CDZ Squatter Rights

[emilynghiem]

Such a nice little discussion you guys are having.

Here's a real life scenario:

I don't like any of the houses in my town. I plan on buying a double or triple lot and having a house custom built.

There's a sweet double lot in a great neighborhood, each section going for a song - I think I'll go there - BUT - the household to the north has an above-ground swimming pool on one of the lots. It's entirely possible they may claim squatters' rights.

Now I know this and will look into it before buying, but not everyone thinks of such things.

So, if someone buys both lots and wants to start building but the squatters sue, then what?

If the squatters want to develop it, they would need to get support to buy the land and do so.
Grandma

This reminds me of discussions/debates I had with Occupy volunteers.
Many of them thought being in the public city park was free.
But I explained it is costing taxpayers money to send police to check on the
larger groups of people who don't know each other that is creating a security risk
because of longterm occupancy.

I told them if they work with a church or nonprofit that already owns a private lot,
they can develop that and do what they want.

So it was ironic to tell them that what was "public' was basically owned
by the city that is a private municipality like a corporation people pay into for services.

And what is "private" is where you are free to invite the public
and do what you want on your own land, as long as you don't create abuses violations or nuisances
that infringe on neighbors who will complain.

it was the opposite of what they thought.

 

[Onyx]

Humans cannot legitimately have legal ownership over pieces of the earth. As we live, we borrow from the earth.

Respect other peoples needs and we really do not have a problem. If your existence is not respected, then you have the right to exercise reasonable self defense.

 

[emilynghiem]

Such a nice little discussion you guys are having.

Here's a real life scenario:

I don't like any of the houses in my town. I plan on buying a double or triple lot and having a house custom built.

There's a sweet double lot in a great neighborhood, each section going for a song - I think I'll go there - BUT - the household to the north has an above-ground swimming pool on one of the lots. It's entirely possible they may claim squatters' rights.

Now I know this and will look into it before buying, but not everyone thinks of such things.

So, if someone buys both lots and wants to start building but the squatters sue, then what?

I do not believe in the court system, because I believe in the human capacity to resolve minor civil disputes without resorting to violence. If squatters have renovated a building for living usage, then they are just as much entitled to live there as anyone else.

This is what I am against. This screwed up idea that human beings can claim ownership over something when they have no substantive backing, outside a government contracted recognition of property.

My goal has been to save for land of my own, but the land I want has been carved up thousands of acres a piece by real estate moguls that just leave it dormant and raise the prices so only the rich can pay, since the "owners" are already rich themselves. Are they entitled to thousands of acres of land that nobody is using simply because the government recognizes their claim?

I don't either, I find the Court system violates the Constitutional principles
and natural laws.

People need to make decisions by their own consent or it causes political abuse and violence.

So that's why I believe in mediation and consensus to meet Constitutional/natural law
standards on respecting each person's free will, free speech, right to petition, due process,
equal protections of the laws, equal representation in govt/collective policy.

Onyx if you live by yourself, or with someone who respects your beliefs and doesn't coerce you otherwise,
you can just live by your own system and you already know what that is,
what your limits are, what you consent or dissent to.

But as soon as you add other people to the equation,
you need to be able to communicate and have agreements
what you both consent/dissent to.

I totally agree with you, if you redress grievances and resolve conflicts yourself,
you never need Courts or any outside authority to step in!

Self-govt is its own reward that you maintain full autonomy and sovereignty.

To develop relations and community around you from there,
the more resources you want to manage and develop,
this requires diverse people. So this brings in differences and conflicts
in interests and what people want and don't want. So that's
where you need a system or someone on your team to manage
the diversity and avoid conflicts become legal issues if you don't believe in courts.

That's another reason I push so much for conflict resolution.
Our politics has even corrupted the court system, maybe beyond repair.

The best bet is to implement conflict resolution training, assistance and
support so people can learn to manage this themselves.

I'm totally with you on that. If I could I would retrain all teachers,
lawyers and students, in mediation and consensus decisions
as the standard for Constitutional due process and equal protection of interests.

I find that more in keeping with human nature,
and get away from the dependence on govt interpreting and deciding
law for people which I argue violates separation of church and state
and is hardly different from Popes pontificating from the bench
by "divine right to rule" over others. I think we have outgrown that,
and yet we keep electing more Kings to be in charge?

have we learned anything at all? from history?

The Catholic church underwent its Reformation where the
people broke away from corrupt authority that wasn't following
what the church laws REALLY said in the Bible.

Now it's time for the state to go through its Reformation
where the people follow the laws directly and don't depend
on third party authorities as the middle man either.

http://www.houstonprogressive.org/reformation.html

 

[Onyx]

emilynghiem

You are essentially an anarchist, who weirdly supports the constitution as a guideline of principles. You are not a statist, but rather incredibly confused on political sciences and correct terminology.

There are plenty of publications that outline community ethics and principles within the anarchist community.

If you believe in a society without rulers, then you are an anarchist. If you believe in a society with rulers, then you are a statist. You just demonstrated that you want to live in a society without rulers, so therefore you are an anarchist.

I would forget all the constitution and flag waving bullshit, and maybe read up on some of the anarchist publications on the rights of man and principles of an anarchic society.

 

[emilynghiem]

Humans cannot legitimately have ownership over pieces of the earth. As we live, we borrow from the earth.

Respect other peoples needs and we really do not have a problem

Onyx under the concept of Borrowing,
we still set up agreed terms of the borrowing.
then from what we borrow, we can lend to others under
certain terms, and so on.

There is a way to do this, to keep track of the resources
and labor of working the land WITHOUT getting into the problems
you are trying to avoid.

If you want a place to claim Tribal inheritance,
Freedmen's Town was built by freed slaves who weren't citizens at the time.
It can be argued the founders and their descendants should have Tribal status
like other Native Americans who weren't citizens but lived autonomously
and have the right to preserve that heritage.

If your beliefs cannot be practiced elsewhere, if you want to come
try them here, maybe that would be more compatible with your philosophy.

What is your background?
Are you a descendant from any Native American
or African slave lineage that you could claim rights to live in a native settlement
that respects your beliefs that nobody owns land but it must be shared
with those who live and work the land?

 

[emilynghiem]

emilynghiem

You are essentially an anarchist, who weirdly supports the constitution as a guideline of principles. You are not a statist, but rather incredibly confused on political sciences and correct terminology.

There are plenty of publications that outline different group's community ethics and principles within the anarchist community.

If you believe in a society without rulers, then you are an anarchist. If you believe in a society with rulers, then you are a statist. You just demonstrated that you want to live in a society without rulers, so therefore you are an anarchist.

Dear Onyx
The closest terms for what I believe in are either isocracy or isonomy.
I believe in letting all people organize under the religious or political belief/identity/affiliation of their choice.
So they can protect their equal rights, interests and representation that way.

I believe you have the right to affiliate, exercise and develop your own beliefs in relations
with others and with a community if possible in order for you to have equal protections of your beliefs and interests.

I believe that is legally necessary for equality.

So when I work with people who are Christian, we govern our relationship by those structures and traditions.
When I work with Constitutionalists, we use that language.
With Democrats, Republicans, Atheists, Jehovah's Witnesses,
whatever your rules are, then when I work with you I use your system.

I have a friend who is trying to take back a prison community
and build something sustainable with no deadbeats and all people
willing to do the work to make it work.

Maybe you and he could share ideas and resources
how to make that work.

Where do you want to start?

 

[Andylusion]

Even before I was an anarchist, I supported squatter rights.

Human beings have an unequivocal right to live on land that is not being used. Human beings have no right to claim ownership over what they do not personally sustain themselves.

Look up Hernado DeSoto the Peruvian economist who said the key to
equality is recognizing ownership by the workers of the land instead of herding them around like migrants.
Hernando de Soto's Biography
ILD - Institute for Liberty and Democracy

The whole rental vs. ownership mentality is the difference in class
between the victims and the victors. The workers parties argue there can be
no peace between workers and owners; these have to become one to be equal.

There are co-ops set up by Greens and other activists in sustainable/cooperative economy
where they train farmers and workers to own and manage their own co-ops.
(look up Ithaca HOURS. Paul Glover and the Greens who set up labor-based local currency)
Introducing HOUR Money
Paul Glover, community organizer

We also need to train people to own and manage their own community campuses,
cities or townships, and business districts if people are ever going to experience equality.

Wal-Mart has pulled out of many small towns, leaving a gap and an opportunity to take over.
Why not organize and finance jobs for Veterans to build factories or schools in the empty buildings and create
whole economies and campus towns in each district like that?

While I generally like the idea of having alternative currencies... I'm was a bit put off by the lack of details about the Ithaca HOURS.

The claim that they are labor based, is a bit funny, given that all wages are labor based.

Of course the claim is that one dollar was worth one hour of labor.... obviously, but that isn't true at all, since an Ithaca HOUR is pegged to the US dollar, and that some people are paid more than one Ithaca HOUR per hour of work, and others are paid less than one Ithaca HOUR per hour of work.

Now it is true that generally people are paid more in Ithaca HOURS, than they are in USD. And my guess is, for the same reason that all local currencies do better than office ones.

Because local currencies are less regulated, they are often cheaper, and thus you can pay your employees more.

Say I have a position that I can pay $10/hr for. In USD I have to report that, and then I have to pay taxes and regulations, like Social Security, which means that I have to pay 15% of wages, so I can only pay the employee $8.50.

However, if I pay them in Ithaca HOURS, I wager that the government oversight and law enforcement isn't as strict, allowing me to skip that. Resulting in me being able to pay the full $10 wage I allotted for the position.

In short, the avoidance of taxes, and regulations, allows people to get paid more for their work.

Why not just skip the alternative currency, and cut taxes and regulations?

We don't need more schools. We need fewer schools, and better schools. Until the education system is changed, adding new schools under a failing system will just result in more bad schools.

Using an old Walmart building to create a factory building what? And who is going to fund the startup of such a factory? And who is going to design the products to be built?

And the whole reason manufacturing jobs have gone away, is because they were eaten up by the competition. Who is going to buy your factory made stuff?

By the way, there is miles of regulations that prevent what you are talking about. If a company could simply buy an old Walmart building, and put a factory in it, then there would never be a vacant old walmart building in the country. You have to get EPA permits and ecology-impact research done, and zoning permits, and noise permits, and so on and so fourth.

Who is going to pay for all that? And how are you going to get the permits? Just repeal all the environmental laws? All the 'smart growth' laws? All the zoning regulations?

How do you suggest that works?

 

[Andylusion]

The whole rental vs. ownership mentality is the difference in class
between the victims and the victors. The workers parties argue there can be
no peace between workers and owners; these have to become one to be equal.

There are co-ops set up by Greens and other activists in sustainable/cooperative economy
where they train farmers and workers to own and manage their own co-ops.
(look up Ithaca HOURS. Paul Glover and the Greens who set up labor-based local currency)
Introducing HOUR Money
Paul Glover, community organizer

We also need to train people to own and manage their own community campuses,
cities or townships, and business districts if people are ever going to experience equality.

This is what anarchism is about. Taking back control of our lives and redefining our communities in a way that is equitable socially and economically, without the need for rulers.

Community ethics, DIY, collective mutual organization, and direct action are inseparable from the anarchist movement.

Here's the problem. We have a clear cut case study of this ideological position. You know where?

Haiti.

WTF! Haitians Living In Tents 6 Years After Quake + Where Did Your Money Go?

Six full years after the Earth quake, the people were still living in tents.

Now the question is why? Well some will say that the hundreds of millions that flowed into the Haiti, went to the wrong places.

But that ignores why. That's an effect.... what was the cause of this effect?

Answer.... Squatters.

Haiti has an extensive squatter rights laws. If you leave your home, and someone comes and claims it, it is virtually impossible to remove them.

Now let me ask you, as an individual: Say an Earth quake damaged your home, and professionals told you for your own safety, that you should not say in the home, and you left.

Then someone comes and claims your home, your property.... because you are not there. (which is true)

You can't remove them. Are you going to rebuild your home, knowing they will have your home, and claim it as their own? Are you going to pay money to build something, knowing these squatters may never leave, and you may never be able to claim the home you paid money to fix?

For nearly all human beings, the answer is no.

Equally, what if you had a rental, and it was damaged, and while you were waiting to repair it, squatters claimed the land, and if you build a new rental apartment, the squatters will claim it rent free?

Of course not.

As a result years and years after the Earth quake, few of the homes in the squatter areas have ever been rebuilt, and people remain in tents, which is why when the hurricane came through, it killed thousands.

Squatter rights, is a great way to damage your entire society. Why would I ever build anything, if a squatter can just claim it? So investment in homes for people to live in, remains low to almost non-existent. Thus people live in tents, and die in a hurricane. It's a terrible idea.

 

[Onyx]

Here's the problem. We have a clear cut case study of this ideological position. You know where?

Haiti.

Haiti has an extensive squatter rights laws. If you leave your home, and someone comes and claims it, it is virtually impossible to remove them.

This is just pointing out the stupidity of Haitian law. If your house is invaded and you are kicked to the curb, then you could make the case that that was an unreasonable hostile action taken against you.

That is not really what we are talking about either. The city I live in has hundreds of abandoned buildings that have been that way for decades, but if a group of people try to take them as a squat, they get driven out by the police. There are realtors that have owned thousands of acres of land for ages that nobody is allowed to create a livelihood on.

Obviously there is a fine line between squatting in an abandoned building and being a bunch of douche bags that seize someones home while they are away. You are a big boy, so learn to start solving minor civil disputes using your general principles.

Squatter rights, is a great way to damage your entire society. Why would I ever build anything, if a squatter can just claim it?

Actually squatter rights are working quite well in most American cities that have them. Squatters usually renovate the buildings they are in and maintain them for long periods of time, and pay the taxes that would normally paid were the building operational to the city. This is a win-win-win-win for the squatters, realtors, community, and city government.

The idea is that if you are going to build something, you had better planned on using it. If you are not using it, then you cannot fault an element of society that will.

 

[TNHarley]

Sustained ownership.. I don't have a problem with it.
One question : what about if you get really sick for a month and cant remember to sustain an empty rental property or property you are trying to sell? You get sick and lose your shit to bums?

 

[Southern Dad]

Why should squatters have a right to my property? I have a cabin in north Georgia. I go there three or four weeks of the year. If someone were to break in and assume residents should they have any rights? I paid for that property. I bought the furniture. It is mine. Does that same theory apply to that extra vehicle you have in your driveway? You aren't using it everyday, I'll just assume ownership of it via squatter rights? Never mind that you bought it as a spare to be prepared.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Even before I was an anarchist, I supported squatter rights.

Human beings have an unequivocal right to live on land that is not being used. Human beings have no right to claim ownership over what they do not personally sustain themselves.

if you don't own the land you have no right to trespass

 

[Onyx]

Why should squatters have a right to my property?

It depends.

Do you use that property regularly?

I have a cabin in north Georgia. I go there three or four weeks of the year. If someone were to break in and assume residents should they have any rights?

In that scenario, I'd say you are justified, but I assume you would have security and warnings at your property if you are leaving it unattended.

Not everything is black and white. There are instances where squatters are justified, and there are instances where squatters are not justified. As of now, squatters have little to no rights, even to take up residence in buildings that have been abandoned for decades.

 

[Onyx]

if you don't own the land you have no right to trespass

That's the question.

Can someone legitimately own land, or can they just sustain it? I believe one can only sustain land.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Even before I was an anarchist, I supported squatter rights.

Human beings have an unequivocal right to live on land that is not being used. Human beings have no right to claim ownership over what they do not personally sustain themselves.

Would you define a bit more but what you consider unused.

People breaking into a house that's been on the market for a while aren't considered legal 'owners' of the people that own it and are trying to sell it, but aren't living in it.

If you just mean land, as in grass, trees, streams, I'd agree. Live where you will as you can.

 

[Skull Pilot]

if you don't own the land you have no right to trespass

That's the question.

Can someone legitimately own land, or can they just sustain it? I believe one can only sustain land.

That's not what the law says.

I own my land while I am alive I can sell that land while I am alive to a new owner or I can leave it to a new owner after I die and they can do what they will with it.

If I own a home on a piece of land that I do not use you do not have any right to break in and live there

 

[Southern Dad]

Why should squatters have a right to my property?

It depends, do you use your property regularly?

-

I have a cabin in north Georgia. I go there three or four weeks of the year. If someone were to break in and assume residents should they have any rights?

In that scenario, I'd say you are justified, but I assume you would have security and warnings at your property if you are leaving it unattended.

But should I have to have security and warnings? I bought the property. It is mine. I have cameras and an alarm but even better is that I have a neighbor who owns a shotgun and I'm at the very end of a long road. The big point is that I should not have to use the property. I should not have to worry about squatters. I have a pickup truck at that house. It is rarely used but I keep the plates and insurance up to date, should someone be able to claim squatter rights to it because I don't use it often enough?

 

[Onyx]

Would you define a bit more but what you consider unused.

People breaking into a house that's been on the market for a while aren't considered legal 'owners' of the people that own it and are trying to sell it, but aren't living in it.

If you just mean land, as in grass, trees, streams, I'd agree. Live where you will as you can.

I'd say personally that I would be okay if the property has not been used for any purpose for a period of several years.

 

[Onyx]

That's not what the law says.

I don't give a fuck about the laws.

They were written by inhuman scum to infringe on the happiness of others.

If I own a home on a piece of land that I do not use you do not have any right to break in and live there

If your land has been abandoned for 5 years, then I'd just give you the finger.

 

[Onyx]

But should I have to have security and warnings?

No, but it does signify to others that the property is not abandoned.

I wouldn't have a seasonal hunting cabin or anything without putting up some security and a few warnings.

I bought the property. It is mine.

Only based on the law, which is an argument I pointed out earlier.

The question is if it is your land by the law alone, or whether it is actually backed up by principle.

The big point is that I should not have to use the property. I should not have to worry about squatters. I have a pickup truck at that house. It is rarely used but I keep the plates and insurance up to date, should someone be able to claim squatter rights to it because I don't use it often enough?

Morality is not black and white.

There is respectful squatting (most squatters are respectful and peaceful) and there is douchebag squatting. Use your general principles to distinguish between the two.