Printable View
The Case for [[Selective) Squatting
Quote:
"If you keep walking down the sidewalk, you’d see they have vineyard and berry patches and apple trees," she says. These people have paved a driveway and put up a fence. "And they only own about half of this property."
Clearly, this is not your typical picture of squatting, and it raises a complicated question: How should Detroit, and other shrinking cities like it, handle a technically illegal activity that's obviously improving the neighborhood?
Technically illegal but at the same time legally encouraged...after all, if you squat long enough, it's yours.
This is one of those tough issues to answer. If you are keeping the scrappers away while squatting... then it is good. But if you stop someone from moving in... it becomes the flipside of the equation... :[[
Maybe Detroit should start an ad campaign to invite squatters to come to our fair city and save some homes from the wreaking ball...
This has been happening in Brightmoor for decades. When we lived there in the 50s, our neighbor to the east farmed the vacant lot to our west. He had tomatoes, peppers, grapevines, beans and more. He made his own wine, too. We know quite a few people who live there now and have for decades. I think the greater extent of farming we have now relates to how many vacant properties there are, not to a change in the neighborhood attitudes. If there is a house that is uninhabitable or a vacant lot, it makes sense to use it productively. That does not necessarily mean that when the property is made available to buy, that those who are using it would not buy it or allow someone else to buy it. Either way, responsible good neighbors are most desired.
Maybe Detroit should start an ad campaign to invite squatters to come to our fair city and save some homes from rejoining the tax roll. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by EASTSIDE CAT 67-83
As squatters If they do the time in the house and follow all the other long term wickets for title don't they eventually end up paying property taxes at some pointQuote:
Originally Posted by Kevgoblue
It's not quite the same thing as someone squatting in an unoccupied house they do not own. The article describes legal homeowners taking over abandoned empty lots that are adjacent to their properties.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeM
Those are two VERY different things.
Depends on where you try it at , some states do not play that game.
Alleged Lakeland squatter arrested
Apr 3, 2013 3:44 p.m.
http://wtvt.nowcache.com/imgdir/cont...43-150x113.png http://m.nowcache.com/core/mw/images...erz01/plus.png
Deputies in Polk County say they've arrested a woman who moved into a foreclosed home with the apparent goal of taking ownership of it.
Last month, A Lakeland resident noticed that the locks had been changed on the Tierra Vista Circle home she used to live in. She had reached an amicable foreclosure agreement with her lender but had been visiting the house to make sure it was in good shape.
When she noticed strange new belongings in the home, she called deputies. They found Stacey Ann Fuchs living at the house. The 31-year-old allegedly told them she had researched "adverse possession" on the internet, and, based on the information she found online, felt it was her right to change the locks and move into the vacated home.
Deputies disagreed. Fuchs was arrested on one count of burglary and one count grand theft.
It's PCSO's second such arrest recently. In March, they arrested Lessie Hurd, 40, under similar circumstances.
"You just can't move into someone else's legally owned property. That's trespassing, burglary, and theft," Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said in a release about the arrests. "There is no such thing as a free lunch, and we are going to arrest people who try this scam to steal homes in Polk County."
http://wap.myfoxtampabay.com/w/main/story/88526815/
My question would be if the city stills views those lots as a tax revenue sourse and lists them as such are they being counted?
What is stopping the city from saying ,you have fenced in the property and are enjoying the use of it but not having to pay the taxes,is it fair to other property owners?
State senate has passed the blighted property bill,meaning jail time ,which is going to take this to a whole new realm because the leagle property owners of these lots will be contacted and a whole can of worms is getting ready to be opened.
Very different indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by aj3647
The article does try to legitimize the idea of 'squatting'. I see that as social decay, because it discourages honorable people from investing. That hurts everyone in the long run.
I'd suggest some clear rules here that are designed to enable improvements to the neighborhood...
If property is vacant and not being tended to, then you may squat on it. If you improve it, you can claim your improvements as a lien against the property.
If a house is vacant AND delinquent on taxes, you may then legally squat in the house by simply filing a form at city hall. If the owner pays the taxes within 6 months, he can then issue you a notice to terminate 12 months after notice. If he does not send notice, you can then have the property -- provide you have improved the property and maintained it well.
The city of Detroit sold my aunt the vacant lots around her house for $300 a piece. I guess she shouldn't have paid money for them.
If you maintain the property it will not come under the city radar unless back taxes,under the new law blighted property owners can now face up to a year in jail,excluding banks of course,is it not better to let it be then offer a low price to the owner for it? Everybody says land has no value.
I guess this way is better without having to pay the taxes and hoping nobody claims it and the city forgets about it, once the city gets organized this is going to be a big issue .
So if she combined them all did her tax rate go up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
Or is it cheaper to leave them as separate parcels and lower tax rate?
This is how the ones doing the right thing are punished by the city .
I really don't know if she combined them but she said her taxes decreased on her house due to a lower assessment. She ended up buying 4 lots for $1200. The one next to the house, the one behind, and the two on each side. She's the second house from the corner but on the corner there's a vacant apartment building that the city hasn't taken down. She could probably buy it for $300 but the cost to raze the building and remove it would cost thousands. We removed the garbage from inside and secured the building. Hoping the city will take it down. Other than that there is only one more building on either side of the block. There were squatters in there. They tried to make an art project out of the house. They stuck a bunch of junk on it and threw some orange and purple paint on it.
How many units is the apt building?
The reason I was asking about the tax rates was if the city could do something on that aspect if lots were combined,maybe a lower rate until the homeowner sells then it would go to the higher rate, as an incentive to a workable solution all around.
The inside is gutted but it looks like it was a 4 family unit. It's 2 stories high and looks like 2 units in the front and 2 in the back.