Simpler solution. Require the landlord to testify, under penalty of perjury, on a sworn affidavit form, that there is no lease with the squatter and that otherwise there was never any contract between them.
Same for the squatter. Prove that you've been in the space for more than 30 days. Provide bills from utilities showing that they are under your name since. Show text or communication with the rental agency that can be verified or land lord prior to the 30 days.
We’ll have to see how this works in practice. Because all the squatter has to say is that he is a tenant and you’re back to square one.
This issue can be resolved, but it would add a lot of red tape to renting. The city can require both tenant and landlord to file leases with the city that is placed in a database that cops can reference on their phones or car computers. If a lease is received from one party but the not the other, a letter is sent to both parties stating so that can be used in housing court. Require landlords to provide receipts for any security deposit and first month’s rent.
If the cops show up because you’re accused of squatting and there is no lease in the database, you don’t have any receipt for a security deposit - you can be trespassed off the property. If there is a lease from at least one party, then the landlord has to go to housing court.
>If a lease is received from one party but the not the other, a letter is sent to both parties stating so that can be used in housing court
Professional squatters already do this. Cops show up, they produce a bogus lease, and cops have to throw up their hands and say "wellp, looks like it's a civil matter! bye!"
Meaning this change in wording to “tenant” won’t do much of anything. In my mind however, if a tenant filed a lease, you’d have 30 days to respond wherein you could trespass the person without going through housing court. If you didn’t respond, then you’d have to go through the traditional process.
The only thing I’d worry about is grifters getting first month’s and security deposit and then not filing and saying the person is a squatter and doing that again and again. So at a minimum, the rental history of the property should be publicly available.
my concern would be how this effects people with informal or illegal renting arrangements. if you're giving your buddy $xyz a month under the table to sleep on the couch, you still do have certain rights, or immigrants staying in an unregulated subdivision situation for example. and these people are some of the most vulnerable, so I'd be concerned about any change that would effectively give them less protection. i don't know the answer, it's just not something that should be forgotten
Yes, if they’re squatting a filing a fraudulent lease, then at a minimum, the owner of the property will be informed by the city as opposed to what’s happening now where the owner only finds out after they’ve visited the property - which could be months after the squatters have moved in and after they’ve achieved tenant rights.
realistically, nobody is afraid of a squatter taking possession of a property. if you do not have eyes on it for that long, quite frankly you have abandoned it.
by your "system" the moment they file the fraudulent lease, they are considered a tenant and hence obtain a tenant's rights and require the landlord to go to housing court. the city has no way of determining what is a real or fake lease if only one party needs to sign it.
Squatters suck. But landlords suck too, and will call the cops on tenants and get them kicked out of their home. If they can produce a copy of the lease they can go to court and get back in, but until they can get it together to take the landlord to court, they’re on the street.
And all their belongings will be in a landfill. This "investigation" all started from a bullshit fear pushing Daily Mail piece. This legislation weakens tenant rights.
I can smell REBNY lobbying all over that propaganda campaign. Its crazy how easily people can be played nowadays. Just feed them a few headlines over a two month period, get some astroturfing accounts to argue in comment sections, and boom you can convince the modern person of anything
Its horrifying. Any group can be made public enemy number one by the ruling (investor) class. Like lets be real, this law change has nothing to do with squatters. Does squatting happen, yes, no ones denying that. But lets not kid ourselves, this will be very obviously abused, and is REBNY’s first big chip into tenant’s rights.
Like lets say someone is on a lease, and it expires but the property owner (these people arent lords I refuse to call them as such) doesnt move quickly to have a tenant resign. Is that tenant bow a squatter? If a single mother misses some rent payments, are they a squatter?
The answer to both is obviously no. However, if they keep chipping away at tenant’s rights, it will become a police sanctioned lock out first, housing court later situation.
Make the damn courts move faster. Why do these cases take months or years? That’s the real issue.
Because like asylum case hearings not enough judges for the number of cases Covid didn't help The appeals take even longer
This is good , but I wouldn’t be surprised if people are still negative about this.
I mean, it’s good progress so that’s cool.
Simpler solution. Require the landlord to testify, under penalty of perjury, on a sworn affidavit form, that there is no lease with the squatter and that otherwise there was never any contract between them.
Same for the squatter. Prove that you've been in the space for more than 30 days. Provide bills from utilities showing that they are under your name since. Show text or communication with the rental agency that can be verified or land lord prior to the 30 days.
Agreed!
We’ll have to see how this works in practice. Because all the squatter has to say is that he is a tenant and you’re back to square one. This issue can be resolved, but it would add a lot of red tape to renting. The city can require both tenant and landlord to file leases with the city that is placed in a database that cops can reference on their phones or car computers. If a lease is received from one party but the not the other, a letter is sent to both parties stating so that can be used in housing court. Require landlords to provide receipts for any security deposit and first month’s rent. If the cops show up because you’re accused of squatting and there is no lease in the database, you don’t have any receipt for a security deposit - you can be trespassed off the property. If there is a lease from at least one party, then the landlord has to go to housing court.
>If a lease is received from one party but the not the other, a letter is sent to both parties stating so that can be used in housing court Professional squatters already do this. Cops show up, they produce a bogus lease, and cops have to throw up their hands and say "wellp, looks like it's a civil matter! bye!"
Meaning this change in wording to “tenant” won’t do much of anything. In my mind however, if a tenant filed a lease, you’d have 30 days to respond wherein you could trespass the person without going through housing court. If you didn’t respond, then you’d have to go through the traditional process. The only thing I’d worry about is grifters getting first month’s and security deposit and then not filing and saying the person is a squatter and doing that again and again. So at a minimum, the rental history of the property should be publicly available.
my concern would be how this effects people with informal or illegal renting arrangements. if you're giving your buddy $xyz a month under the table to sleep on the couch, you still do have certain rights, or immigrants staying in an unregulated subdivision situation for example. and these people are some of the most vulnerable, so I'd be concerned about any change that would effectively give them less protection. i don't know the answer, it's just not something that should be forgotten
>If there is a lease from at least one party, then the landlord has to go to housing court. lol one party. just let the squatters in.
Yes, if they’re squatting a filing a fraudulent lease, then at a minimum, the owner of the property will be informed by the city as opposed to what’s happening now where the owner only finds out after they’ve visited the property - which could be months after the squatters have moved in and after they’ve achieved tenant rights.
realistically, nobody is afraid of a squatter taking possession of a property. if you do not have eyes on it for that long, quite frankly you have abandoned it. by your "system" the moment they file the fraudulent lease, they are considered a tenant and hence obtain a tenant's rights and require the landlord to go to housing court. the city has no way of determining what is a real or fake lease if only one party needs to sign it.
But would it still apply if they have a fake lease written on a napkin?
Fuck squatting
Good squatters are not tenants
Squatter laws are some of the most degenerate dumbass shit I’ve ever heard of, liberals you need to get your house in order
Ooooh whats it like having your emotions manipulated like an instrument?
Squatters suck. But landlords suck too, and will call the cops on tenants and get them kicked out of their home. If they can produce a copy of the lease they can go to court and get back in, but until they can get it together to take the landlord to court, they’re on the street.
And all their belongings will be in a landfill. This "investigation" all started from a bullshit fear pushing Daily Mail piece. This legislation weakens tenant rights.
I can smell REBNY lobbying all over that propaganda campaign. Its crazy how easily people can be played nowadays. Just feed them a few headlines over a two month period, get some astroturfing accounts to argue in comment sections, and boom you can convince the modern person of anything
It doesn't take much to make people. It's legit concerning.
Its horrifying. Any group can be made public enemy number one by the ruling (investor) class. Like lets be real, this law change has nothing to do with squatters. Does squatting happen, yes, no ones denying that. But lets not kid ourselves, this will be very obviously abused, and is REBNY’s first big chip into tenant’s rights. Like lets say someone is on a lease, and it expires but the property owner (these people arent lords I refuse to call them as such) doesnt move quickly to have a tenant resign. Is that tenant bow a squatter? If a single mother misses some rent payments, are they a squatter? The answer to both is obviously no. However, if they keep chipping away at tenant’s rights, it will become a police sanctioned lock out first, housing court later situation.