Democrat socialist candidate calls for “Housing for All” legislation that allows people to break into homes

Lisa558

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2021
33,191
35,025
2,788
In the category “bet you didn’t think Democrats couldn’t sink THIS low” we have a candidate saying, essentially, that people are entitled to just take what they need - and if that means housing, they should be permitted to break into the homes of people who earned them.

Just how lawless do the Dems want to make this country?

 
In the category “bet you didn’t think Democrats couldn’t sink THIS low” we have a candidate saying, essentially, that people are entitled to just take what they need - and if that means housing, they should be permitted to break into the homes of people who earned them.

Just how lawless do the Dems want to make this country?

/----/ I'm just wondering what her reaction would be if someone broke into her houme. Maybe she didn't think that brain fart all the way through.
 
This "law" if enacted, would eliminate the rental market for housing. Any "empty" house, not the primary dwelling of the owner, would be available for squatting.

Owners of the investment property would be at risk if any of their properties were taken by a squatter if it isn't currently rented.

The UK had laws like this for decades and it destroyed the residential investment market until they passed laws to prosecute squatters in 2015.
 
Last edited:
This "law" if enacted, would eliminate the rental market for housing. Any "empty" house, not the primary dwelling of the owner, would be available for squatting.

Owners of the investment property would be at risk if any of their properties were taken by a squatter if it isn't currently rented.
/----/ And would the real owner still be responsible for property taxes? Would they be liable if the squatters hurt themselves? What if the squatters were busted for drug possession? Would the real ower be liable?
 
This "law" if enacted, would eliminate the rental market for housing. Any "empty" house, not the primary dwelling of the owner, would be available for squatting.

Owners of the investment property would be at risk if any of their properties were taken by a squatter if it isn't currently rented.
It's asinine. Who would agree with her?
 
/----/ And would the real owner still be responsible for property taxes? Would they be liable if the squatters hurt themselves? What if the squatters were busted for drug possession? Would the real ower be liable?

Where this was tried in Britain, and elsewhere, squats were typically destroyed by their inhabitants. Owners could not evict squatters but were not liable for criminal activity that took place on the property without their knowledge.

However, in the UK, owners were not allowed to inspect squat properties and though they paid rates and taxes, they didn't have to repair basic services.
 
Where this was tried in Britain, and elsewhere, squats were typically destroyed by their inhabitants. Owners could not evict squatters but were not liable for criminal activity that took place on the property without their knowledge.

However, in the UK, owners were not allowed to inspect squat properties and though they paid rates and taxes, they didn't have to repair basic services.
So Britain actually allowed lowlifes to lay claim to other people’s property?!

And forcing homeowners to pay property tax on homes occupied by poor strangers, against their wishes, is a Democrat’s dream - until of course, as mentioned above, they occupy the Democrat’s house.
 
In the category “bet you didn’t think Democrats couldn’t sink THIS low” we have a candidate saying, essentially, that people are entitled to just take what they need - and if that means housing, they should be permitted to break into the homes of people who earned them.

Just how lawless do the Dems want to make this country?

Sounds like she got lost in the occupy movement, popular on the left coast.
 
The govt already told us we don't really own our private properties anymore when they decided they could cancel rental payments to fight a flu.
If they did it before, they will do it again, only this time, they may decide to nationalize the entire market.
We allowed them to do things they had no legal right to do & now all our individual rights for are in jeopardy.
The right to private property is a cornerstone of freedom & one cannot exist without the other
 
So Britain actually allowed lowlifes to lay claim to other people’s property?!

And forcing homeowners to pay property tax on homes occupied by poor strangers, against their wishes, is a Democrat’s dream - until of course, as mentioned above, they occupy the Democrat’s house.

Not only were they allowed to claim access and use of an empty investment property, they were allowed to claim ownership if they stayed for 15 years and could demonstrate any improvement made to the property ... sweat equity.

This didn't happen often as many squatters had substance abuse issues.
 
This does typify the Democrats’ overall belief that poor people are entitled to whatever middle class people (or anyone) own but not using. That means “excess” income (“excess“ being determines by Dems) all the way to the ridiculous idea out forth here.

My sister and I jointly own a second home (an inherited property) which we each use for little getaways every couple of months. I actually had someone - a poor person with kids - ask if she could move in with her family. I told her I’d discuss it with my sister and get back to her. We did, and came up with a below-market rate. Her response when I told her was one of obvious disappointment, as she told me she was hoping we’d let her move in for free.
 
The govt already told us we don't really own our private properties anymore when they decided they could cancel rental payments to fight a flu.
If they did it before, they will do it again, only this time, they may decide to nationalize the entire market.
We allowed them to do things they had no legal right to do & now all our individual rights for are in jeopardy.
The right to private property is a cornerstone of freedom & one cannot exist without the other
Yes, it’s a step closer to socialism. The government will decide how we use our properties, based on what they deem as “fair.” In this case, they would deem it fair for a poor person to make use of property we own but are not currently using.

THIS is the transformation that Obama threatened us with decade ago. It was interrupted by Trump, but now they are full steam ahead.
 

Forum List

Back
Top