• SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Being from California (and earlier from New York), that’s very much the intention. Both states (and municipal laws in places like LA, SF, and NYC) make the landlords have to jump through a lot of hoops before an eviction can take place, and the tenants can file for protection.

    I know that things vary from state to state, but I’ve only been a renter in NY, NJ, and CA. I’ve also successfully sued a landlord for over $100k in damages and expenses.

    • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      squatters rights precede the founding of the United States and have nothing to do with renters rights. You’re just wrong about why these laws exist.

      • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        You’re talking like a Sovereign Citizen.

        I’m talking about the very specific laws that prevent people from being evicted if they’ve been residing on a property for N months without following a very deliberate and drawn out legal procedure so that landlords cannot evict a family from their home of many years because of some missed rent payments or because they want to upgrade the place so they can charge more to a new tenant. Those are the laws that keep the sheriffs from just kicking down doors, at least in some states.

        I’m not taking a moral position on squatting. My friends and I squatted in an abandoned house while I was in high school, although most of us didn’t live there full time. If I noticed someone squatting tomorrow, especially in a corporate owned home, I would not have seen it. But the laws that I’m talking about were designed to protect tenants from having their lives unfairly disrupted, and I’m arguing that even if people are against squatters, we still need to protect tenants’ rights.

        I would have thought that was abundantly clear.

      • YeetPics@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Precede

        Bet… but the issue is the government who currently controls the land and enforces the laws.

        You don’t go breaking Constantinople’s laws because they were once different in Istanbul.

          • YeetPics@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Yes it is, I mixed up the names. Go figure a guy tries to reference a song from 70 years ago about a governmental shift from 570 years ago got the details wrong lol.

            So sorry to wrack your noggin. I’ll put it in a simpler way;

            When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

          • YeetPics@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            You’ve been handed context so you don’t have to hurt your silly little wrists typing. does the comment make sense now?

            • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              no. the governments that currently control the several states actually all have squatters rights (adverse possession) laws still on the books. the person to whom i was replying was conflating squatters rights with renters rights.

              your comment seems to imply that somehow the squatters rights were eliminated at some point, but they never were.

              • YeetPics@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                no

                Okay, here is a link to the wiki page for the original song from 1953, and here is a yt link to a modern cover you’ve probably heard.

                And finally, here is a short history of the cultural shift from the 15th century the song is referencing. The name finally changed in the 1930s hence the cultural relevance of the song in the 1950s.

                I hope that helps with the reference. Have a great evening!

                • PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocksB
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

                  here

                  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

                  I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.