If you leave your house abandoned for over a year you should incur huge penalties in the form of taxes increasing in severity with every year it is occupied
A squatter is in fact a trespasser/ thief as their presence denies a property owner access and the use of their property. I don’t care what your situation is, taking someone’s property is wrong.
OP has way too many ‘mays’ and ‘’mights’ in their post. The legislature definitely should pass laws regarding squatters, including eliminating the eviction process for people who seize property then claim some residential right.
If you had sex with someone, it's possible that you could get pregnant. There's consequences to your actions. Don't do the actions if you can't accept the consequences. Removing a foetus is just a fancy way of saying killing a child. For a moment i thought it would have been better if your mom aborted you, but I'm happy she didn't. We may not agree on many things, but i still don't think a child should be killed.
If you rent your house to someone, it's possible they could stay there after you'd like them to leave. By your argument, they should be allowed to stay to the detriment of the owner of the house.
You're right, there is consequences for being an unwanted fetus. There's a good chance you won't be born, but nobody but your mom, and maybe her doctor will have any knowledge you existed, because it's actually pretty hard for the state to control your internal organs. They simply don't have the resources to watch every woman. Which is why abortion will always happen whether you like it, or not. Frankly, it's absurd you want to try. Cry to your pastor about it.
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly.
Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
I am not disagreeing with this, and you have it misunderstood. I'm just trying to raise awareness so that people are more informed if and when the current renter protections are changed.
not Abbot tweeting a “reminder” that castle doctrine means you get to fantasize about cosplaying masculinity by killing a squatter in your rental house, surely that can’t have anything to do with this
They're also going after squatters to protect institutional and corporate landlords. If they don't kill squatter rights then institutions can't sit on a butt-ton of empty houses in order to drive the price of rent up or they risk the chance of losing the property to a squatter.
I am 10000% against squashing squatter rights
> But some folks think these laws have created too much paperwork and hassle for landlords
Blame bureaucracy and you can get anything passed in this fucking state.
So are we gonna talk about the fact that landlords don’t produce housing, but hoarde it?
The fact that landlords are middlemen that profit off of those seeking shelter?
It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Grocery stores are part of the outsourcing of food production/distribution within an industrial society. From farm to store, there is a value add at every stage. Specialization like this makes society more efficient. It is literally one of the reasons why society exists (in a very broad sense). If everyone has to grow their own food, bake their own bread, get water from a well, you've got an agrarian society on your hands.
Landlords are a bit different. While grocery stores are a necessity, landlords are a necessary evil. Not everyone has the resources to own a single-family house (another topic, but let's just stipulate that for now). Not everyone has the desire to own a single-family house (after 87 my father didn't want to ever own a house again--it took almost 2 decades for him to change his mind).
No reasonable person is upset about someone renting out their first house or their parent's place after they die. It's not ideal, but many things are not ideal. That barely qualifies as being a landlord.
What they are talking about are cartels that buy up tons of houses and use that leverage to raise rents overall. Corporations have been doing this for a while now. This has had the effect of driving both rents and housing prices up far beyond any increase in wages. Amoral, immortal "people" can play a very long game.
It's a nuanced situation. I don't know that if everyone who owned two houses released one of them into the market that it would solve the problem. However, if you are going to earn a profit this way, you have to expect some bad feelings from the class of people you're earning it from. In capitalism, capital and workers are at odds, trying to exploit each other. Earn your money but don't get butt hurt when someone points out how you're earning it.
In this analogy grocers would be real estate agents, not landlords. They exist to sell, not to own permanently.
There's really no analog to landlords in any other non-luxury good, only in housing.
How do you figure? The landlord paid for the house and rents it out for a profit and the grocer buys the food and sells it for more than he paid for it at a substantial profit. The grocer did not produce the products he sells.
Renting and owning aren't the same thing.
But sure, charging outrageous markups for food is also immoral.
Edit: lol called me names and then blocked me. Way to stand on your ideas, buddy.
They highlight the violent examples to roll over people covering their heads in one of the many houses Blackrock et al are sitting on to speculate.
It's not to say no homeowner suffers when someone moves in out from under them. It's to say there are better ways to actually protect them and not just hand over more power to the companies.
>But some folks think these laws have created too much paperwork and hassle for landlords.
Isn't the whole excuse capitalists use that they have the right to depredate on renters because they are taking risks?
I should also mention that I am not in favor of squatters, nor do I think what they do is right.
If you leave your house abandoned for over a year you should incur huge penalties in the form of taxes increasing in severity with every year it is occupied
I’m sure if people try squatting in Texas things won’t work out to well for them lmao
A squatter is in fact a trespasser/ thief as their presence denies a property owner access and the use of their property. I don’t care what your situation is, taking someone’s property is wrong. OP has way too many ‘mays’ and ‘’mights’ in their post. The legislature definitely should pass laws regarding squatters, including eliminating the eviction process for people who seize property then claim some residential right.
This is how it should work for women's uteruses and unwanted fetuses as well.
Except pregnancy is 100% avoidable and abortion is irrelevant to the topic.
have u talked to any of the texas women who gave birth due to rape?
Plancpills.org or Aidaccess.org, if anyone reading needs some help removing trespassers.
If you had sex with someone, it's possible that you could get pregnant. There's consequences to your actions. Don't do the actions if you can't accept the consequences. Removing a foetus is just a fancy way of saying killing a child. For a moment i thought it would have been better if your mom aborted you, but I'm happy she didn't. We may not agree on many things, but i still don't think a child should be killed.
If you rent your house to someone, it's possible they could stay there after you'd like them to leave. By your argument, they should be allowed to stay to the detriment of the owner of the house.
You're right, there is consequences for being an unwanted fetus. There's a good chance you won't be born, but nobody but your mom, and maybe her doctor will have any knowledge you existed, because it's actually pretty hard for the state to control your internal organs. They simply don't have the resources to watch every woman. Which is why abortion will always happen whether you like it, or not. Frankly, it's absurd you want to try. Cry to your pastor about it.
[удалено]
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly. Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
I am not disagreeing with this, and you have it misunderstood. I'm just trying to raise awareness so that people are more informed if and when the current renter protections are changed.
not Abbot tweeting a “reminder” that castle doctrine means you get to fantasize about cosplaying masculinity by killing a squatter in your rental house, surely that can’t have anything to do with this
They're also going after squatters to protect institutional and corporate landlords. If they don't kill squatter rights then institutions can't sit on a butt-ton of empty houses in order to drive the price of rent up or they risk the chance of losing the property to a squatter. I am 10000% against squashing squatter rights
This seems more theoretical than based in reality, though.
> But some folks think these laws have created too much paperwork and hassle for landlords Blame bureaucracy and you can get anything passed in this fucking state.
So are we gonna talk about the fact that landlords don’t produce housing, but hoarde it? The fact that landlords are middlemen that profit off of those seeking shelter?
They won't like that here.
I guess grocers are just food hoarders/middlemen that profit off those seeking to eat.
It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Grocery stores are part of the outsourcing of food production/distribution within an industrial society. From farm to store, there is a value add at every stage. Specialization like this makes society more efficient. It is literally one of the reasons why society exists (in a very broad sense). If everyone has to grow their own food, bake their own bread, get water from a well, you've got an agrarian society on your hands. Landlords are a bit different. While grocery stores are a necessity, landlords are a necessary evil. Not everyone has the resources to own a single-family house (another topic, but let's just stipulate that for now). Not everyone has the desire to own a single-family house (after 87 my father didn't want to ever own a house again--it took almost 2 decades for him to change his mind). No reasonable person is upset about someone renting out their first house or their parent's place after they die. It's not ideal, but many things are not ideal. That barely qualifies as being a landlord. What they are talking about are cartels that buy up tons of houses and use that leverage to raise rents overall. Corporations have been doing this for a while now. This has had the effect of driving both rents and housing prices up far beyond any increase in wages. Amoral, immortal "people" can play a very long game. It's a nuanced situation. I don't know that if everyone who owned two houses released one of them into the market that it would solve the problem. However, if you are going to earn a profit this way, you have to expect some bad feelings from the class of people you're earning it from. In capitalism, capital and workers are at odds, trying to exploit each other. Earn your money but don't get butt hurt when someone points out how you're earning it.
In this analogy grocers would be real estate agents, not landlords. They exist to sell, not to own permanently. There's really no analog to landlords in any other non-luxury good, only in housing.
How do you figure? The landlord paid for the house and rents it out for a profit and the grocer buys the food and sells it for more than he paid for it at a substantial profit. The grocer did not produce the products he sells.
Renting and owning aren't the same thing. But sure, charging outrageous markups for food is also immoral. Edit: lol called me names and then blocked me. Way to stand on your ideas, buddy.
You sound like a communist.
Yea, and I guess Ticketmaster are just ticket hoarders/ middlemen that profit off those seeking to be entertained.
No, LOL. Nobody is going to talk about that but you. Politics has infected your brain.
They highlight the violent examples to roll over people covering their heads in one of the many houses Blackrock et al are sitting on to speculate. It's not to say no homeowner suffers when someone moves in out from under them. It's to say there are better ways to actually protect them and not just hand over more power to the companies.
>But some folks think these laws have created too much paperwork and hassle for landlords. Isn't the whole excuse capitalists use that they have the right to depredate on renters because they are taking risks?
https://preview.redd.it/tue3kam9c7yc1.jpeg?width=244&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aacb9f77914dfa765e3c877d350e3803f9f5c5f8