Anonymous wrote:My friend rented her basement to someone. He stopped paying rent. When she had enough of the nonsense she gathered all his stuff, threw it outside, and changed the lock on the basement entrance. End of story.

I guess it's not always that simple, but it certainly worked for her. She didn't bother with niceties, such as a polite letter telling him to get out. That was 25 years ago before the entire area turned progressive with legal requirements adding a layer to what used to be a no-nonsense approach to these things.

I think part of the issue here is the house is bank owned and they don’t see particularly aggressive about getting this person out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is paying the tax bill? That's the owner.

The squatter is not claiming ownership. They are claiming tenancy rights.

Can they show anyone a signed contract between the owner and themselves?

Some of the more creative (/s) squatters have forged signed contracts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happens in every jurisdiction that has laws to protect legitimate tenants from predatory landlords. There also needs to be a legal recourse against predatory tenants! Surely it can't be that complicated... politicians lack the incentive to work at it, I suppose.

I'm from a European country and was just watching a news segment about a similar situation in my home country.

Blue areas tend to have very pro squatter policies

Virginia is moving that way by recently making it more difficult for landlords to evict tenants who don't pay rent or who violate the terms of their leases.

What an absolutely idiotic statement. Blue ares have pro tenant policies and laws, which are misused and exploited by squatters.

Should the laws be revised to close loopholes squatters are exploiting? Absolutely, yes.

Do any jurisdictions, anywhere, have policies that affirmatively support squatters? Obviously not. If you claim there are, please provide a link.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why there are “squatters rights”? Or for that matter why there should be tenant’s rights if tenants refuse to pay their rent? I don’t mean tenant’s rights with regards to protecting tenants from abuse, fraud, inhabitable conditions, etc.; I mean why are there rights when tenants simply refuse to pay their rent.

A lot of these things have very long historical antecedents. Imagine you’re a person in 16th century Europe and come upon an abandoned house. So you move in and fix it up. No one ever comes around to tell you it’s theirs and the original owner maybe died of plague or killed in battle or whatever. That’s the concept behind eminent domain and it makes a lot of sense.

It looks to me like the blame here rests mostly on the bank which is an absentee landlord. If the squatter is causing issues, the neighbors should threaten to sue the bank for creating a public nuisance by failing to maintain/secure th property.

This has absolutely nothing to do with eminent domain, which is the sovereign's power to take private land for public use, upon payment of fair compensation.

Perhaps you are thinking of adverse possession?

My friend rented her basement to someone. He stopped paying rent. When she had enough of the nonsense she gathered all his stuff, threw it outside, and changed the lock on the basement entrance. End of story.

I guess it's not always that simple, but it certainly worked for her. She didn't bother with niceties, such as a polite letter telling him to get out. That was 25 years ago before the entire area turned progressive with legal requirements adding a layer to what used to be a no-nonsense approach to these things.

"We" keep voting for these politicians who push these policies that favor criminals over home owners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why there are “squatters rights”? Or for that matter why there should be tenant’s rights if tenants refuse to pay their rent? I don’t mean tenant’s rights with regards to protecting tenants from abuse, fraud, inhabitable conditions, etc.; I mean why are there rights when tenants simply refuse to pay their rent.

A lot of these things have very long historical antecedents. Imagine you’re a person in 16th century Europe and come upon an abandoned house. So you move in and fix it up. No one ever comes around to tell you it’s theirs and the original owner maybe died of plague or killed in battle or whatever. That’s the concept behind eminent domain and it makes a lot of sense.

It looks to me like the blame here rests mostly on the bank which is an absentee landlord. If the squatter is causing issues, th neighbors should threaten to sue the bank for creating a public nuisance by failing to maintain/secure th property.

Somehow I don't see this happening in feudal Europe. What would happen is you'd be allowed to live in the house but you'd still owe taxes and the landlord still would have dominion over your geography.

And if the original person showed up you'd fight it out in a local court with the noble person potentially deciding.

Also the local lord could give it away and use his enforcers to evict you. Medieval people and towns had paperwork and land maps and town charters that spelled out their rights.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why there are “squatters rights”? Or for that matter why there should be tenant’s rights if tenants refuse to pay their rent? I don’t mean tenant’s rights with regards to protecting tenants from abuse, fraud, inhabitable conditions, etc.; I mean why are there rights when tenants simply refuse to pay their rent.

A lot of these things have very long historical antecedents. Imagine you’re a person in 16th century Europe and come upon an abandoned house. So you move in and fix it up. No one ever comes around to tell you it’s theirs and the original owner maybe died of plague or killed in battle or whatever. That’s the concept behind eminent domain and it makes a lot of sense.

It looks to me like the blame here rests mostly on the bank which is an absentee landlord. If the squatter is causing issues, th neighbors should threaten to sue the bank for creating a public nuisance by failing to maintain/secure th property.

Somehow I don't see this happening in feudal Europe. What would happen is you'd be allowed to live in the house but you'd still owe taxes and the landlord still would have dominion over your geography.

And if the original person showed up you'd fight it out in a local court with the noble person potentially deciding.

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why there are “squatters rights”? Or for that matter why there should be tenant’s rights if tenants refuse to pay their rent? I don’t mean tenant’s rights with regards to protecting tenants from abuse, fraud, inhabitable conditions, etc.; I mean why are there rights when tenants simply refuse to pay their rent.

A lot of these things have very long historical antecedents. Imagine you’re a person in 16th century Europe and come upon an abandoned house. So you move in and fix it up. No one ever comes around to tell you it’s theirs and the original owner maybe died of plague or killed in battle or whatever. That’s the concept behind eminent domain and it makes a lot of sense.

It looks to me like the blame here rests mostly on the bank which is an absentee landlord. If the squatter is causing issues, th neighbors should threaten to sue the bank for creating a public nuisance by failing to maintain/secure th property.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thieves aka squatters have stolen a $2.3M house in Bethesda and nothing can be quickly done about it??????? Squatters are simply thieves and must treated as such; anything less society, laws, and norms fall apart. This woman and all other squatters should be arrested immediately. What they are doing is a crime.
I am a democrat living in MOCO; inaction by government officials and placating to FAR left liberals allowing for ANY form of squatting is the type of thing that is destroying a once strong county and driving people away.

Well some areas don't prosecute crimes anymore.

Or remove snow in a timely manner. Or put the interests of the safety of students in schools above others. The list is endless. Some of the highest effective tax rates in the nation; we are not getting our money's worth.

Anonymous wrote:It is crazy. If one has never had a contract with the owner and has never made a payment to the owner, one should not have any rights over a property. The fact that someone can claim rights is insane.

The property is owned by the bank and the bank does not care about the squatters as long as they can sell the house with the squatters for more than the mortgage. It is the neighbors that want the squatters out.

Anonymous wrote:It is crazy. If one has never had a contract with the owner and has never made a payment to the owner, one should not have any rights over a property. The fact that someone can claim rights is insane.

Unfortunately blue local jurisdictions and courts have become far leftified. Far left people view the world as oppressors versus oppressed.

Landlords are oppressors because they have capital and charge rent for what they view as a “basic human right” — even though the grocery store charges for food, and the utility company charges for water, somehow landlords are extra oppressive.

According to far left people, criminals are oppressed because everyone is born as a blank slate, so if someone commits crimes it’s because of poverty. What causes poverty according to them? Again, according to blank slate theory, it has to be a systemic issue and not their personality or other traits, so it’s ideas like the imperfections of capitalism, systemic racism, etc.

Hope this helps.

It is crazy. If one has never had a contract with the owner and has never made a payment to the owner, one should not have any rights over a property. The fact that someone can claim rights is insane.

Can anyone explain why there are “squatters rights”? Or for that matter why there should be tenant’s rights if tenants refuse to pay their rent? I don’t mean tenant’s rights with regards to protecting tenants from abuse, fraud, inhabitable conditions, etc.; I mean why are there rights when tenants simply refuse to pay their rent.

Anonymous wrote:This happens in every jurisdiction that has laws to protect legitimate tenants from predatory landlords. There also needs to be a legal recourse against predatory tenants! Surely it can't be that complicated... politicians lack the incentive to work at it, I suppose.

I'm from a European country and was just watching a news segment about a similar situation in my home country.

Blue areas tend to have very pro squatter policies

Virginia is moving that way by recently making it more difficult for landlords to evict tenants who don't pay rent or who violate the terms of their leases.