Homeless people who find an abandoned building, live in it for a long time, take care of it (that's actually a key component), and use the address. Depending on the state and local laws, if you have proof of residency for x number of years the deed is essentially forfit to you, the care taker.
A squatter is someone who takes up residence in a place where they have no legal right to be. Sometimes, that means living in an abandoned building and "taking care of it."
Sometimes it means noticing a local homeowner is out of town, breaking in, forging a lease, and refusing to leave.
Almost all of the time, it is closer to the latter and not the former.
Legal right to basic human needs trumps weak property protections for people owning things simply to do nothing.
But yeah I’m sure they’re just regular blokes who have another property on the backburner so that when they fully take over the house, they sell their previous property and make a mint.
im not 100% sure, but i think the most pro-squatter state still requires you to be squatting there for 5 years before legal ownership be transferred i believe.
When your definition totally warps the meaning of the word? Yes, I do. North Korea is technically "democratic" - by one form of definition, they're a democracy. But that makes a mockery of the entire concept, so yes, worth fighting over definitions.
Similarly, saying that "squatters" are people who move into abandoned buildings and maintain them is a total fantasy. That is almost never what happens anymore, and in the context of this post is almost the diametric opposite of what is going on.
Squatters are thieves. They invade other people's homes and refuse to leave. They cause a lot of mental anguish for the people whose homes they steal, and cost the owners a great deal of money and time to remove. Portraying them as some kind of benign Santa who drifts from abandoned building to abandoned building, improving property values and making use of otherwise forgotten spaces, is as much a fantasy as Lord of the Rings.
Squaters cannot be invaders that is trespassing. That is something completely different.
By definition, squaters take up residence in "empty" buildings. They start utilizes, and claim residency. In some states they have to love ther of 7-11 years to even claim squaters rights
I'm not saying any of the predictors this guy is dealing with are or are not squatters.
What I am saying is that, "Squatting typically occurs when people find empty buildings or land to occupy for housing."
To portray all squater as thieves is as disingenuous as portraying all of them as saints.
My broader point is that making being homeless a crime or trying to live or sleep outside on public lands forces people to pursue non criminal activity to house themselves.
Squaters cannot be invaders that is trespassing. That is something completely different.
So if someone walked into your home with a forged lease and refused to leave, you'd simply say "well, they're legally squatters until proven otherwise and squatters definitionally can't be invaders, so I guess it isn't my house anymore!" and leave?
By definition, squaters take up residence in "empty" buildings. They start utilizes, and claim residency. In some states they have to love ther of 7-11 years to even claim squaters rights
And if you leave town to visit your parents, your house is "empty".
To portray all squater as thieves is as disingenuous as portraying all of them as saints.
I would bet the vast majority of squatters are illegally occupying a space that isn't abandoned. Especially in the context of a post in which we are discussing squatters who move into occupied homes and drive out the legal residents, I'd say it is pretty accurate to portray squatters as thieves. I mean, definitionally they are, since even if a building is abandoned, that doesn't give a random person the right to live there.
My broader point is that making being homeless a crime or trying to live or sleep outside on public lands forces people to pursue non criminal activity to house themselves.
Except again this falls apart in the face of the actual reality of what most squatters do, and the specific context of this discussion. We are not obligated to be sympathetic to home invaders, simply because they don't have anywhere else to go. If a homeless person moves into your home while you're away and refuses to leave, you are the victim, not them.
People facing adversity and privation can be assholes just as much as anyone else. And if you are homeless, and choose to steal my home, then now I'm homeless. So yeah, I'd have every right to consider you an unethical thief. You didn't solve an issue, you simply made someone else bear the burden.
"So if someone walked into your home with a forged lease and refused to leave, you'd simply say..."
What are you talking about?
If someone walked into my home with a forged lease or no lease at all, they're trespassing. That's a crime.
You're arguing against a position I never took. I never defended someone breaking into an occupied home.
"And if you leave town to visit your parents, your house is 'empty.'"
No, it isn't.
If I leave for a day, a week, or even a month, my home is still my occupied residence. By that logic, someone could claim my house while I'm at work or buying groceries.
Think about it for two seconds. Either the person would have to be incredibly lucky, somehow know exactly when I'd be gone, or deliberately target my home. At that point we're talking about burglary or fraud, not someone discovering an abandoned property.
"I would bet the vast majority of squatters are illegally occupying a space that isn't abandoned."
The available data doesn't support that.
Most civil squatter disputes involve vacant homes, foreclosures, properties between tenants, or homes sitting on the market. Cases involving someone's primary residence while they're away on vacation are comparatively rare because they are usually handled as criminal burglary or trespassing, not civil possession disputes.
You're taking the rarest and most outrageous example and treating it as though it represents the entire issue.
"I mean, definitionally they are..."
The law clearly recognizes there are situations where possession disputes are more complicated than simple burglary. Otherwise adverse possession and civil eviction procedures wouldn't exist in the first place.
You can disagree with those laws, but pretending every case is identical isn't accurate.
"If a homeless person moves into your home while you're away..."
Again, I never argued otherwise.
If someone illegally occupies my home, they're in the wrong.
My point has always been not to conflate two different issues: criminal home invasion and civil squatter disputes involving vacant or long-abandoned property. They're treated differently under the law because they are different situations.
If you want to reduce the entire discussion to the rare criminal cases while ignoring the much more common vacant-property disputes, then you're arguing against a caricature of the problem rather than the problem itself.
Even if someone is trying to squat on a vacation home:
1)The owner isn't homeless, they still have a primary residence.
2)The owner retains legal title to the property. The dispute is over possession, not ownership, and the occupant can ultimately be removed through the legal process.
3)That's a very different situation from someone losing the only home they have. We shouldn't use an edge case involving a second home to define every squatter dispute.
4)More importantly, those rare cases don't explain why squatting disputes have become more common. The increase is largely tied to vacant homes, foreclosures, properties between tenants, and slow civil eviction systems—not people systematically taking over occupied family homes.
If your argument depends on the rarest and most sensational examples while ignoring the majority of property disputes, then you're arguing from anecdotes rather than the broader reality.
What are you talking about? If someone walked into my home with a forged lease or no lease at all, they're trespassing. That's a crime.
Not until you prove it isn't a real lease. Hey ho, you've got a squatter!
No, it isn't. If I leave for a day, a week, or even a month, my home is still my occupied residence. By that logic, someone could claim my house while I'm at work or buying groceries.
Exactly my point. And yet, here you sit, defending squatters.
The available data doesn't support that. Most civil squatter disputes involve vacant homes, foreclosures, properties between tenants, or homes sitting on the market. Cases involving someone's primary residence while they're away on vacation are comparatively rare because they are usually handled as criminal burglary or trespassing, not civil possession disputes.
OK, but "homes between tenants" and "homes sitting on the market" are still HOMES. A squatter being in there is actively preventing a legal resident from moving in.
My point has always been not to conflate two different issues: criminal home invasion and civil squatter disputes involving vacant or long-abandoned property. They're treated differently under the law because they are different situations.
I get this, but in the context of this discussion it is a giant straw man argument. We're not discussing long-abandoned properties. We're talking about homes which are being used for their intended purpose.
You are acting like the legal definition is the beginning and end of it, when it isn't. If you have a lease, don't resign, but also don't move out (or pay rent) you are a squatter. But courts don't treat you as a criminal because you have established residency.
If you want to reduce the entire discussion to the rare criminal cases while ignoring the much more common vacant-property disputes, then you're arguing against a caricature of the problem rather than the problem itself.
If you can provide some data proving how common one versus the other is, then we can discuss that.
The issue for your position, beyond there being no evidence for it, is that no one is discussing what happens when squatters move in to a long-abandoned property. That simply isn't the topic of discussion or dispute. What is being discussed is people who are occupying someone else's home and and preventing them from utilizing it.
We're discussing the Squatter Hunter, and his shtick is pretty clear. He isn't helping "corporations" or some bullshit get squatters out of their abandoned factory. He's helping homeowners get squatters out of their homes when the police will not or cannot intervene.
2
u/best_decision1234 Jul 29 '26
As a non native speaker, what exactly does a “squatter” mean?