6 ms·

This article would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. I don't know whats worse. The authors general ignorance about 'flipping' houses or their arrogance around t

by cup 9y ago

This article would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. I don't know whats worse. The authors general ignorance about 'flipping' houses or their arrogance around the disadvantages drug users experience. The fact that they expect the occupants to just leave when asked as if they have somewhere to go is bizarre. Who are these people?

grondilu 9y ago
> The fact that they expect the occupants to just leave when asked as if they have somewhere to go is bizarre. They have everywhere else to go.
yblokhin 9y ago
Which utopian planet do you live on? Since when asking to leave the people who're squatting in your house illegally is a bizarre thing to do? In most places in the world, illegal occupants deal not with a couple of polite and scared copywriters but with law enforcement & enraged legal owners of the property.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- bubblethink 9y ago
  The bizarre thing is to expect to get rid of squatters without hassle, which is probably what the OP is pointing out.
- icebraining 9y ago
  I'm not sure about cup, but what I find bizarre about it is because it implies they are expecting it to work. Calling the cops is not bizarre.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  One party had legal residence as determined by the law he couldn't be removed by the cops. The prior owner was a moron.
csydas 9y ago
> The fact that they expect the occupants to just leave when asked as if they have somewhere to go is bizarre. Who are these people? Well, I mean, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to ask people to leave the property you just bought. Like, don't get me wrong, I'm all for ensuring that there is good housing for everyone, and property values and gentrification are having a horrible effect on anyone not fortunate enough to be born into a family with some money, but it's not like it's a house the buyers had just let sit empty for years at a time. The seller probably should have been more involved in ensuring that the property was either actually empty or at the very least securing it and ensuring there were no existing contracts, as one of the residents there apparently had. Like, there's plenty to be annoyed with regarding the buyers. This isn't one of the reasons.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  The one party jack was determined to have legal residence there. The other parties were allowed to stay there by the legal resident. Bums that broke in would have been removed on the spot. Legal residence gives them the right to time to move on peacefully rather than be dumped immediately into the sometimes permanent downward spiral of homelessness because this would be awfully convenient for the new owner. Buying the properly doesn't entitle you to skip this step. I can't imagine a world in which it ought to. This is something the prior owner ought to have ironed out prior to selling. Either the property was still a worthy project despite the issue or they should have taken their money elsewhere. Put yourself in the place of the residents. You have few resources and nowhere to go. The government provides that the new owner must give you a finite and reasonable time to move elsewhere do you a) lose most of your few belongings and go sleep on the curb because some yuppy comes and yells at you or b) use that time to save money, make plans, and secure yourself a new place to live. You see it from the perspective of someone with connections, family, money. Many people have none of these things. It wasn't a choice between the inconvenience of moving to a new home and thumbing their noses at her it was in all likelihood a choice between the street and keeping their lives together. If you have never struggled you likely don't understand.
  - csydas 9y ago
golergka 9y ago
Why would the owner care if they had anywhere to go or not? If you don't have anywhere to live, go die on a street. You can _ask_ people for charity, but you sure as hell are not entitled to it.
- DanBC 9y ago
  Tenants are not asking for charity, they're asking that the contracts are enforced in line with the law. If you don't want to buy a house with existing tenants you should check before you buy.

by cup 9y ago

grondilu 9y ago

> The fact that they expect the occupants to just leave when asked as if they have somewhere to go is bizarre. They have everywhere else to go.

yblokhin 9y ago

Which utopian planet do you live on? Since when asking to leave the people who're squatting in your house illegally is a bizarre thing to do? In most places in the world, illegal occupants deal not with a couple of polite and scared copywriters but with law enforcement & enraged legal owners of the property.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bubblethink 9y ago
The bizarre thing is to expect to get rid of squatters without hassle, which is probably what the OP is pointing out.
icebraining 9y ago
I'm not sure about cup, but what I find bizarre about it is because it implies they are expecting it to work. Calling the cops is not bizarre.
michaelmrose 9y ago
One party had legal residence as determined by the law he couldn't be removed by the cops. The prior owner was a moron.

csydas 9y ago

> The fact that they expect the occupants to just leave when asked as if they have somewhere to go is bizarre. Who are these people? Well, I mean, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to ask people to leave the property you just bought. Like, don't get me wrong, I'm all for ensuring that there is good housing for everyone, and property values and gentrification are having a horrible effect on anyone not fortunate enough to be born into a family with some money, but it's not like it's a house the buyers had just let sit empty for years at a time. The seller probably should have been more involved in ensuring that the property was either actually empty or at the very least securing it and ensuring there were no existing contracts, as one of the residents there apparently had. Like, there's plenty to be annoyed with regarding the buyers. This isn't one of the reasons.

michaelmrose 9y ago
The one party jack was determined to have legal residence there. The other parties were allowed to stay there by the legal resident. Bums that broke in would have been removed on the spot. Legal residence gives them the right to time to move on peacefully rather than be dumped immediately into the sometimes permanent downward spiral of homelessness because this would be awfully convenient for the new owner. Buying the properly doesn't entitle you to skip this step. I can't imagine a world in which it ought to. This is something the prior owner ought to have ironed out prior to selling. Either the property was still a worthy project despite the issue or they should have taken their money elsewhere. Put yourself in the place of the residents. You have few resources and nowhere to go. The government provides that the new owner must give you a finite and reasonable time to move elsewhere do you a) lose most of your few belongings and go sleep on the curb because some yuppy comes and yells at you or b) use that time to save money, make plans, and secure yourself a new place to live. You see it from the perspective of someone with connections, family, money. Many people have none of these things. It wasn't a choice between the inconvenience of moving to a new home and thumbing their noses at her it was in all likelihood a choice between the street and keeping their lives together. If you have never struggled you likely don't understand.
- csydas 9y ago

golergka 9y ago

Why would the owner care if they had anywhere to go or not? If you don't have anywhere to live, go die on a street. You can _ask_ people for charity, but you sure as hell are not entitled to it.

DanBC 9y ago
Tenants are not asking for charity, they're asking that the contracts are enforced in line with the law. If you don't want to buy a house with existing tenants you should check before you buy.