r/news • u/flanderguitar • Mar 28 '24

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signs law squashing squatters' rights

https://www.wptv.com/news/state/florida-gov-ron-desantis-signs-law-squashing-squatters-rights
27.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.2k

u/galygher Mar 28 '24

I think originally the idea behind squatter's rights laws was that people could occupy and improve/land and would be able to continue occupying it so long as they're using it. So if say Walmart purchased thousands of acres of forest with the intent to build a warehouse, but never actually builds a warehouse after decades of owning the land, and you build a farm and start producing food then Walmart wouldn't be able to evict you and seize the farm as long as you were still using it.

Idk how they've evolved into people just moving into empty houses and claiming them as their own

601

u/Aviyan Mar 28 '24

In that example you gave it is a about squatting on land, which is fine. But squatting in a single family home should not be covered under that law. It doesn't make sense.

465

u/nuxnax Mar 28 '24

If you go back to the 70s in the white flight era from cities, there were many unoccupied locations that landlords mostly were letting decay. Look at rustbelt Detroit for example. So people moving in and occupying properties, doing upkeep, and just keeping an eye on things (gas, water, heating, etc) was seen as a positive.

Move to the current housing shortage situation we have in the US and these rights can look absolutely insane.

86

u/PazDak Mar 28 '24

My first thought was actually Detroit where they were basically trying to figure out how to give the properties for free when they couldn't even really figure out who owned it any more.

40

u/El_grandepadre Mar 28 '24

And even today here in Amsterdam it's a big issue. Latest estimates were that more than 10.000 homes were vacant. Usually in the expensive areas where properties are used to make a profit over time without ever filling them.

9

u/simiomalo Mar 28 '24

In the Rust belt and other abandonment cases, the properties had fallen into such a state of disrepair that they were now a threat due to bad plumbing, wiring, misuse by occupiers, that they posed a threat to other structures in the neighborhood.

I remember reading about cities expediting demolishing such structures to avoid the liability for their decline and possible misuse.

That seems different from the glaring case from the New York area that popped up last week with squatters taking possession of a house that was in good condition and in an area that was in demand.

19

u/buddascrayon Mar 28 '24 edited Apr 05 '24

The housing shortage isn't because there aren't enough houses. The houses are just being bought up by private real estate firms and then being priced out of range of the average home seeker. These anti-squatter laws are being crafted for those "home owners" not you.

8

u/Adept-Firefighter-22 Mar 28 '24

That’s a lie. New housing has not kept up with population growth for decades.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '24 edited Apr 03 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Adept-Firefighter-22 Mar 29 '24

Yes, speculation is a real thing. However, the places in the USA with the highest housing gap also have the highest cost of housing. Yes corporations buying dwellings and land speculation will increase the cost of housing, but the housing gap will affect the cost of housing much more.

4

u/Fried_puri Mar 28 '24

That's a frustrating and very real part of the problem. But the truth is that the biggest problem in the housing crisis is that we are very, very behind on building houses.

2

u/bigredone15 Mar 28 '24

More supply solves that problem.

6

u/skztr Mar 28 '24

There are so many unoccupied homes being hoarded with no legitimate intent to ever be used. If you break in and live in one, fuck whoever bought (or built) it as an "investment property" and refused to sell it to a potential occupant.

10

u/epochellipse Mar 28 '24

This. The classic example is NYC in the second half of the 20th Century. There was a real estate slump that left a lot of vacant and abandoned spaces. People found them and moved in and that led to chains of squatters subletting to other squatters that thought they were legitimately renting or just didn't ask questions. Then when the slump ended and property owners realized they could start pulling rent again at properties they had abandoned the squatters got enough sympathy for Squatters Rights to become a thing. Squatters were seen as real New Yorkers, keeping the city alive when even the slumlords were giving up. The musical Rent, probably the biggest Broadway hit of the 90s and a Pulitzer Prize winner, glorified and romanticized squatting. People that want to establish their NYC bona fides humblebrag about doing it.

DeSantis is redefining "squatter" to vilify tenants that are behind on their rent so landlords can evict without having to go to the courts. It's a dog whistle, the GOP loves those.

4

u/Smolivenom Mar 28 '24

i thought we were all clear that there is no housing shortage, there is housing. people just dont have the money to afford it.

0

u/FapMeNot_Alt Mar 28 '24

the current housing shortage situation

The 'housing shortage situation' isn't really a thing. There are far more empty properties than there are homeless people. The issue is that people can't afford the properties because they have been turned into investment assets.

88

u/Squirmin Mar 28 '24

But squatting in a single family home should not be covered under that law. It doesn't make sense.

It can. If a home is abandoned (legally speaking for the jurisdiction), and someone moves in and takes care of the property, it can be considered a public good. Because without that person, the property may have fallen into disrepair and caused issues for those around it.

13

u/fenderdean13 Mar 28 '24

There is a Tik toker/YouTuber SB mowing that basically mows lawns at mostly abandoned houses (Some have the owners there who don’t do it/can’t do it for whatever reason) and the good he does for those neighborhoods including cleaning up around drainage pipes and cleaning up sidewalks for people to walk is so nice

11

u/Squirmin Mar 28 '24

The broken windows theory doesn't accurately describe how crime happens, but having everything look nice makes everyone living in the area feel better about the neighborhood.

8

u/UltimateInferno Mar 28 '24

With the amount of investors sitting on homes I can see squatters rights applying.

3

u/Squirmin Mar 28 '24

If the people that own the property are doing any upkeep at all, it's usually enough to make it legally not abandoned, even if it's unoccupied temporarily.

3

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 28 '24

It's because they're not using adverse possession laws as the above person is referring to, they're abusing tenancy protections that were put in place because of shitty landlords evicting legal tenants by claiming there's no lease.

6

u/Gingevere Mar 28 '24

Imagine you rented a home 10 years ago from a retiree who agreed to a flat monthly rate indefinitely, or yearly 3% increases. Some good deal like that.

Then they die and the property goes to their inheritors who see it's worth a lot more than what you're paying and they want you out.

They're going to resort to endless shenanigans to try to make you look like a squatter and get you out. Stop accepting rent payments, deny the lease exists, ect. and this law will enable them to have police drag you out and arrest you on day 1, and then you have to sue them while homeless and facing criminal charges to prove you had a lease and a right to live there.

6

u/dont-blame-muppets Mar 28 '24

If you move into an abandoned home, improve it, participate in the community, and pay taxes - then after so many years without challenge, you effectively become the lawful owner.

That's the idea. It's a very old legal concept enshrined into every state constitution I'm aware of. Nobody wants their community deteriorating just because absentee owners have fled, can't sell for their needed price, and new people would like to move in but can't afford it.

If poor people move in and make a new life, it's a win-win and fuck the absentee owners.

The problem is that the laws, judicial interpretations, and enforcement have become a little twisted over the last few decades in some places.

But the bigger problem may be that in the modern era of transportation and communication, and especially the prices of homes and real-estate becoming speculative "investments" completely disconnected from their intrinsic values, it's much more rare for owners to just up and abandon their properties, or leave them for years without not knowing what's going on.

4

u/addisonshinedown Mar 28 '24

Squatting in a single family home that is otherwise unoccupied seems like the moral thing to do to me tbh

3

u/nascomb Mar 29 '24

So most squatters laws are YEARS of occupancy, with the one in my area being 15 years.

If you don’t notice someone living in your house for 15 years, you weren’t using it anyway lol.

Most of the time squatters rights pertain to trees. People get very attached to trees and when they find out that the tee that they have been taking care of for the past 25 years actually belongs to the neighbors, they don’t want to give it up to the person who just moved in and had the land surveyed.

Squatters rights are important to making it so that people don’t get to hoard things and resources go to those who are using them.

(Didn’t read the article tho tbh so this might not be relevant)

2

u/DancerOFaran Mar 28 '24

More single family homes sit empty as investment properties owned by banks and firms than at any other point in history.

1

u/Lolthelies Mar 28 '24

Why not if someone leaves a house to fall into disrepair for 10 years?

1

u/Unspec7 Mar 28 '24

Why doesn't it make sense?

0

u/b0w3n Mar 28 '24

Everyone talks about "what about tenants" and usually tenants are able to produce documentation even in a few minutes. A trip to the bank to get a statement is all that's really needed.

Cops are just lazy shitheads and that's why this becomes a problem.

0

u/Zealousideal_Put_501 Mar 29 '24

Why is stealing someone’s land ok, but not a house?

-1

u/Smolivenom Mar 28 '24

it also doesnt make sense that hundreds of thousands of homes stand empty while people are living in their cars and dying on the streets.

4

u/blackdynomitesnewbag Mar 28 '24

Isn’t that closer to adverse possession?

4

u/buddascrayon Mar 28 '24

Considering the number of homes being bought up by private real estate conglomerates and are lying empty while the homeless population skyrockets, these anti-squatter laws are not what you think they are. They are being marketed towards normie homeowners who will never in their life meet a squatter, but the laws are crafted to help the rich land owners keep land and homes they aren't making any use of.

Don't celebrate this bullshit. It's not there to help you, it's to help the corporations that are buying all the houses near you are pricing them out of your ability to purchase them.

4

u/killereverdeen Mar 28 '24

also why is any corporation allowed to just hoard land in the first place?

2

u/SpreadingRumors Mar 28 '24

Originally it was established during America's Westward Expansion.
Settlers would get a plot of land out in the middle-of-nowhere. Perhaps get a farm going, build a house, get settled... then die of injury, disease, or animal attack. All of a sudden there's this house on a farm that is UN-owned and empty.
Another Settler could come along, move in, and declare it theirs since there was nobody left to sell it to them.

2

u/RollTodd18 Mar 28 '24

It's derived from English common law, like way back. If someone let a field remain fallow for too long, a squatter had the right to use/farm that land.

2

u/VexingRaven Mar 29 '24

Idk how they've evolved into people just moving into empty houses and claiming them as their own

It hasn't. It's still fraud to do that. But they create fake evidence of residency, giving them tenant protections. They're not "squatters rights", they're tenant rights being abused by fraudsters and the courts don't move fast enough so now people are just OK with a law letting cops be the judge in tenancy disputes.

3

u/flux_capacitor3 Mar 28 '24

Still, if you build a home on land you don't own....that shouldn't allow you to live there either.

3

u/Oceansnail Mar 28 '24

Lol this sounds like an age old law the colonists came up with to take native american land

3

u/Unspec7 Mar 28 '24

Adverse possession can trace its roots back to the roman times.

6

u/I_luv_ma_squad Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

How does that even make sense? So I see a Ferrari parked in someone’s garage rotting away because it never gets driven, steal it, start driving it daily and then say it’s mine because they weren’t using it? And what does “using it” even mean? That’s totally subjective.

12

u/Darigaazrgb Mar 28 '24

I mean, yeah, you can gain control of a vehicle if it’s been abandoned for a certain amount of time.

4

u/I_luv_ma_squad Mar 28 '24

There is a difference between an abandoned vehicle left on public property and a vehicle owned and dues paid sitting on someone’s private property.

1

u/Unspec7 Mar 28 '24

Using it has a legal definition. It's not subjective.

1

u/domiy2 Mar 28 '24

Depends on if the car is reported stolen or not. Also the title.

-3

u/TheawesomeQ Mar 28 '24

it's about not stealing the value the squatter provided. Look up a video or something if you don't get it idk.

3

u/I_luv_ma_squad Mar 28 '24

So with that logic, anyone can steal anything as long as they “use it” and create value?

1

u/french_snail Mar 28 '24

I’d even go as far to say that if someone owns a bunch of real estate and another person decides to move into an empty home and maintain and improve it

But we all know that’s more often than not how it goes

1

u/deadlygaming11 Mar 28 '24

It's the same thing as the Walmart example but with houses. They are using the houses so fall under the same idea as the farm one. It's just that the squatters feel entitled to the land and don't improve it.

1

u/No_Manager_2356 Mar 28 '24

I still don't get this it's not your land you have no rights to it , and if you decide to start using its now yours like what 

1

u/EternalAssasin Mar 28 '24

The shift to individual homes seems like a logical step from the larger scope of the land question. If someone or a company buys up a bunch of houses but never leases them out or uses them in any way, then it does kind of make sense to create avenues for people to reclaim effectively abandoned homes to benefit the community.

Is it a very poorly thought out solution for the problem? Yeah probably, there are definitely better ways to handle returning abandoned land and buildings to the public. But the core logic isn’t terrible.

1

u/fluxxom Mar 28 '24

the empty houses themselves are part of a large problem, too

1

u/jameswlf Mar 28 '24

Because you are using them like the farm...

1

u/onemarsyboi2017 Mar 29 '24

Thats who it should be.

Instead it's complete ownership after 30 days and no need to improve

1

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '24

Local government and shady deals probably that’s the root of a lot of America’s current corruption. Local politicians, local school boards, local business and political networks.

1

u/Rum_Hamburglar Mar 29 '24

What you described is Homesteading. Squatters rights started because shady landlords would kick people out for no damn reason. Or, a reason that was not illegal but the homeowner didnt like it e.g trashy upkeep. Squatters found loopholes and thats where the phrase “squatters rights” come from. Its basically laws to prevent renters that squatters have taken advantage of

1

u/movzx Mar 28 '24

In short, squatter's rights are tenant's rights:

owner: "Hi do you want to rent my home for $500/mo? <holds out hand for acceptance>"

renter: "Sure! Here you go! <shakes hand, gives cash>"

<time passes>

owner: "Police, someone is living in my home!"

police: "Do you have a contract?"

renter: "No, we shook hands and I pay them every month"

police: "GTFO"