Governor DeSantis Signs Law Against Squatters

[Revoltingest]

It is a big difference. Entitling you to something as a right is not at all the same as protecting ownership of something.

If it walks like a right, looks like a right, functions like a right,
& smells like a right with a whiff of bacon, it's a right.

 

[David1967]

Well it looks like Florida took the bull by the horns and are finally standing up for homeowner rights vs squatters rights.
It is about time all States took a closer look at their laws on squatters.

Governor DeSantis Signs Legislation to End the Squatters Scam in Florida

www.flgov.com

Good for him!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If it walks like a right, looks like a right, functions like a right,
& smells like a right with a whiff of bacon, it's a right.

I'm not saying there isn't a right. I'm saying a right that grants entitlement to possession of property is vastly different than a right that entitles you to protection against the state when it comes to search and seizures that would take possession of your property.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not saying there isn't a right. I'm saying a right that grants entitlement to possession of property is vastly different than a right that entitles you to protection against the state when it comes to search and seizures that would take possession of your property.

You just described property rights.

 

[danieldemol]

If you aren't currently driving your car, does that make it okay for me to steal it?

What about if you owned all the cars in the world and only drove one of them and intended to never let anyone else borrow one, or what if - more to the point - it was an essential need for survival such as owning all the housing? I think human need and the right to life should trump greed.

But I would argue that an government institution say the likes of Australia's centrelink should assess the means of the home owner and the means of the squatter so that rich squatting people aren't displacing the poor single mother etc like you suggested in an earlier post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well it looks like Florida took the bull by the horns and are finally standing up for homeowner rights vs squatters rights.
It is about time all States took a closer look at their laws on squatters.

Governor DeSantis Signs Legislation to End the Squatters Scam in Florida

www.flgov.com

Seems like he put that last condition in to make sure it doesn’t apply to Trump when Mar-a-Lago gets seized to pay off Trump's legal penalties. It just wouldn't do to let E. Jean Carroll use anti-squatting laws against Trump, would it?

Under HB 621, a property owner can request law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter from their property if the following conditions are met:

• The individual has unlawfully entered and remains on the property;
• The individual has been directed to leave the property by the owner but has not done so; and
• The individual is not a current or former tenant in a legal dispute.

 

[Laniakea]

You just continue to refuse to see the big picture.

Then lay out the big picture for us.
When do you believe it's ok to claim someone else's home as your own?
AND what do you believe protects you from having it taken from you, just as you took it from someone else?

 

[crossfire]

Looks good to me!

Under HB 621, a property owner can request law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter from their property if the following conditions are met:

• The individual has unlawfully entered and remains on the property;
• The individual has been directed to leave the property by the owner but has not done so; and
• The individual is not a current or former tenant in a legal dispute.

In Florida, it will be quick and simple to reclaim your home from squatters, avoiding costly delays, litigation, and missed rents.

HB 621 also creates harsh penalties for those engaged in squatting and for those who encourage squatting and teach others the scam. The bill makes it:

• A first-degree misdemeanor for making a false statement in writing to obtain real property or for knowingly and willfully presenting a falsified document conveying property rights;
• A second-degree felony for any person who unlawfully occupies or trespasses in a residential dwelling and who intentionally causes $1,000 or more in damages; and
• A first-degree felony for knowingly advertising the sale or rent of a residential property without legal authority or ownership.

 

[Kfox]

What about if you owned all the cars in the world and only drove one of them

That will never happen; the more cars people buy, the more cars other people will build; the same goes with houses.

and intended to never let anyone else borrow one, or what if - more to the point - it was an essential need for survival such as owning all the housing?

Borrow? Or rent. I see nothing wrong with someone owning multiple houses or cars for the sole purpose of renting them out to other people; do you?

I think human need and the right to life should trump greed.

Allowing people to rent cars for cheaper than it costs to own is not greed, that’s called helping those who can’t afford to buy. If you cared about the poor, you would agree this to be a good thing.

But I would argue that an government institution say the likes of Australia's centrelink should assess the means of the home owner and the means of the squatter so that rich squatting people aren't displacing the poor single mother etc like you suggested in an earlier post.

I never said anything about rich squatters, I pointed out often people who do this will go after the easiest target; and the poor are easier targets for this than the rich because they can't afford the expensive security systems like the rich. If you gonna put words in my mouth, make sure they are MY words.

 

[danieldemol]

That will never happen; the more cars people buy, the more cars other people will build; the same goes with houses.

Borrow? Or rent. I see nothing wrong with someone owning multiple houses or cars for the sole purpose of renting them out to other people; do you?

Allowing people to rent cars for cheaper than it costs to own is not greed, that’s called helping those who can’t afford to buy. If you cared about the poor, you would agree this to be a good thing.

Way to not answer the question. But to answer your questions/statements what happens as people run out of room to build more housing? What about people who can't afford to rent, what help do you propose for them? How did there get to be people who can't afford to buy if not through the rich hogging an unnecessary lions share of money which we can't afford to live without in the first place?

I never said anything about rich squatters, I pointed out often people who do this will go after the easiest target; and the poor are easier targets for this than the rich because they can't afford the expensive security systems like the rich. If you gonna put words in my mouth, make sure they are MY words.

Ok, but I believe assessing whether a person can afford a few squatters or not would allow an easier eviction process for those who couldn't afford it.

 

[Kfox]

Way to not answer the question.

You asked a loaded question that is not based in reality. You suggested all the houses being bought up and no more houses left for anyone else to but. this scenario is as absurd as suggesting all the cars bought up by the rich to the point that there is no more cars left for anyone else to buy, greed and opportunity would never allow that to happen

But to answer your questions/statements what happens as people run out of room to build more housing?

We would run out of roads to drive cars on before we run out of room to build more housing.

What about people who can't afford to rent, what help do you propose for them?

Buying is far more expensive than renting, so renting nor buying is an option for them, they will need the government to step in to help them.

How did there get to be people who can't afford to buy if not through the rich hogging an unnecessary lions share of money which we can't afford to live without in the first place?

First of all, the rich have very little money; they give the vast majority of their money to corporations in exchange for company shares; and those companies use their money to make payroll, research and development, invest in technology, and other company business required to remain in business. So if you don’t have enough money, go to the companies who have most of the money, and they will share some of their money with you so long as you agree to do work for them.

Ok, but I believe assessing whether a person can afford a few squatters or not would allow an easier eviction process for those who couldn't afford it.

No; the only way that would ever happen is if squatting becomes common which it is not. It is extremely rare for this to happen.

 

[McBell]

It makes no difference at all what I think. OR what you think. Or even what DiSantis thinks. This is what you aren't understanding. You're focused on this little tidbit of imagined righteousness so you can ignore the wholly grotesque economic abuse that's causing this and a whole range of other problems.

You should probably start your own thread since your attempts to take over this one has failed.

 

[danieldemol]

First of all, the rich have very little money

The definition of rich;
"having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy."
Source: define rich - Google Search
The rich give their money to corporations for one reason mostly in my view, it is because those corporations multiply their wealth and/or assets.

FYI I do work for a corporation that doesn't pay me enough to get by. Luckily I have rich parents who can help me get by (part of the reason I know your not being informative when you claim rich people don't have much money lol).

And really having corporations that hog the lions share of the money people need to get by is little better than having greedy individuals do it in my view.

 

[fantome profane]

That will never happen; the more cars people buy, the more cars other people will build; the same goes with houses.

But for some strange reason no one is making more land.

 

[Kfox]

The definition of rich;
"having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy."

Yes! Or assets no rich man with the sense of a billy goat is gonna have much of his wealth tied up in cash where it will get destroyed by inflation; that doesn't happen in the real world.

Source: define rich - Google Search
The rich give their money to corporations for one reason mostly in my view, it is because those corporations multiply their wealth and/or assets.

Of course! Which means they have little money (when I say little money, I mean in proportion to total wealth they have)

FYI I do work for a corporation that doesn't pay me enough to get by.

Sounds like your problem is with the corporation you work for rather than the landlord who owns more than one house.

Luckily I have rich parents who can help me get by (part of the reason I know your not being informative when you claim rich people don't have much money lol).

If a person who is a billionaire has only a hundred thousand dollars in actual cash, that is very little money compared to the amount of wealth he has acquired; even though many people will see a hundred thousand dollars as a lot of money.

 

[Kfox]

But for some strange reason no one is making more land.

We have not run out of land, so that is not an issue

 

[fantome profane]

We have not run out of land, so that is not an issue

Oh yes it is. It is not just an issue, it is the issue.

 

[Kfox]

Oh yes it is. It is not just an issue, it is the issue.

I don't know what country you talking about, but in the USA there is not an issue of not enough land for more homes to be built. If you disagree, I challenge you to point to an article, or outside source that proves we are actually running out of land to build.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh yes it is. It is not just an issue, it is the issue.

Land use is restricted by more than just the
physical area....which is decreasing due to
misbehaving oceans.
- Zoning.
- Building codes.
- Species protection.
- Deed restrictions.
- Suitability for human use.
- Off limits (eg, parks).

 

[danieldemol]

Yes! Or assets no rich man with the sense of a billy goat is gonna have much of his wealth tied up in cash where it will get destroyed by inflation; that doesn't happen in the real world.

This means little when any needs they have are easily fulfilled by the partial sale of enormous assets in my view.

Of course! Which means they have little money (when I say little money, I mean in proportion to total wealth they have)

So you are using a semantic definition of little to misinform.

Sounds like your problem is with the corporation you work for rather than the landlord who owns more than one house.

Why would it be with only one of them? Both add to my inability to pay of a house in my lifetime by myself.

If a person who is a billionaire has only a hundred thousand dollars in actual cash, that is very little money compared to the amount of wealth he has acquired; even though many people will see a hundred thousand dollars as a lot of money.