It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: UnRepentantHarlequin27
a reply to: ColeYounger2 There are many houses along Dune Road in The Hamptons (NY) owned by foreigners and other Uber wealthy. Will these houses be protected by police? The squatters must squat for no less than 30 days, and be “beautified”. Rake the sand on the beachfronts?
Or is the law allowing homes of seniors who must be hospitalized or in rehabilitation for a stint, be taken?
What about homes of US soldiers doing a tour of duty? No one should worry that their homes will be taken.
But I wouldn’t grieve if politicians’ vacation homes were overtaken. With the amount of vacations Congress takes, their DC homes could be “up for grabs”!!
What a stupid antiquated English law! I thought I read once that the USA fought for freedom from The Crown.
originally posted by: arcticshuffle
originally posted by: Moon68
I see the opportunity for a clandestine business enterprise.
Goons R Us, unwanted "tenant" removal.
Guido and his gang will remove squatters for a Benjamin a head.
There are actually guys hiring out now, to come in and be an anti-squatter for a price.
They sneak in and squat on the squatter, get all the same protections and can’t be removed either. And make the original squatter’s life a living hell until they leave.
Gotta love capitalism. There’s always a problem in search of solution, that can be sold.
originally posted by: Freeborn
For the record; if anyone tried to invade my home I'd break every bone in the #s body without any hesitation.
That's not empty, keyboard bravado, just the honest truth.
I'm not advocating taking over people's homes, just that we can do more with vacant and empty premises to help homeless people that both want and deserve helping.
And yes, far too many houses etc are being handed over to unwanted illegal immigrants.
I think I made that perfectly clear in my first post in this thread.
originally posted by: StoutBroux
I have some friends who bought a house several years ago. I can't remember if it was in LA or TX but anyhow, the couple bought a house that was empty because it was on the market. In the interim of the paper work, red tape and taking possession of the house, (they weren't in a big hurry as they needed to do some work on it before moving in) a woman moved in, as in squatted. She wasn't broke and wouldn't move. It took almost a year to get her removed. Meanwhile, the couple are making payments now on the rental they're living in AND the property they purchased that they could NOT move into. As well as making the payments to the utilities on both places. In many states, regardless of who the utilities name is under, the unpaid bills can be liened against the property, which means the owners are ultimately responsible for paying them.
So you mean the 1% of the world, who own more than 50% of the world's resources and wealth (including multiple multimillion mansions bigger than anything we can ever imagine even).
originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Moon68
Yeah, I get all that.
But not all the homeless are Joe, far from it.
Some are, no denying that.
Let's start questioning why a handful of people are allowed to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth and do literally # all with it other than seek to gain even more wealth.
All whilst its getting harder and harder for honest, hard working people to get on the property ladder or rent any sort of decent habitable property due to the ridiculous extortionate cost of renting.
Let's start questioning why so many good people, as FF says quite often old people who have worked most of their adult lives, are being forced on the street.
Homeless people are demonised and stereotyped as the dregs of our society yet the rights of the most affluent need to be protected at all costs.
I don't expect many here to agree with me, just my take on things.
I'm not victim blaming, but they should have had utllities turned off? I would have done that first thing!
originally posted by: StoutBroux
I have some friends who bought a house several years ago. I can't remember if it was in LA or TX but anyhow, the couple bought a house that was empty because it was on the market. In the interim of the paper work, red tape and taking possession of the house, (they weren't in a big hurry as they needed to do some work on it before moving in) a woman moved in, as in squatted. She wasn't broke and wouldn't move. It took almost a year to get her removed. Meanwhile, the couple are making payments now on the rental they're living in AND the property they purchased that they could NOT move into. As well as making the payments to the utilities on both places. In many states, regardless of who the utilities name is under, the unpaid bills can be liened against the property, which means the owners are ultimately responsible for paying them.
All whilst its getting harder and harder for honest, hard working people to get on the property ladder or rent any sort of decent habitable property due to the ridiculous extortionate cost of renting.
It has emerged that the value of vacant homes in London equates to over £130bn.
London has a total of 87,731 vacant homes, making it the top city in the UK for the prevalence of empty houses. With house prices averaging £1.49m in the capital, the cost of vacant homes is approximately £130.8bn.
A recent study by CIA Landlord Insurance, which looked at the UK housing crisis and the increasing number of empty homes, analysed the impact that inhabiting vacant homes could have.
Long-awaited transparency rules have been promised to reveal just how much is owned by powerful people with links to the Kremlin and some MPs are calling for assets to be seized.
originally posted by: FlyersFan
Just stop.
Your constant antisemitism
originally posted by: FlyersFan
You are obsessed with