Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "FOX 13 Seattle" channel.

Wow. Imagine thinking this is "an excellent example of investigative journalism". It's barely journalism let alone investigative. Has it really been that long since you've seen actual investigative journalism that you mistake this for it?
8
No they don't. Squatter laws are older than the country. They are an important mechanism. This home was abandoned. You have to take the good with the bad.
6
Actual women don't need a qualifier before the word woman. That you need a qualifier is a demonstration that we all agree those experiencing gender dysphoria aren't women. With that said, the law is what it is. The expansion of sexuality to include things which are not sexuality is the crux of the issue. If you don't like the way the law is written get on the phone to your representatives.
2
No @lennychorn147 what you have claimed is objectively false. Squatter laws go back to 10th century england and were brought with them to the US during colonisation. They have never allowed the physical removal of a squatter. Squatters rights have always required courts to become involved, and they have always been a protected class. We are not talking about a building you live in, work in or regularly maintain. We are talking exclusively about unoccupied buildings. That has legal definition by time required to qualify and varies between jurisdiction. It's generally somewhere between 6 and 18 months however. You can't go to work and come home to a squatter. That would be an intruder and you would have criminal remedy. We're talking exclusively about buildings which are not used for long periods of time for one reason or another. The property could be part of a deceased estate where a next of kin is not easily located, or where the next of kin is located but they don't do anything with the property. It could be simply abandoned and there are many reasons an owner may abandon property. In these scenarios the law needs a mechanism in which to allow a third party to come in and take over maintenance and eventually ownership of the property. It's a legal mechanism to combat blight in a city or town. Maintaining the property is a key component of squatters rights. The squatter has to be able to demonstrate in court they are doing things such as maintaining and improving the structural and aesthetic qualities of the building, and they are making good on any taxes, rates or government fees related to the property. If they can continue that unabated for the scheduled time in the relevant jurisdiction (anywhere from 3-10 years) then they can apply for transfer of title under squatters rights and become the full lawful owner. If an owner comes in partway through and wins judgement to evict the squatter, the squatter can be reimbursed by the owner for the cost of repairs, maintenance, improvements, taxes, rates or other costs incurred whilst maintaining the building in good standing. If you have property you do not regularly use, you can not leave it unoccupied. This includes if you intend to go away for work or leisure for an extended period of time. You should either • lease the building out • sell it • pay a house sitter • hire a security guard • ask a friend, family member or neighbour to house sit If you fail to do those things, and the building is unoccupied for the necessary time in the relevant jurisdiction it is subject to potential squatters. If you don't want squatters, don't leave your building unoccupied. I say building because this is not limited to residential homes. It includes commercial and industrial property as well. That means all those long term empty store fronts in down town seattle can be subject to squatting.
2
Again no @lennychorn147 this has nothing to do with homesteading. This is law originating in england and has been part of every US state since it's inception. Try actually understanding what you're talking about before you comment.
2
@lennychorn147 You have failed in this instance. Try again.
2
What did the wife walk over and say to him?
1
@commanderbell1965 You would be committing a crime
1
@commanderbell1965 Beyond needing to demonstrate some kind of physical evidence of such a thing, they would have every legal right to defend themselves from your attempts at physical removal. They have rights. You would be going to jail. They police would help them regain access to the property. If you don't want squatters, don't leave your property unoccupied for the scheduled time in your jurisdiction. It's a really simple concept.
1
@lennychorn147 roflmao. How can someone be as wrong as you are on this and yet so sure of themselves. That's some crazy left side dunning-kruger you've got going on.
1
@teripittman Maybe next time you'll learn to not leave a building unoccupied.
1
@TheOfficialPatriarchy Did you just try to compare squatters rights to specific methods of execution in capital punishment? A thing still widely practised throughout the United States? LOL 🤣 Talk about false equivalency. Please note I did not say the CONCEPT of squatters rights goes back to 10th century England, I said the laws currently practiced inside the US go back there. That is there is a direct route from there to the laws being practiced in the USA. They're essentially a 1:1 copy of those laws from England as they had evolved by 1610. Far from antiquated dusty laws on a long forgotten page, they are actively utilised and enforced thousands of times every day. They have as much value in 2023 as they did in the 10th century, which is why such laws continue not just throughout the US but through the UK and it's Commonwealth. Many Asian and European countries have their own versions of these laws too because they hold so much value to city planning. Many more buildings transfer ownership each year due to squatters rights than are returned. Those are buildings which have sat unoccupied sometimes for decades and have been given new life because someone was willing to put in the work to revive them. You are correct that drug and theft offences don't have anything to do with ownership of a residence. As far as I can tell those laws were enforced. What you do need to understand however is police can not arrest nor search based solely on the testimony of a neighbour. They need more to go on than that, and for drug offences that means police need to expend resources. Those are something they're short on these days, so many crimes continue because police are mostly acting in a reactionary capacity right now due to shortfalls in their budgets and staffing. Make sense?
1
@teripittman I lost my first wife to a brain tumour. Your assumption was ridiculous. It sounds as though you mismanaged a property and paid the consequences for that. I'm not sure what you're describing counts as squatters however and I'm certainly unsure how they managed to get a utility in your name. Perhaps in future hire a licenced professional to manage your rentals.
1
@TheOfficialPatriarchy Comparison of methods of execution verse simply the concept of capital punishment are different things. Your comparison did not demonstrate what you were attempting. Furthermore you are now arguing a strawman, I never made a claim that the age of a law precluded it's evolution or removal. You don't appear to have understood what I've previously said, I'm not down for repeating myself so you can go ahead and reread my previous comments yourself. The irony of the majority of states still enforcing the thing which you are using to demonstrate a poorly conceived point appears lost on you completely. There is no such thing as AD anymore, we do not use storybooks as references anymore. 412CE is quite a ways from 950CE and there's a whole lot of invasion and change in those intervening centuries. No, the Romans did not influence these laws. There's some norman and saxon influence in there though. Laws do evolve. They get removed when they cease being enforced or their detrimental effects outweigh their positives. Neither of those situations are true of squatters rights. Again, more squatters have property transferred to them each year than don't, usually completely uncontested. These are actively used and enforced laws whose overall benefits for communities far outweigh their negatives and which directly facilitate government functions. "Ownership" of land is discretionary by government. Land ownership does not allow you to do anything you like on with with your property. Government can rescind or vary ownership at their discretion, or make ownership conditional. Similarly to, so can private entities such as HOAs. The supreme court has been very clear on these matters. You never really own land, you just get to use it until the government decides otherwise. If you're going to leave your buildings empty for extended periods of time contributing to blight and lack of available housing stock, the community has a right to remedy. That remedy is called squatters rights. All you have to do to avoid squatters is to keep your buildings occupied, which you have a legal and moral obligation to do anyway. There are many ways to achieve occupants of a building and avoid squatters. If you fail to do so then the property should absolutely be used by someone else whom can make use of it and bring it into good standing.
1
@TheOfficialPatriarchy Why are you liking your own comments? Talk about an own goal. I can't imagine being that insecure. You posts all that to say nothing, and to attempt to twist my words into whatever you want them to say. Very assuming. Governments act via legislation. Rescinding of ownership happens through existing, or new laws and does not focus on any specific property. Governments can't just randomly vary laws because it would be convenient to you. lol. You're out here screaming at the sky that I'm not "acknowledging your arguments" but I addressed them with facts. I didn't validate your arguments because they're empty nonsense. You have this all the wrong way. If you want to blame someone for drug dealers moving into the vacant house down the street, blame the owner who left the property vacant in the first place. It's their responsibility to keep it occupied.
1
@Zeromaus That's not how it works and never has been. Not least of which because you don't really own "your property" and never will. The state owns "your property" and can take it back at will. You do not have a right to contribute to blight nor to a lack of real estate supply. Land banking is a criminal offence.
1
@Zeromaus Oh but they absolutely are, they're a major part of house cities continue to function.
1
The court made no ruling, it dismissed the case. Do you need an explanation of the difference?
1