(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?)
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.
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.
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.
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, 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?)
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.
Scratched landlord 🤣
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.