CA war on private property rights (San Francisco, Oakland: foreclosed, renter, mortgage)

[wontoo3]

California’s war on private property rights


"The single mom moved into the house with her two children, ages 1 and 4 years old, along with three other members of Moms 4 Housing. They “entered the house without permission in November,” reported San Francisco public radio station KQED in a story the editors had corrected. “An earlier version of this article stated the women ‘broke in’ to the home. It has been edited to clarify that they entered the home without permission.”

[twins4lynn]

Follow up article on the situation - the property owners want the women to vacate the property so they can use the property to help disadvantaged local young people.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...p-local-youth/

What a mess.

[Ruth4Truth]

REIT's and other corporate investment entities need to get out of the housing business, so that human entities can buy affordable homes, whether distressed, foreclosed upon, or whatever. This isn't what REIT's were originally designed for. At least this group brought attention to part of the problem.

[Finper]

This is a big reason I’m selling my property when I move to Az in the spring. One bad renter and I’m screwed. It’s well known that property owners have little to no rights over squatters in Ca. At one time I did consider renting it out but every expert I asked said no sell it and move on.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Finper

This is a big reason I’m selling my property when I move to Az in the spring. One bad renter and I’m screwed. It’s well known that property owners have little to no rights over squatters in Ca. At one time I did consider renting it out but every expert I asked said no sell it and move on.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions, and assume that the squatters will win this case. They have only a very shaky argument that has no basis in case law that I can see. It's just wishful thinking. The property was slated for renovation, and from what I understood in the article, the "owner" was actively in the process of making the arrangements for that to happen.

But apparently there are other situations, where investors buy a property and just let it sit for years untouched, waiting for the market to continue its climb before the investor/s flips it? It seems like something should be done about that. Although something similar has been going on in Berkeley/Oakland with rental owners who keep their buildings vacant for years, because they don't want to get involved in a rent-control situation. So from that perspective, it's not a new problem.

[Finper]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I wouldn't jump to conclusions, and assume that the squatters will win this case. They have only a very shaky argument that has no basis in case law that I can see. It's just wishful thinking. The property was slated for renovation, and from what I understood in the article, the "owner" was actively in the process of making the arrangements for that to happen.

But apparently there are other situations, where investors buy a property and just let it sit for years untouched, waiting for the market to continue its climb before the investor/s flips it? It seems like something should be done about that. Although something similar has been going on in Berkeley/Oakland with rental owners who keep their buildings vacant for years, because they don't want to get involved in a rent-control situation. So from that perspective, it's not a new problem.

The scary part is they’ve been there since Nov and there’s no legal way to kick them out. If I’m renting my place and the renter stops paying rent it would take me months and lawyer costs to get them out. In all that time I would have to pay my mortgage and taxes for them to live there Scott free probably destroying my place. I’m not a Corp so can’t take that risk

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Finper

The scary part is they’ve been there since Nov and there’s no legal way to kick them out. If I’m renting my place and the renter stops paying rent it would take me months and lawyer costs to get them out. In all that time I would have to pay my mortgage and taxes for them to live there Scott free probably destroying my place. I’m not a Corp so can’t take that risk

Right; I hear you. I was a rental owner, too, but in an easier rental market--Seattle. The worries weren't that extreme, and I had a property management outfit taking care of things for me, that could deal with legalities if it ever came to that. Still, there was turnover, and I was stuck paying the mortgage for the month or two it took to find new renters. You have to have a contingency fund for that sort of thing. But it's definitely more expensive to evict in a rent-controlled environment (if it's even possible at all). A good argument for buying your rental property in Alameda or Kensington, rather than Berkeley/Oakland...

[Teacher Terry]

I hope they are thrown out. This type of crap could cause a landlord to lose the house if they couldn’t keep paying the mortgage.

[Mr5150]

Under CA law getting rid of squatters is straightforward. Happens quickly.

Getting rid of bad renters takes 90 days before LE steps in. some people confuse squatters (someone who trespasses and takes up residence uninvited and illegally, and a tenet or room mate who has been invited to rent but was a bad person.

[nobodysbusiness]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I wouldn't jump to conclusions, and assume that the squatters will win this case. They have only a very shaky argument that has no basis in case law that I can see. It's just wishful thinking. The property was slated for renovation, and from what I understood in the article, the "owner" was actively in the process of making the arrangements for that to happen.

But apparently there are other situations, where investors buy a property and just let it sit for years untouched, waiting for the market to continue its climb before the investor/s flips it? It seems like something should be done about that. Although something similar has been going on in Berkeley/Oakland with rental owners who keep their buildings vacant for years, because they don't want to get involved in a rent-control situation. So from that perspective, it's not a new problem.

AND the property OWNER (the person who OWNS) the property, should be allowed to keep it vacant forever, if that is what they want to do. No one is ENTITLED to steal another person's property, just because they want to (in adverse possession, which is antiquated, you at least have to pay taxes on the property you are trying to steal). These people are deadbeats and should be evicted, asap.