this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
503 points (97.5% liked)

News

23397 readers
3663 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Or just give the property the owner the house for free in exchange for not suing and cut their losses. Would probably be cheaper in the long run, especially counting legal fees.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 39 points 8 months ago

She doesn't want the house because it balloons the taxes on the property from a few hundred to thousands per year

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago (2 children)

First: she has a right to be made whole and it’s not her concern what the people who wronged her have to go through to do that.

Second: she never wanted a house. She had a special vision for the space, a space that has now been damaged.

Third: squatters have rights and she may not be able to evict them. Their rights may take precedence over hers here.

[–] ansiz@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Not disagreeing with any of this but it should be clear to this lady her vision was screwed the moment a developer built a bunch of cookie cutter houses all over that area. A meditation center doesn't really work in that area any longer.

The issue with the taxes, the lawsuit, and the squatters is exactly why I would have just taken the offer to trade properties, she has an enormous headache on her hands and bailed on the easy way out of it.

[–] bluewing@lemm.ee -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Squatters seldom have the "rights" to just take property as easily as the internet often seems to think they have. It very often takes years to assume those rights plus paying the taxes on it. And if it were so easy to do that it became such a common problem, it wouldn't be as big a meme as it currently is.

My question is: "Just how little are you paying attention to your personal property that you unaware of a many month's long building process taking place on your property?" Or is the property owner that stupid and has her ass that far up her own head?

I mean, I own several hundred acres of property, (farm land and forest), and a good chunk of it is 300 miles away. I KNOW what happens on that property. If someone tried to build anything on it without my knowledge or consent, I would know within a week of the start of the building and real hard pointed questions would be asked of the fools doing the building.

[–] rektdeckard@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

She doesn't reside in the state, and the state is Hawaii (an island). We can assume she also has no social connections there, at least none near the property. Do you expect her to be telepathic?

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 3 points 8 months ago

Her daughter lives there and was the one to recommend the property. That said I don't think you lose your rights by not checking your stuff regularly. This developer could have had that house up in a matter of months, Does not really need to be a long time.

[–] bluewing@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not telepathic, but you can hire companies to watch over your investment. And if you can afford real estate in Hawaii and live elsewhere, you can afford to hire such a company.

[–] rektdeckard@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You can. But should you be expected to? Lol. It's an empty lot in a residential neighborhood. I think it's fair to NOT expect people to be putting unauthorized structures on it.

[–] bluewing@lemm.ee -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Fair or not, it happened and the actual property owner does have an obligation to know what happens on the property she owns - absent or not. So she bears some responsibility for what happened. Think about a small child falling into an abandoned well you didn't know was there. As the owner of the property, you are expected to know of it's presence and you are accountable for what happens with it. It's a part of the joys of owning property.

So if you end up owning property, understand when that if that day comes, that there are more obligations to ownership than simply making loan payments and paying your taxes.

[–] rektdeckard@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I own property.

I'm just saying it's incorrect to characterize this woman as ass-headed, because it's not a reasonable expectation to assume somebody might build on your land, or to have to spend your time and money to safeguard against that specific problem. Making sure there are no uncovered well, sure. Constant surveillance to keep out rogue construction companies? In a neighborhood? No.

And whether you found out in a week or several months, it's still a huge headache. So you notice a bit earlier if you're paying close attention. Big whoop. You've still got a huge hole and a house foundation on your property. The developer still broke the law, and you did NOT break the law or do anything dumb by expecting others to adhere to property law, and doing what is required of you by law.

[–] RazorsLedge@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Wouldn't the property owner already own the house?

[–] almar_quigley@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Or they do whatever the property owner wants because it’s their property. They don’t get to decide shit.