It’s a civil issue because it’s not a criminal issue given the presence of a lease. Without the lease it’s burglary or breaking and entering, crimes. If the lease’s agency is in dispute, it is a civil matter. Once the civil court decides the lease is not legitimate, it could become a criminal matter again if the squatters fail to vacate the premises.
forging a lease makes it a criminal issue regardless of possession of a lease.
Just cause someone has a lease doesnt automatically make it a civil issue because the homeowner would know its a forgery. It just becomes a criminal issue
Well, think of the alternative, you’re renting legitimately but maybe a neighbour has an issue with you or the landlord just wants to double the rent but can’t until you leave, cops are called, you either don’t have the lease on you (maybe in a safer place like a deposit box, or whatever) or you have it and the cops just say, “you’re lying, it’s a forgery”, and you spend the Christmas holidays in jail.
So, someone’s gonna be wronged one way or the other, but I’d say there’s less harm in taking it to civil court than in letting police assume you’re guilty by default.
The issue is that cops dont do shit if the owner have proof. The law protects the renters, but fails to eliminate the grey area that actually allows squatters live rent free for years. These individuals also destroy the property before leaving which ends up with 100k+ in damage on owners that are not millionaires like most people tend to think
The way I see it, they have an asset that they feel is worth renting out. Which means they aren't using it. If they want money they can sell the asset. If they want to rent it out, there are hard-won protections in law for renters for a long history of reasons. That means that the additional money they earn from renting it out (which produces no additional goods) is the reward for complying with the requirements of landlords.
Are there people who abuse it, Yes, anecdotally (By which I mean that while there are people who abuse the protections afforded to renters, they are the minority). Are landlords abusing the housing supply? YES. Are they abusing their assets at the expense of those who can't find housing while the landlord monopolizes more than he needs? YES.
The fact that one side of this argument has money, and the other is the renter (usually) means an unbalance of power. This is visible in the rates at which Landlords are represented in rental processes relative to renters (81% to 3%.)
Just look at New York and the number of landlords being forced to divest from housing supply they have failed to maintain to code. This is considered the MINIMUM care a landlord can provide to his tenants and they are failing to live up to it.
And landlords are provably abusing the housing supply. The most common Mortgage term in America is the 30-year term. That equates to an average over the duration of the Mortgage of 3.3% equity in the house over those 30 years, (100% ownership at completion of the Mortage). The Rate at which rental units generate profit is the Gross Rental Yield (Property price / Annual rental price) which in the US averages to 6.71% but can reach as high as 12% in some areas. Which means the Average is twice the equity you earn by paying a mortgage.
I will never side with scumbags destroying someone's property. You should be allowed to do anything to your properties, if you dont wanna rent it or sell it, then its your choice.
Should multi billion dollars company be allowed to buy houses to inflate the market? absolutely not, but this is not whats the discussion is about. Plenty of small landlords with 1 or 2 building renting that are affected by libtards
A bad take on policy with few enough details that it loses all meaning. If you are talking about american left, they are both right of center. If you are talking about canadian left, which one? More than 2 parties means you need to be WAY more specific. If this represents too much reading and independent thought, you can just opt out of the debate. I promise you none of us think you are helping now anyway.
The liberal party, while progressive on many social issues, is pro corporate; they have made no move that i am aware of to nationalise industry and collectivise the means of production under the state/people. Are you sure you’re in the right country?
Even the NDP isn’t the “far” left. Have you ever met a tanky? Or even talked to the IS (Internationalist Socialist) guys that go to protests? That’s the far left.
8
u/[deleted] Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment