But there's a loophole. Burbclaves will need to let deliverators in, which is a gap in the armor. How are they supposed to defend themselves? Some sort of rat thing?
So even you concede they benefit almost everyone, only they benefit some more. So should we really be dismantling them and descend into anarchy, just to harm a group you dislike? Doesn't seem like a good move.
Only because you hate the rich.
I get that it encourages them to share to keep the pitchforks off their lawn, and that noblesse oblige has broken down recently, but property laws are the foundation of our prosperity. If you can't have something that's actually yours (property laws) for you to invest in, then there will be little investment.
If you're wondering how a "specialized rent-a-cop" like this guy gets away with using physical force in the context of a civil law dispute, here's the relevant quote:
> When Jacobs takes on a job, he and his contractors sign temporary leases with the property owner. This move is his secret weapon.
> Jacobs is a big fan of California’s “castle doctrine.” The state law says someone has no duty to retreat in defending themselves against an intruder in their home. They can legally use force, even deadly force, to protect themselves — so long as the force used is proportionate to the threat.
The signing of a lease makes the aggressor look like the aggressee. This strategy seems really shaky to me. I can't help but wonder how well it's been tested in court.
Once someone gets seriously hurt, some of these landlords might end up wishing they had just waited out the regular eviction instead.
The squatters are very frequently committing criminal fraud, by showing a fake lease to the police to portray themselves as legitimate tenants. Leases aren't recorded like deeds, and landlords' signatures often appear in public records. So it's easy to make a good enough fake that the police will take the squatters' side. I don't know why this article doesn't mention that, but a web search ("fake lease squatter") will show this is routine.
The squatters don't expect to win their dispute in court, just to take advantage of the extended time to trial. Oakland's eviction moratorium lasted for literally years, and they're still working through the backlog. When the case finally reaches court, the squatters will get evicted but the fraud is almost never charged. So from the squatter's perspective, it makes sense to fake the lease.
From a small landlord's perspective, the tradeoff may thus be certain financial ruin waiting for the judicial process vs. a slight chance of ruin if the "nightmare cotentant" approach goes wrong. So it's no surprise the sword guy has business. The risk that his services would be used against a real tenant is partially mitigated by the risk that that tenant would sue. The fake tenants prefer to stay out of court, since the judge (and opposing counsel) will look more carefully at their fake lease than the police did.
Georgia recently created an accelerated judicial review for cases where the landlord is alleging that the lease is fraudulent, separate from default on a non-fraudulent lease. That seems like the right approach to me.
> I don't know why this article doesn't mention that, but a web search ("fake lease squatter") will show this is routine.
Same reason the article put "empty" in the title to imply they were just sitting around for speculative investing, when there's every indication the houses were intended to be immediately rented out, and are only "empty" because squatters moved in first.
If I did this to someone society liked (say, a girlfriend who had moved in and claims she is now a tenant), even as a fellow tenant, invited someone over with a sword to bear (but not "use") that sword as part of a pattern of activities intended to deprive her of her peaceful enjoyment of her tenancy including deploying "tear gas" and "smoke grenades" and play "extremely high-decibel sound" I would expect, at a minimum, I'd be looking at
At the very least I would expect to get booked, even if the charges didn't stick.
If I did this to some random homeless person or gang member, I'd expect basically a high five from the cops and nothing else.
Of course I do not live in CA, I live in AZ. In my state, ranchers have just straight up shot trespassers and nothing happened to them, despite the fact that by the book this would be highly illegal.
The guy doing this has discovered that in order to be convicted someone has to complain, then the police have to care, then a judge has to let it go to trial, a prosecutor has to actually want to competently build a case, and then after all that a jury actually has to convict you. I'm guessing the chance of all those stars aligning when the squatters are people literally spray painting "Kill all Bailiffs" (in one ASAP website screenshot) is next to nill.
Your analogy breaks down because the girlfriend might have a genuine claim to being a tenant and can defend that in court.
Squatters can't and won't. The whole point is it's time and money consuming to prove they're not tenants and legally evict them, not they they're actually tenants with rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property.
I've never lived in AZ, but it sounds like this may have a lot to do with it. ;-)
Personal injury is an area where plaintiffs start out with a huge advantage. Judgments are large and cases are often settled out of court by landlords' insurance companies. Not only would you have no trouble finding a lawyer, they might actively seek you out.
There are 164,121 vacant housing units in the Bay Area[1].
While that's only ~6% of total housing units, it's still a lot of opportunity for both squatters and these businesses.
Generally though, this situation only feels possible due to compounding systemic failures. In some order: Not building enough housing, income inequality, homeless support, and law enforcement (or lack thereof).
Fixing problems further up the chain solves the problems further down, but is more difficult and probably creates other unintended consequences.
Not building enough housing? It seems like they've built 164,121 housing units too many. I think that the more correct explanation is that speculative investors are holding onto property indefinitely rather than selling or renting at a loss, preventing housing from falling back to its true equilibrium value.
It's not "indefinite". Most vacant housing units are not vacant for a long time. They might still be under construction or might just be turning over for the next resident in a week.
And if we built more housing units in the Bay Area (increased supply), do you think that would make speculative investors' housing units increase or decrease in value?
I.e. insufficient land value tax rates. California created a class of feudal lords with prop 13 who get to reap disproportionate societal resources from newcomers.
Edit: the solution to which is not allowing squatters disproportionate access to others’ property via unnecessarily long court procedures. Residental agreements should be filed with the county just like land sales are, so a cop can quickly lookup who legally belongs and act accordingly.
You can claim whatever rental rate you want as a basis for your financialization agreements, but you should have to start paying taxes as though you are receiving that number as actual cash rent after some limited grace period.
That would stop most of the shenanigans by private equity in the rental markets.
The article alleges that squatting is an organized crime activity. I've never heard of this before.
Do gangs really do this, or is it just renaming the activities of homeless individuals as organized crime? Because most of the homeless individuals in Oakland are the working homeless.
Idk about America but at least in Spain squatting is in fact a very lucrative activity for squatters that target investors. They track and buy information of houses owned by banks/investors or are “summer” homes.
Once they break in they ask just bellow of what hiring a lawyer and doing the legal process would cost. Or worse they rent illegally the home in the secondary black market.
The reason it works is because kicking them legally can take months or years plus lawyers and proceedings cost. It also drops the value of the surroundings if they are not kicked fast enough.
This sounds a lot like the plot to Pacific Heights with Michael Keaton and Matthew Modine.
The antagonist looks great on paper and gets keys before actually paying the deposit. Then shielded by that slim residence he proceeds to wreak havoc on the property to lower values to snap it up for a song.
> The article alleges that squatting is an organized crime activity.
No, it doesn't. It extensively quotes its primary interview subject, who at one point makes a (fairly vague) insinuation along those lines. His words were "more like organized crime", and they're rendered in the article within quotation marks.
> Do gangs really do this, or is it just renaming the activities of homeless individuals as organized crime?
> “The work we do is constantly changing,” Jacobs said. “It used to be that squatting was more of a homeless activity. Then it became more like organized crime. I’m kicking out a whole lot of gangs.”
It really doesn't go far enough. There ought to be a legal requirement for the service industry to check their hires are fully paid up on their rent before they can be allowed to hire them.
That way, people who can't compete in the Californian housing market will stop being babied and finally be allowed to get the message and then redirect their energy on migrating to somewhere with cheaper rent like Idaho or Guatemala.
> “Our officers will respond to investigate the nature of the call,” OPD said in a statement. “If our officers determine this is a landlord-tenant issue, the case will be referred to the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office for further investigation.”
People unlawfully squat and the official position of the Police is shrug.
Small wonder people are unhappy with the system and there's a market popping up for extra-judicial evictions.
Would probably be much cleaner all around if in such cases the law dictated possession back to the property owner with ~ treble damages/attorney's fees/statutory damages/reversion of possession in the cases where the alleged squatter was lawfully occupying. Basically enough to entice a lawyer to take the case on contingency and make it unequivocally in the favor of a hypothetically wronged tenant, while not allowing squatters to abuse the existing legal process.
Treble damages don’t matter when the opposing party has nothing to lose. The arbitrage exists because one party has nothing to lose and the other party has a lot to lose.
That sounds like a mostly reasonable approach from the police though. Do you want want a police raid just because you did something the landlord doesn't like? Do you want the issue decided on the spot with little actual knowledge? Unless the place is being actually damaged, it's likely better to take the time - there's too much possibility for harassment otherwise.
> Do you want the issue decided on the spot with little actual knowledge?
Oh so after a ~week long prompt investigation, the police, now well informed, act decisively? Strange then how the landlord in the story would rather pay $12,500 to this swordsman than wait one or two weeks.
Legal process and approved enforcement not working correctly is a separate issue. Neither that nor the original problem will get solved by allowing police to intervene in all rental disputes and be the immediate judge and enforcer.
I gave my hypothetical to point out your "on the spot" was a strawman, and here you strawman again. Nobody demanded "immediate", and after the police verified that you are the lawful owner, and that there is no tenancy contract notarized/registered with the state, the squatters should be kicked out. But this is as ridiculous as the police refusing to remove someone from, say, your server farm, because that someone claims he's your employee and allowed to be there/actually he's the owner, prove he's not in a protracted civil procedure, during which time he dismantles your servers and sells them for parts. A year later when you get your judgment and can finally kick him out, a second squatter appears and you have to start all over again.
Trespassing and theft are criminal matters, and the police should treat them as such, even if the thief/trespasser says "actually, I'm not stealing/trespassing, this is mine/I live here".
Police are not in the business of reading contracts and determining who is in the right or wrong.
They'll remove trespassers but these squatters will usually claim that they have a rental agreement, or that they've lived there long enough that there is a de facto agreement.
The working homeless are worse at contributing to natalism than the working housed and there are too many Americans for the global aquifer budget to support. A mass fertility reduction can only really happen through a decline in prosperity. Ideally, the American housing policy framework should be exported globally as much as possible, too.
The only reason why this guy gets away with these tactics is because the police agree with it and low key would be happy to do it themselves. Not because they appear to be legal.
If this guy gets away with it, the homeowner likely would too, unless he's got some sort of special payoff scheme to the police.
From what I can gather from the article, it does seem to be entirely legal. He never forcibly removes the squatters, just makes their life annoying and difficult, and they usually choose to leave. He also doesn't attack anyone, and only uses the weapons for self defence.
I think any property owner could do the same, but it's just a risk that they don't want to take. Who wants to get up close to a (potential) knife wielding meth addict?
Yeah. I think the additional trick is that squatters often have a fraudulent lease. That makes it owner vs. tenant, and the police have orders to err on the side of not facilitating an illegal eviction. The owner could attempt to owner-occupy the property, but there's no document for that and there is a lease. So when the police show up, the owner is very likely to be the one removed or arrested.
The sword guy makes it tenant vs. tenant, so neither party has that formal advantage. Of course the police know the game, but they're generally happy with the workaround.
In the article they interview one of his customers and the guy basically says he is just a finance nerd that likes to ride his bike and hug his wife and he has no experience with potentially violent situations. So, I'm imagining a lot of customers are like that.
“For housing attorneys and a former squatter we spoke with, companies like Jacobs’ are symptoms of a dysfunctional system where property is treated as a profit-producing commodity instead of a shelter a person is entitled to.”
As a red stater, I really can’t understand the last statement. If someone is in a bad spot, there are numerous ways some shelter can be offered. The homeless person may have to put up with some shelter rules ( or maybe friend or relatives rules ), but shelter is available.
To say someone is entitled to shelter in someone else’s house just isn’t credible to me.
I think it's an attempt to normalize the idea that shelter is a basic human right. As a blue-stater, I'm undecided on whether I agree that it's a right, but I definitely think that nobody has a right to shelter in any property they choose.
It's a pretty complicated issue, and the legal patchwork of state versus county versus city laws can make it really difficult to untangle. I think that given the system we have, everyone in it is pretty much behaving rationally, if in their own best interests. I understand why the squatters would choose a squat over a shelter.
If people are “entitled” to shelter, shouldn’t they be entitled to food, even more so? In that case, if a hungry person were to knock on your door and demand something from your pantry, how could they be denied?
> As a blue-stater, I'm undecided on whether I agree that it's a right, but I definitely think that nobody has a right to shelter in any property they choose.
Given that all the property is claimed, I don’t see what the distinction is. If there existed a ton of unclaimed coastal California property, there wouldn’t be a problem.
So the more interesting and actionable question then is who has the right to live in coastal California?
None of the rights that people have are unrestricted in that way. The sixth amendment gives you the right to a lawyer paid for by the government, but it doesn't give you the right to pick any lawyer you choose.
The obvious answer is that, if people do have the right to shelter, it is the state / county / city's obligation to make some form of shelter available. And I get that there are "shelters" available, but from what I understand they are effectively not available to a vast number of unhoused people far a wide variety of reasons. Failure to maintain appropriate shelters is effective a constructive refusal.
I liked the concept of the tiny home villages that LA experimented with, but it looks like they did a poor job, or cost cutting got too severe, and ultimately they fell short.
I imagine this is a temporary gig until the burbclaves build out their own armed security services and he moves on to high-speed pizza delivery.
But there's a loophole. Burbclaves will need to let deliverators in, which is a gap in the armor. How are they supposed to defend themselves? Some sort of rat thing?
Some rule of law would be nice, so that we don't have to resort to private security forces.
But property laws disproportionally benefit the rich.
> disproportionally
So even you concede they benefit almost everyone, only they benefit some more. So should we really be dismantling them and descend into anarchy, just to harm a group you dislike? Doesn't seem like a good move.
And?
In the current age, can something be both unequal and good?
And...that is not nice
Only because you hate the rich. I get that it encourages them to share to keep the pitchforks off their lawn, and that noblesse oblige has broken down recently, but property laws are the foundation of our prosperity. If you can't have something that's actually yours (property laws) for you to invest in, then there will be little investment.
If you're wondering how a "specialized rent-a-cop" like this guy gets away with using physical force in the context of a civil law dispute, here's the relevant quote:
> When Jacobs takes on a job, he and his contractors sign temporary leases with the property owner. This move is his secret weapon.
> Jacobs is a big fan of California’s “castle doctrine.” The state law says someone has no duty to retreat in defending themselves against an intruder in their home. They can legally use force, even deadly force, to protect themselves — so long as the force used is proportionate to the threat.
The signing of a lease makes the aggressor look like the aggressee. This strategy seems really shaky to me. I can't help but wonder how well it's been tested in court.
Once someone gets seriously hurt, some of these landlords might end up wishing they had just waited out the regular eviction instead.
> in the context of a civil law dispute
The squatters are very frequently committing criminal fraud, by showing a fake lease to the police to portray themselves as legitimate tenants. Leases aren't recorded like deeds, and landlords' signatures often appear in public records. So it's easy to make a good enough fake that the police will take the squatters' side. I don't know why this article doesn't mention that, but a web search ("fake lease squatter") will show this is routine.
The squatters don't expect to win their dispute in court, just to take advantage of the extended time to trial. Oakland's eviction moratorium lasted for literally years, and they're still working through the backlog. When the case finally reaches court, the squatters will get evicted but the fraud is almost never charged. So from the squatter's perspective, it makes sense to fake the lease.
From a small landlord's perspective, the tradeoff may thus be certain financial ruin waiting for the judicial process vs. a slight chance of ruin if the "nightmare cotentant" approach goes wrong. So it's no surprise the sword guy has business. The risk that his services would be used against a real tenant is partially mitigated by the risk that that tenant would sue. The fake tenants prefer to stay out of court, since the judge (and opposing counsel) will look more carefully at their fake lease than the police did.
Georgia recently created an accelerated judicial review for cases where the landlord is alleging that the lease is fraudulent, separate from default on a non-fraudulent lease. That seems like the right approach to me.
> I don't know why this article doesn't mention that, but a web search ("fake lease squatter") will show this is routine.
Same reason the article put "empty" in the title to imply they were just sitting around for speculative investing, when there's every indication the houses were intended to be immediately rented out, and are only "empty" because squatters moved in first.
If I did this to someone society liked (say, a girlfriend who had moved in and claims she is now a tenant), even as a fellow tenant, invited someone over with a sword to bear (but not "use") that sword as part of a pattern of activities intended to deprive her of her peaceful enjoyment of her tenancy including deploying "tear gas" and "smoke grenades" and play "extremely high-decibel sound" I would expect, at a minimum, I'd be looking at
1) Domestic violence 2) Harassment 3) Possibly Assault
At the very least I would expect to get booked, even if the charges didn't stick.
If I did this to some random homeless person or gang member, I'd expect basically a high five from the cops and nothing else.
Of course I do not live in CA, I live in AZ. In my state, ranchers have just straight up shot trespassers and nothing happened to them, despite the fact that by the book this would be highly illegal.
The guy doing this has discovered that in order to be convicted someone has to complain, then the police have to care, then a judge has to let it go to trial, a prosecutor has to actually want to competently build a case, and then after all that a jury actually has to convict you. I'm guessing the chance of all those stars aligning when the squatters are people literally spray painting "Kill all Bailiffs" (in one ASAP website screenshot) is next to nill.
Your analogy breaks down because the girlfriend might have a genuine claim to being a tenant and can defend that in court.
Squatters can't and won't. The whole point is it's time and money consuming to prove they're not tenants and legally evict them, not they they're actually tenants with rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property.
> I do not live in CA, I live in AZ
I've never lived in AZ, but it sounds like this may have a lot to do with it. ;-)
Personal injury is an area where plaintiffs start out with a huge advantage. Judgments are large and cases are often settled out of court by landlords' insurance companies. Not only would you have no trouble finding a lawyer, they might actively seek you out.
Opening line: “The average squatter,” says James Jacobs, “has no melee experience.”
Truer words have not been spoken!
There are 164,121 vacant housing units in the Bay Area[1].
While that's only ~6% of total housing units, it's still a lot of opportunity for both squatters and these businesses.
Generally though, this situation only feels possible due to compounding systemic failures. In some order: Not building enough housing, income inequality, homeless support, and law enforcement (or lack thereof).
Fixing problems further up the chain solves the problems further down, but is more difficult and probably creates other unintended consequences.
1: https://census.bayareametro.gov/housing-units?year=2020
Not building enough housing? It seems like they've built 164,121 housing units too many. I think that the more correct explanation is that speculative investors are holding onto property indefinitely rather than selling or renting at a loss, preventing housing from falling back to its true equilibrium value.
It's not "indefinite". Most vacant housing units are not vacant for a long time. They might still be under construction or might just be turning over for the next resident in a week.
https://darrellowens.substack.com/p/vacant-nuance-in-the-vac...
In LA it's mostly because the power company takes like, months to hook up new buildings for no reason.
And if we built more housing units in the Bay Area (increased supply), do you think that would make speculative investors' housing units increase or decrease in value?
The Bay Area (according to the first hit on ddg) has roughly 40,000 homeless people, so I posit that they've built at most 124k units too many.
I.e. insufficient land value tax rates. California created a class of feudal lords with prop 13 who get to reap disproportionate societal resources from newcomers.
Edit: the solution to which is not allowing squatters disproportionate access to others’ property via unnecessarily long court procedures. Residental agreements should be filed with the county just like land sales are, so a cop can quickly lookup who legally belongs and act accordingly.
Also the need for an "occupancy tax".
You can claim whatever rental rate you want as a basis for your financialization agreements, but you should have to start paying taxes as though you are receiving that number as actual cash rent after some limited grace period.
That would stop most of the shenanigans by private equity in the rental markets.
The first screenshot of their website is giving extreme "While you were partying, I studied the blade" vibes.
Apparently you don't need a license to carry swords in California, which is surprising. Maybe Ken-Sama was onto something.
IIRC, in Neal Stephenson's README, the Septentrion Paladins carry swords to avoid getting hassled for firearms possession.
The article alleges that squatting is an organized crime activity. I've never heard of this before.
Do gangs really do this, or is it just renaming the activities of homeless individuals as organized crime? Because most of the homeless individuals in Oakland are the working homeless.
Idk about America but at least in Spain squatting is in fact a very lucrative activity for squatters that target investors. They track and buy information of houses owned by banks/investors or are “summer” homes.
Once they break in they ask just bellow of what hiring a lawyer and doing the legal process would cost. Or worse they rent illegally the home in the secondary black market.
The reason it works is because kicking them legally can take months or years plus lawyers and proceedings cost. It also drops the value of the surroundings if they are not kicked fast enough.
Now theres an entire sector around it.
This sounds a lot like the plot to Pacific Heights with Michael Keaton and Matthew Modine.
The antagonist looks great on paper and gets keys before actually paying the deposit. Then shielded by that slim residence he proceeds to wreak havoc on the property to lower values to snap it up for a song.
> The article alleges that squatting is an organized crime activity.
No, it doesn't. It extensively quotes its primary interview subject, who at one point makes a (fairly vague) insinuation along those lines. His words were "more like organized crime", and they're rendered in the article within quotation marks.
> Do gangs really do this, or is it just renaming the activities of homeless individuals as organized crime?
My guess would be the latter.
If they will be treated as organized criminals anyway, why not just say fuck it and organize?
Everybody pitch in and get some melee experience. Let the civil disobedience commence.
> “The work we do is constantly changing,” Jacobs said. “It used to be that squatting was more of a homeless activity. Then it became more like organized crime. I’m kicking out a whole lot of gangs.”
Badass hero.
Yeah, he couldn't possibly be making self serving false statements.
Obviously you should believe him without question. What motive could he possibility have to lie?
Kinda just seems insane. Also reading the article, he just cited NDAs when asked to provide evidence that he actually successfully evicted anyone
It really doesn't go far enough. There ought to be a legal requirement for the service industry to check their hires are fully paid up on their rent before they can be allowed to hire them.
That way, people who can't compete in the Californian housing market will stop being babied and finally be allowed to get the message and then redirect their energy on migrating to somewhere with cheaper rent like Idaho or Guatemala.
Would be funny if Jacobs just walks in, gives the squatters a small cut of the fee, and leaves.
He could even pocket half and hire a guy to do the evictions for him.
Uber for squatter kickers
> “Our officers will respond to investigate the nature of the call,” OPD said in a statement. “If our officers determine this is a landlord-tenant issue, the case will be referred to the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office for further investigation.”
People unlawfully squat and the official position of the Police is shrug.
Small wonder people are unhappy with the system and there's a market popping up for extra-judicial evictions.
> People unlawfully squat
My understanding of CA tenancy law is that it's so tilted in favor of the tenant, that if someone just claims to be one, the police have to shrug.
> Small wonder people are unhappy with the system and there's a market popping up for extra-judicial evictions
Well-intentioned laws, upon contact with the real world, often end up with undesirable secondary and tertiary consequences such as this.
Broadly agree.
Would probably be much cleaner all around if in such cases the law dictated possession back to the property owner with ~ treble damages/attorney's fees/statutory damages/reversion of possession in the cases where the alleged squatter was lawfully occupying. Basically enough to entice a lawyer to take the case on contingency and make it unequivocally in the favor of a hypothetically wronged tenant, while not allowing squatters to abuse the existing legal process.
Treble damages don’t matter when the opposing party has nothing to lose. The arbitrage exists because one party has nothing to lose and the other party has a lot to lose.
That sounds like a mostly reasonable approach from the police though. Do you want want a police raid just because you did something the landlord doesn't like? Do you want the issue decided on the spot with little actual knowledge? Unless the place is being actually damaged, it's likely better to take the time - there's too much possibility for harassment otherwise.
> Do you want the issue decided on the spot with little actual knowledge?
Oh so after a ~week long prompt investigation, the police, now well informed, act decisively? Strange then how the landlord in the story would rather pay $12,500 to this swordsman than wait one or two weeks.
Legal process and approved enforcement not working correctly is a separate issue. Neither that nor the original problem will get solved by allowing police to intervene in all rental disputes and be the immediate judge and enforcer.
> immediate
I gave my hypothetical to point out your "on the spot" was a strawman, and here you strawman again. Nobody demanded "immediate", and after the police verified that you are the lawful owner, and that there is no tenancy contract notarized/registered with the state, the squatters should be kicked out. But this is as ridiculous as the police refusing to remove someone from, say, your server farm, because that someone claims he's your employee and allowed to be there/actually he's the owner, prove he's not in a protracted civil procedure, during which time he dismantles your servers and sells them for parts. A year later when you get your judgment and can finally kick him out, a second squatter appears and you have to start all over again.
Trespassing and theft are criminal matters, and the police should treat them as such, even if the thief/trespasser says "actually, I'm not stealing/trespassing, this is mine/I live here".
Police are not in the business of reading contracts and determining who is in the right or wrong.
They'll remove trespassers but these squatters will usually claim that they have a rental agreement, or that they've lived there long enough that there is a de facto agreement.
Honestly I think there are too few evictions.
The working homeless are worse at contributing to natalism than the working housed and there are too many Americans for the global aquifer budget to support. A mass fertility reduction can only really happen through a decline in prosperity. Ideally, the American housing policy framework should be exported globally as much as possible, too.
https://www.footprintnetwork.org/
> A mass fertility reduction can only really happen through a decline in prosperity.
Uhh I think you got it backwards.
The poorer a country is, the higher its fertility rates.
The poorer a pre-industrial country is, the higher its fertility rates.
Countries that have already gone through the industrial revolution and demographic transition form a different cluster with an inverted trend line.
That may have more to do with the type of economic activity occurring in the country than wealth, necessarily.
The only reason why this guy gets away with these tactics is because the police agree with it and low key would be happy to do it themselves. Not because they appear to be legal.
If this guy gets away with it, the homeowner likely would too, unless he's got some sort of special payoff scheme to the police.
From what I can gather from the article, it does seem to be entirely legal. He never forcibly removes the squatters, just makes their life annoying and difficult, and they usually choose to leave. He also doesn't attack anyone, and only uses the weapons for self defence.
I think any property owner could do the same, but it's just a risk that they don't want to take. Who wants to get up close to a (potential) knife wielding meth addict?
Yeah. I think the additional trick is that squatters often have a fraudulent lease. That makes it owner vs. tenant, and the police have orders to err on the side of not facilitating an illegal eviction. The owner could attempt to owner-occupy the property, but there's no document for that and there is a lease. So when the police show up, the owner is very likely to be the one removed or arrested.
The sword guy makes it tenant vs. tenant, so neither party has that formal advantage. Of course the police know the game, but they're generally happy with the workaround.
In the article they interview one of his customers and the guy basically says he is just a finance nerd that likes to ride his bike and hug his wife and he has no experience with potentially violent situations. So, I'm imagining a lot of customers are like that.
I think the legal approach depends on him being a tenant, which the homeowner can't actually be so easily (because they live somewhere else).
“For housing attorneys and a former squatter we spoke with, companies like Jacobs’ are symptoms of a dysfunctional system where property is treated as a profit-producing commodity instead of a shelter a person is entitled to.”
As a red stater, I really can’t understand the last statement. If someone is in a bad spot, there are numerous ways some shelter can be offered. The homeless person may have to put up with some shelter rules ( or maybe friend or relatives rules ), but shelter is available.
To say someone is entitled to shelter in someone else’s house just isn’t credible to me.
I think it's an attempt to normalize the idea that shelter is a basic human right. As a blue-stater, I'm undecided on whether I agree that it's a right, but I definitely think that nobody has a right to shelter in any property they choose.
It's a pretty complicated issue, and the legal patchwork of state versus county versus city laws can make it really difficult to untangle. I think that given the system we have, everyone in it is pretty much behaving rationally, if in their own best interests. I understand why the squatters would choose a squat over a shelter.
I don’t know.
If people are “entitled” to shelter, shouldn’t they be entitled to food, even more so? In that case, if a hungry person were to knock on your door and demand something from your pantry, how could they be denied?
> As a blue-stater, I'm undecided on whether I agree that it's a right, but I definitely think that nobody has a right to shelter in any property they choose.
Given that all the property is claimed, I don’t see what the distinction is. If there existed a ton of unclaimed coastal California property, there wouldn’t be a problem.
So the more interesting and actionable question then is who has the right to live in coastal California?
None of the rights that people have are unrestricted in that way. The sixth amendment gives you the right to a lawyer paid for by the government, but it doesn't give you the right to pick any lawyer you choose.
The obvious answer is that, if people do have the right to shelter, it is the state / county / city's obligation to make some form of shelter available. And I get that there are "shelters" available, but from what I understand they are effectively not available to a vast number of unhoused people far a wide variety of reasons. Failure to maintain appropriate shelters is effective a constructive refusal.
I liked the concept of the tiny home villages that LA experimented with, but it looks like they did a poor job, or cost cutting got too severe, and ultimately they fell short.
What if the government paid for shelter in the middle of Oklahoma?