Home ownership is now a soulslike? I’ve been training for this my whole middle-aged life.
You will quickly find out how much humans suck at rolling.
Also, “Parry this, filthy casual!” whips out a gun
pulls out Physick Flask full of liquid meth and PCP
“UNLIMITED STAMINA!”
I always thought the short-term nature of physicks was suspicious…
There seems to be the implication within that quote that because he’s brought a melee weapon, the party being attacked is bound by honor not to use a firearm.
In fact he’s probably putting himself in much more danger by bringing a sword (thereby providing a self-defense defense) than if he showed up unarmed.
Aren’t most of squatters are relatevely poor people, who cannot easily buy a gun unless they are a part of a gang?
This is a country where there are more legal guns than there are people. You don’t think ANYONE ina bad economic situation is traveling with the gun they owned before they lost their housing?
Assuming that this law even exist in such country, your statement does sound logical. Still, I cannot understand why then no one is trying armed revolution against the current government if everyone knows about current USA president? I mean, in other countries people do such protests without guns in many cases and achieve success. Like in Ukraine, for example.
P. S. Yeah, I kinda changed the topic. Sorry.
Because huge chunks of the country continue to love him. He might be leading us into economic collapse, but at least he’s being shitty to brown and queer people, which is obviously the most important thing.
Most, sure. But all it takes is one that’s not.
deus_vult.mp4
[reference to the person who took a sword to counter-attack a BLM event and got beaten until their limbs almost resembled a swastika : CW blood]
I will laugh when this dipshit gets plugged
Weird that was my first thought as well… Then who will be held responsible?
Who the hell passed a law allowing squatters to be able to take away the title after 5 years,that’s freaking nuts. Can literally just steal property.
Yeah, it does seem a little weird in our hyper capitalist society for that law to be on the books. I also think it’s extremely wasteful for somebody to not even use a property for 5 years in a world where land is a finite resource. I think a better solution would be escalating tax rates based on number of properties owned and then if a property goes unused for fucking years it can go to the state to then be auctioned off for cheap. It might help reset property values instead of the ever rising investment market we have now too.
I’m a big proponent of use it or lose it. And a functioning society wouldn’t have a squatter problem.
So, the 80 acres of forest land I own and pay taxes on should be taken away from me because I will never develop it into something useful?
If I don’t pay the taxes on it, it will get taken away by the government, but that’s a different matter.
Retvrn to shared commons
Parent didn’t say develop, they said use. 80 acres of forest can be used as open space and not developed at all.
I think the spirit of parent comment was that if you have 80 acres of forest, but you live somewhere else and never set foot in it…well, maybe that land could be better used/enjoyed.
If you live on/near it, and enjoy it for some purpose other than strictly as an investment, that seems like you’re utilizing it.
Agreed
Yeah, in Arizona it’s 2. Much better.
(If an owner is so disconnected from their property that they don’t notice someone living there that they didn’t allow, have they really lost anything?)
they sorta strongarmed a similar incident in oakland, a family from missipi/or missouri plus a group of other 5 families were living in a house the govt, and public supported the takeover it. the house was sitting empty because of a corporate landlord, hoping the empty house would raise in value over time, which is a problem all over the us. and the corporate landlord sold the house to the families, through a “organization”. they had hordes of other houses sitting empty all over the place.
Scratched landlord 🤣
Is this a Tim Heidecker character?
I’ve read about this guy before. He’s got an amusing variety of methods. Squatters ruin homes, sometimes destroying them entirely. House across the street from me burned this morning because of squatters who kept breaking in. Someone would have saved the house eventually, now it’ll be a parking lot. Who is helped by that?
is it even legal for “this vigalante” to threaten the squatter with a sword, it seems like something it can backfire.
so is he just going around assaulting people he calls “squatters?”
Well, he can simply scare them off. Also, this may be not a real sword but rather a collectible from Amazon, that can cut you but also relatevely easy can break down if it meets something sturdy enough like another piece of steel on its way. Basically, it is easier to buy a good military suitable machete rather than a proper sword. So, maybe he uses intimidation factor and doesn’t cut people often.
If I wave a gun around, I’ll catch a brandishing charge, whether or not I actually plan to shoot anyone, it doesn’t even have to be loaded.
Is this some Craigslist shit?
Sounds like a plot from Cobra Kai
“I’d much rather make a squatter homeless than have a landlord lose property,” James added.
Keeping it classy.
wanted to say the same thing. what a dickhead, simping for landlords.
Hear me out: I don’t blame landlords for wanting to protect their investments. But, I do have a problem with them (and guys like James here) who do it at the expense of the downtrodden. Being a landlord should not have to be mutually exclusive with helping people.
The kind of squatters that you have to fight in court to get rid of are downtroden in the sense that all petty criminals are downtrodden. In the sense that the guy that robs you at the bus stop is downtrodden even as he treads down on you.
Now I don’t much give a fuck about people’s return on investment and shit, but property, if you actually give a shit about it, is expensive to maintain and repair. That plus an arduous legal process highly incentivizes property owners to capitulate to unjust demands from squatters, much like any other robbery uses a threat of harm to coerce compliance.
I’m not seeing it.
For there to be squatters, the landlords had to have this property open and unrented for a while. The only way that happens is if the rent is too high.
What kind of landlord can afford to have a rental property vacant for a significant period of time and not accept a lower rent? Ones who own lots of property and would prefer to lose income rather than reduce the average rent price in the area.
In the industry, withholding housing from people because you want to make more money, when you can clearly afford to get no income from it, is called “a dick move”.
Counterpoint: some people would rent an Airbnb and stay after the two weeks they rented, effectively preventing the homeowner to return to their homes after a vacation. There’s little legal recourse to speedily remove them, as two weeks of occupation requires a lengthy judicial process to evict them (IIRC in California).
I dislike rent seekers too, but it happens to people with only one home as well. They think they could put their home to use while they’re not there (effectively reducing the problem of real estate under occupation), only to be exploited.
The thing is, what you describe is incredibly rare, to the point of being a statistical anomaly.
Also, if you take the “low income” piece out of it, abusing others and cheating the system to save money is “just good business.” Ask all the millionaires doing immoral but TECHNICALLY legal things on their taxes.
You’re mistaken, sadly. It doesn’t happen more often because people got smart to it and no longer put their houses for rent for longer periods.
And I don’t get your whatabout millionaires comment. My comment was that not all squatting hurts landlords, some hurt regular people. I don’t need to ask millionaires about it because it’s not about them, it’s about middle class people.
If that’s true, we would all do it. No?
Are you asking why isn’t everybody stealing each other’s property?
If there’s little repercussion and everyone is broke, yes.
The only way that happens is if the rent is too high.
That’s not the only way. It’s not even very likely. If they are looking for too much rent and can’t get it they will lower their ask rather than sit there month after month getting nothing. Too high rent is the most easily fixable situation conceivable.
Other explanations include things like: it’s owned by someone who is elderly and due to their health or other problem they simply aren’t managing it actively or are even incapacitated and can’t make major decisions. Perhaps the owner died and the property is in the probate courts, which can take years.
Also, the presence of squatters doesn’t necessarily indicate it has been vacant for a long time.
Corporate landlords lose more by drops in real estate price and lowering of rent averages than a handful of empty properties. They have scale.
In theory. Long term vacancy is not in any corporate landlord’s plan, though. They will adjust rather than seek impossible rent forever. And aside from large apartment buildings, most residences (75% of 1-4 unit buildings) are owned by small landlords who don’t give a shit about network effects.
Squatters could move in the day after the property becomes empty. Really it depends on when it is noticed the house is unoccupied.
Sometimes houses can’t be sold for months because of legal BS (happened with my moms house).Yes, there are always edge cases. Wouldn’t it be great if there were no corporate landlords and the problem was small enough to worry about those?
For there to be squatters, the landlords had to have this property open and unrented for a while.
Huh? A squatter is most commonly simply a former renter who stops paying without moving out. The property is not vacant at any point.
You’re describing holdover tenants. Those are not the same as squatters. Holdover tenants have more rights in California.
Edit: worded that wrong.
I don’t blame landlords for wanting to protect their investments.
I’m a landlord (not by choice, but shit happens). I’ve never hired goons and never would. I do blame landlords for resorting to this kind of bullshit.
It might help if you read the remainder of my comment. 🤷♂️
Their investments fundamentally come at the expense of the downtrodden by relegating necessities behind a paywall that they have private ownership over.
Being a landlord is fundamentally against helping people. It is explicitly about utilizing the private ownership over housing in order to profit off of someone else’s inherent need of shelter.
It is mutually exclusive and there is nothing that can be done to change that. The system is fundamentally oppressive.
I’d definitely claim exception there in cases when someone travels often. Picture a guy who’s going to study at the nearby university for one year, but isn’t going to put down any roots in the city.
But yes, I acknowledge that’s a comparatively uncommon case to most renters.
Transient tenants can be accommodated by collectively owned lodging. There is nothing that necessitates private ownership.
Landlords protecting their investments is always at the expense of the downtrodden. The role of landlord is one that exists solely at the expense of the downtrodden, and it is mutually exclusive with helping people.
I disagree, though I know I’ll get roasted for it… Landlords do serve a purpose to a point. Not everyone wants to own property. Owning property ties you to a particular place, makes it difficult to leave. If you know you want to stay in an area for the rest of your life, or even just the next 10 years, absolutely, you should be able to buy, and not being able to is a societal failure. But if you don’t know where you want to spend the rest of your life, you still need shelter now, and renting provides that, and when you decide to go somewhere else, it’s relatively easy. One of my bigger regrets in life was feeling pressured to buy a house in 2005… Just in time for the subprime mortgage crisis. I had a traditional mortgage, but nonetheless, my house went from $150k to <50k in months. I was stuck. Couldn’t sell without coming up with extra money to pay off the mortgage, but I wasn’t in as bad shape as some people, I could afford the payments, so I couldn’t justify walking away, just had to wait for it to rebound, which took another 5 years roughly. Had I been renting, I would have been able to leave much more easily.
There are ways to meet that particular need without landlords. Tenant unions buying out their apartment building and making it cooperatively owned, for example, or municipally owned public housing. The alternative to private property is public property. That kind of thing isn’t available because private property owners are the ones calling the shots, and that would undercut their parasitic lifestyle.
OK I heard you out. But I absolutely do blame them. It is mutually exclusive, they’re parasites and aren’t helping anyone. The guy who helps fix up your home is the property manager, for which landlords occasionally hire themselves using your rent money.
Its all well and good to hate on the Bourgeois until you become one at which point the proletariat are your problem.
Bourgeoisie for owning a house? A very petty kind of bourgeoisie if at all. Petit? Something like that.
And let’s be real, squatting isn’t labor either. This is a weird flex.
Its all well and good to hate on serial killers until you become one at which point the victims are your problem.
Yeah but being a serial killer doesn’t add anything to society. Bourgeois ownership of property and the competition that creates (capitalism) put a man on the moon and given you a better life than the aristocrats the bourgeois overthrew. How many people have serial killers raised out of poverty?
Sorry if I’m getting whooshed, are you being sarcastic? NASA is government-run. Feudalism was even more property-based and less democratic than capitalism is.
U clearly have no idea how NASA actually accomplished man in the moon. Most of the rocket and infrastructure was built and designed by private companies being paid by NASA. NASA just did the integration, design, and analysis. Its the perfect example of a socialist policy taking advantage of capitalist industry.
Capitalism, communism, socialism, and feudalism have nothing to do with democracy. They for the most part only refer to property in how its owned, who owns it, and what is property. Marx says everything that is not a person or a person labour is property owned by the state.
This is a direct analogue to feudalism and its structure of property ownership. Under feudalism the state owns everything including you, under communism the state owns everything except you. Marx himself comments on the similarity and how that relationship can be leveraged to bring in a communist regime.
Ah, the Space Race. Something that was famously only participated in by capitalist countries.
The USSR never put a man on the moon. And what your implying here is that the USSR was communism? If so the genocides and mass starvation it caused should be enough evidence against communism.
I’m asserting that capitalism didn’t do that on its own. The USSR is not a good example of communism, no, but it’s certainly not capitalist, and if they hadn’t provided competition at every step of the space race, beating the US out most of the time, the US wouldn’t have gotten to the moon.
Oh, here we go with the “little black book of communism” bullshit.
Gods, you guys are so predictable.
So as long as the bourgeoise exist, there will always be a problem?
Sounds like the only solution is to collectively agree to delete the bourgeoise.
OK Marx sure. So what do u replace it with? Someone has to “own” ie control all the things and if u just hand it all over to some entity “the state” you have just reinvented aristocracy.
Someone has to “own” ie control all the things
That’s an extremely silly statement. Do you really believe in a single global landlord that owns everything that everyone else must pay rent to? If one person owns everything like you say, you just destroyed private ownership.
You managed to accuse me of being both Marx and a monarchist all while you call to end any private ownership in just one post.
That is possibly the worst faith interpretation of my statement. Everything is owned by someone not necessarily the same someone. For instance I own and am thus responsible for my property, someone else is responsible for their property hence everything is owned by someone.
What’s the functional difference between communism and a monarchy? In both cased all property is owned by “the state” and can exercise control over that property however they please. Democracy doesn’t work cos the people have no control of any property and thus are completely beholden to the state. Good luck protesting against the government when you have no food, water, means to communicate, and travel. What are u gonna do about the inevitable authoritarian takeover? Die?
actually, ownership is a human invention and it is not necessary at all.
I thought for sure I was on the onion when I read that line. Sad that it’s real
he smells like a nimby. he probably would be at the place when MILLBRAE(rich white residents) were complaining about converting a former hotel into a liviing space for the impoverished that occured like last year.
So it was him making all those pro-landlord memes…
“I’d much rather make a squatter homeless than have a landlord lose property,” Jacobs added.
These are the pieces of shit your politicians listen to every time they increase funding for police enforcement against the homeless, and deny zoning changes, even if it would improve the housing crisis. “theft is always bad no matter what 🤓☝️”
You have to be genuinely mentally ill to believe that someone going homeless is better than someone with more properties than they need to live in losing one of those properties so someone has a place to live.
deleted by creator
Especially empty properties.
that cannot be a real quote from a real person. it just can’t be.
In fact, this is something I could genuinely see multiple people in my own extended family saying.
You don’t believe him? But he’s got the only squatter removal business with a Yelp account! /s
…with professional-grade tactical gear.
The gear includes firearms, ballistic full-body armor, flash bangs and smoke grenades, tear gas…Where the fuck are you sourcing explosives and tear gas as a civilian, and more importantly…
Where can I get some? Purely for home defense, of course. Definitely not wanting it for defrost purposes.Plus points for “defrosting” there, very nicely put.
It would seem contrary to known physics, but tear gas actually makes frozen water whine like little bitches. 🤷🏼♂️
Where the fuck are you sourcing explosives and tear gas as a civilian
https://www.keepshooting.com/clear-out-6oz-tear-gas-grenade.html
Clear Out 6oz Tear Gas Grenade
Totally legal, all of that. The grenades require a $200 DD stamp each (don’t think the smokes do, unsure about tear gas - I know I bought smoke grenades for airsoft all the time back when I played), but everything there is totally legal from your local gun show or Bubba.
Bubba is the guy that Trump sucked off
Gun show.
The best part is the 50/50 on if they work or not
Oof. That bad?
I would wager much of the “tacti-cool” market stuff to not perform.
I’m not an expert.
its very important that the property remains empty, you see. if we allowed people to pay too little for it that would drive the prices of our other properties down.
literally just the passage from grapes of wrath.
this is a puff piece about the kind of gangster who turns up murdered and unmourned
