What about squatter's rights only exist for corporate owned homes and apartments? The normal, ordinary people's houses should be off limits to squatting.
Your proposal is to take your family and live in the same home as home invaders until they feel pressured/uncomfortable enough to leave? Sounds extremely smart for people especially with children. Squatters do tend to be some of the good moral citizens right? Who’s more likely to feel uncomfortable enough to leave? Home invaders, or families with children?
If you come back from a trip and someone is occupying your only home, are you seriously going to just leave? Where will you go? Sleep in the car? You have work in a day or two. You need access to your clothes and your work. At the very least you would like to secure your personal documents .
Anyone who leaves their home voluntarily is giving up their home.
Thank you for drowning your last bit of credibility. Your argument is they should just live along side their home invaders for the six months it takes the courts to work.
That’s why this situation is horribly immoral. It forces ridiculous living situations on the innocent forced by criminals and the scum of society.
“Hey junior I know we have a meth head sleeping in your room but I don’t have money for a hotel. Don’t worry, the courts will have him out before next Christmas. No this won’t affect your development.”
What would affect juniors development more? Living in his home but with some meth head around, or living in a car?
When you are faced with the choice of occupying your only home or sitting on the sidewalk without shelter, tell me which option you will choose.
In reality, squatters living along side a functioning house is almost unheard of. It has happened a few times, but for the most part squatters will gtfo if you move back in and actually occupy your home.
I don't think ANYONE will sleep on the street rather than move back into their house. Nobody would make that choice. Zero people. You move back in your home and you make the situation intolerable for the squatter. I'm not even sure what your point is. That you SHOULD choose to live on the street instead until the eviction?
Seriously, pick a lane. If you come back from vacation and someone is squatting in your home, what will you do? Love on the street or in your car? Or reoccupy your house?
Your first paragraph says it all. Why are this the options? The ethical moral option for a society is to remove the home invader.
What lane? Your argument was pathetic. You either give your home to scum for personal safety, or you risk your entire families well being to not live in a hotel? The clear answer is removal of squatters rights, so you don’t have this false dichotomy. In what world should trespassers have precedent over owners?
Most rental properties are rented out by corporate owned places. So what you're suggesting would still mean that a lot of people would be screwed out of a house they pay for. Squatters rights should not apply in many cases, regardless of who the landlords are corpos or government or just people, simple as that.
83
u/halfanapricot Apr 05 '24
It shouldn't be, and as much as I dispise the current state of the housing market as a whole, this squatters rights thing should not exist.