23-year-old occupies empty $2.5 million Boca home [video]
sun-sentinel.com
sun-sentinel.com
Huh?!? I'm always amazed at the ease of fear-mongering that some people come to. The squatter didn't break into an occupied home (assuming he broke in at all), he occupied a vacant abandoned home. At least he's trying to publicly live there and make it his, which may help reduce more malicious squatters from occupying that home and using it for criminal purposes (this has happened with abandoned homes in Las Vegas, NV).
At least now the neighbour can claim a 100% occupancy rate in the neighbourhood, and not one where there exists an abandoned, foreclosed home.
Now that BofA has filed the paperwork the guy will likely be forced out in 1-2 mos.
------
"In the past a building could be used legally by someone who needed to squat if it was empty and not in use for twelve months, and the owner had no pressing need to use it (such as a rental contract starting in the next month). The only illegal aspect was forcing an entry, if that was necessary. When a building was squatted, it was normal to send the owner a letter and to invite the police to inspect the squat. The police checked whether the place was indeed lived in by the squatter. In legal terms, this means there must be a bed, a chair, a table and a working lock on the door which the squatter can open and close.
In cities, there was often a kraakspreekuur (squatters' consultation hour), at which people planning to squat could get advice from experienced squatters. In Amsterdam, where the squatting community is still large, there are four kraakspreekuur sessions in different areas of the city, and so-called "wild" squatting (squatting a building without the help of the local group) is not encouraged.[27] Dutch squatters use the term krakers to refer to people who squat houses with the aim of living in them (as opposed to people who break into buildings for the purpose of vandalism or theft).[5] ...
On October 1, 2010, squatting was finally outlawed in The Netherlands after the Squatting Ban Bill was passed into law by both houses of Parliament. On October 28, 2011, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands decided that the legally forced end of squatting can only occur after an intervention of a judge.
If many buildings in an area are sitting unoccupied, unused, and potentially falling apart while simultaneously affordable housing is unavailable, it becomes morally justifiable to squat. This is especially true if the landlord has had ample time to renovate, find tenants, or sell the property... If he has failed to do so, he is actually contributing to the shortage of affordable housing by driving prices up.
Regulations permitting squatting put pressure on landlords, which seemed to work pretty well. Landlords used "anti-squat" tactics - renting out vacant properties on a temporary basis (i.e. with the option to evict at any moment) to prevent a squat. These rates were excellent in Amsterdam, and many students and would-be squatters took advantage of this, effectively bringing 'squatting' into the economy.
"Nice scam you got going here kid" "Thanks" He admitted it was a scam! Get him!
Just an example as to the kind of thing I would imagine private companies would do to get him out of there by technicality, against his own usage of a technicality law.
One of them squats for a while and this just reminded me of that.
It is a requirement that they maintain the property and make improvements while living in it - seems much better for RE prices than a boarded up foreclosed house. Soccer moms can't see it that way though, they just see this guy getting something 'free' that they had to pay for, and get furious.