for that reasoning but Florida already has to many “down and out”.
I’m already down but never out! ;^)
Build a man a fire and he stays warm for a day/Set a man on fire and he stays warm for the rest of his life.
I was very specific that it took years; the real owners should simply be aware that there is potential for such a case developing. On the other hand, a few months ago there was a story of couple from the northeast (PA, I believe) who had received a forecluosure notice from their bank and moved to the south (abandoning the property). A year later they get a property tax bill from the town they’d left, and when they insisted that they hadn’t lived there the town promptly replied that the bank had never taken possession of the home. It is much easier for a government to garnish your wages than a bank; it was a bizarre story (but something I could understand from the bank’s point of view - how could they pay the taxes on these abandoned, unsold homes?).
And pretty soon Section 8 won’t be voluntary, you will get sued for discrimination for turning down a renter with a voucher.
I’m sorry, but I’d rather be a burden where I can live to a ripe old age under a bridge, fishing all day, rather than sleeping on a park bench or in a subway tunnel through our winters up here. When all else fails, I’ll be heading down your way. Thankfully, I speak Spanish, too!
: )
These homes aren't abandoned any more than your home is abandoned while you're out at the movies.
The banks legally own these homes (they lent real money to the former buyers, who defaulted on the loan).
The banks are intentionally holding off on selling all their assets at once in order to avoid further declines in property values, which is probably a wise strategy.
I completely support the banks using whatever force is necessary to recoup their properties; they should be aware of the legal ramifications of taking their time about it.
If you own a home, and pay your taxes, who says you have to be actually living in it all the time? Why should there be "legal ramifications" to not occupying your property for a period of time?
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.