Crime Florida is getting more authoritarian by the week

[JonnyBonesPharmacist]

Looks like FL still has some common sense

 

[The Big Yin]

The beauty of the US is that if you don't like the laws that your state is passing, you can get up and move to any of the other 49 that suits you better.

The rest of the world usually has to leave the country for that

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Wow, this is in a red state like GA, took weeks to remove a child sex trafficker lol wtf?



Weird so many of these stories are getting coverage all at once.




Edit: trump should immediately release a video saying a federal squatter law is now apart of agenda 47

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

is this happening to people who physically live in their own home and are happened to be caught unaware while out for the day or strictly in rental situations?

 

[Two Crows]

is this happening to people who physically live in their own home and are happened to be caught unaware while out for the day or strictly in rental situations?

Neither.

It's empty houses being sold or purchased, generally.

 

[Sweater of AV]

is this happening to people who physically live in their own home and are happened to be caught unaware while out for the day or strictly in rental situations?

Neither.

It's empty houses being sold or purchased, generally.

Lol. It's definitely also in rentals.

If you're out for the day and someone has broken in then report it as a B&E as usual.

 

[oldshadow]

Good job Florida.

Now let's see if other states get smart on this issue.

 

[lsa]

You are the biggest enigma on this site. You posted this sarcastically to point out that rightfully squatters should have no rights. Yet based on your post history I suspect you did so as a way to hide the fact that you actually think squatters should have a right to squat.

He is a weirdo..

I stop taking him seriously after he made a very weird thread accusing his mother of helping his sister kill her newborn baby, so it would not complicate their visa to the US.

The thread got HARD deleted by the mods..
The dude is not well..

 

[WhiteMousse]

Please stay the fuck out, we're full. Also all you NY plates gtfo you cancerous twats

 

[650lb Sumo]

The beauty of the US is that if you don't like the laws that your state is passing, you can get up and move to any of the other 49 that suits you better.

The rest of the world usually has to leave the country for that

Please stay the fuck out, we're full. Also all you NY plates gtfo you cancerous twats

Interesting.

 

[AbominableJoman]

This is sickening... Florida is passing a law that removes squatters rights. Imagine being homeless and after a grueling effort of finding a home to shelter you from the elements, you get forcibly removed from the property you worked hard to get into.

Why would squatters deserve rights?

 

[WhiteMousse]

Interesting.

I say it in love. I did use the word "please"

 

[UFCUCF]

That’s modern conservatives for you: Mega rich grifters who commit civil theft or fraud can delay any consequences for their actions for years or even a decade tied up in the court.

In FL if you are a squatter (almost always poor and desperate) the old process of getting your ass thrown out in 3 to 4 weeks isn’t good enough. Poor people who break the law get immediate justice.

 

[KnightTemplar]

You are the biggest enigma on this site. You posted this sarcastically to point out that rightfully squatters should have no rights. Yet based on your post history I suspect you did so as a way to hide the fact that you actually think squatters should have a right to squat.

Hey, I'm a Fascist sociopath who supports Israel, has LGBTQ friends and listens to Taylor Swift songs whenever I get the chance.

The world is a confusing place right now, my dude.

 

[panamaican]

I disagree with the concept of eliminating squatters rights (not the details of the story because right now I haven't read it). I actually think squatters rights are even more important in this modern housing era.

If an individual is controlling physical land, they are preventing its use by others. In and of itself, that's not a problem. But if they've essentially abandoned the land to such an extent that a 3rd party is making regular and better use of it, the 3rd party should have the right to acquire it through legal means.

Eliminating squatters rights essentially opens the door to land hoarding. And, in many localities, it means under-utilization of land. One of the few checks on the uber wealthy buying and hoarding all of the physical land is that if they don't actively keep up on it's use, they can lose it.

Ejecting a squatter might be costly in some circumstances but think about how much abandonment had to take place for a squatter to entrench themselves in one's property and then weigh that against the larger issues surrounding access to property and feudal level land ownership by a few.

 

[panamaican]

Having read the story, further comments:

First, I want to mention the disingenuousness when politicians or the news refer to it as "people illegally in their homes". If the property owner was using the property as a "home", there wouldn't an opportunity for squatters to set up shop.

Immediate ejectment is wrong. Squatters acquire legal title to a property once they meet certain state specific criteria. If they've met those criteria then an immediate removal without going through the court process would be ejecting them from their legally acquired property.

I said it in my other post but some of these decisions, not just this Florida one, move us closer and closer to medieval era feudalism and land barons. People really need to start paying more attention to the down the road effects of these laws that seem to have no purpose other than simplifying the ability of the wealthy to run roughshod over the poor.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

I disagree with the concept of eliminating squatters rights (not the details of the story because right now I haven't read it). I actually think squatters rights are even more important in this modern housing era.

If an individual is controlling physical land, they are preventing its use by others. In and of itself, that's not a problem. But if they've essentially abandoned the land to such an extent that a 3rd party is making regular and better use of it, the 3rd party should have the right to acquire it through legal means.

Eliminating squatters rights essentially opens the door to land hoarding. And, in many localities, it means under-utilization of land. One of the few checks on the uber wealthy buying and hoarding all of the physical land is that if they don't actively keep up on it's use, they can lose it.

Ejecting a squatter might be costly in some circumstances but think about how much abandonment had to take place for a squatter to entrench themselves in one's property and then weigh that against the larger issues surrounding access to property and feudal level land ownership by a few.

Oh look, the resident contrarian here to provide an opinion that's runs counter to the mainstream that no one is going to agree with. This is so unlike you and totally surprising.

 

[WhiteMousse]

Oh look, the resident contrarian here to provide an opinion that's runs counter to the mainstream that no one is going to agree with. This is so unlike you and totally surprising.

I now actually believe that he is a troll

 

[SKYNET]

I disagree with the concept of eliminating squatters rights (not the details of the story because right now I haven't read it). I actually think squatters rights are even more important in this modern housing era.
If an individual is controlling physical land, they are preventing its use by others. In and of itself, that's not a problem. But if they've essentially abandoned the land to such an extent that a 3rd party is making regular and better use of it, the 3rd party should have the right to acquire it through legal means.
Eliminating squatters rights essentially opens the door to land hoarding. And, in many localities, it means under-utilization of land. One of the few checks on the uber wealthy buying and hoarding all of the physical land is that if they don't actively keep up on it's use, they can lose it.
Ejecting a squatter might be costly in some circumstances but think about how much abandonment had to take place for a squatter to entrench themselves in one's property and then weigh that against the larger issues surrounding access to property and feudal level land ownership by a few.

Having read the story, further comments:
First, I want to mention the disingenuousness when politicians or the news refer to it as "people illegally in their homes". If the property owner was using the property as a "home", there wouldn't an opportunity for squatters to set up shop.
Immediate ejectment is wrong. Squatters acquire legal title to a property once they meet certain state specific criteria. If they've met those criteria then an immediate removal without going through the court process would be ejecting them from their legally acquired property.
I said it in my other post but some of these decisions, not just this Florida one, move us closer and closer to medieval era feudalism and land barons. People really need to start paying more attention to the down the road effects of these laws that seem to have no purpose other than simplifying the ability of the wealthy to run roughshod over the poor.

 

[SKYNET]

of course, a lawyer would be the one to offer up a whiff of some fresh morning flatulence, see post above

I don't understand how that was legal - ever - to begin with.

I can't believe that anybody anywhere ever defended these people