Protecting Property Rights

If  you are a homeowner, you have a deed which says you own your home. If you are a renter, you have a least that lists the conditions of your rental agreement. These are legal documents designed to protect people who are paying for a place to live. Unfortunately, not all states are protecting private property rights.

On Tuesday, The New York Post posted an article about a recent incident between a homeowner and a squatter living in that home.

The article reports:

A New York City property owner recently ended up in handcuffs following a fiery standoff with a bunch of squatters she has been trying to boot from her family’s home, tense footage of the ordeal shows.

Adele Andaloro, 47, was recently nabbed after she changed the locks on the $1 million home in Flushing, Queens, that she says she inherited from her parents when they died, ABC’s Eyewitness News reported.

“It’s enraging,” the homeowner said of the squatter saga. “It’s not fair that I, as the homeowner, have to be going through this.”

Andaloro claims the ordeal erupted when she started the process of trying to sell the home last month but realized squatters had moved in — and brazenly replaced the entire front door and locks.

Fed up, she recently went to her family’s home on 160th Street — with the local TV outlet in tow — and called a locksmith to change the locks for her.

A heated, caught-on-camera spat with the alleged squatters quickly unfolded and ended with some of the so-called tenants — and Andaloro — being led away in cuffs.

In New York City, a person can claim “squatter’s rights” after just 30 days of living at a property.

Under the law, it is illegal for the homeowner to change the locks, turn off the utilities, or remove the belongings of the “tenants” from the property.

“By the time someone does their investigation, their work, and their job, it will be over 30 days and this man will still be in my home,” Andaloro said.

“I’m really fearful that these people are going to get away with stealing my home,” she added.

During the recent encounter at her home, Andaloro — who was armed with the deeds — was filmed entering the property after one of the apparent tenants left the front door open.

The article concludes:

The ordeal is just the latest involving squatters in the Big Apple in recent weeks after a couple’s plan to move into a $2 million home in Douglaston, Queens, with their disabled son was derailed by a squatter who claimed to have an agreement with the previous owner.

Separately, a squatter was also found to have turned a Rockaways home into a stomach-turning house of horrors by keeping more than a dozen emaciated cats and dogs trapped inside the property.

Whatever happened to the rule of law?

 

Some Background On A Story That Is Generally Being Misreported

Right now the media is reporting that the Palestinian residents in Sheikh Jarrah are being evicted. Somehow the media is not explaining the history and background of this eviction.

 

The Kohelet Policy Forum provides the background on the situation:

The current dispute in Sheikh Jarrah involves several properties with tenants whose leases have expired, and in a few cases squatters with no tenancy rights at all,against ownerlandlords who have successfully won court orders evicting the squatters and overstaying tenants. The litigation has taken several years, and the owners have won at every step. The squatters and overstaying tenants have appealed against the eviction orders to the Supreme Court. The only decision that stands before the Israeli government is whether to honor the courts’ decisions and enforce the eviction orders if affirmed by the Supreme Court, or whether to defy court orders and deny the property owners their legal rights.

 Fox News did not accurately report on the situation:

…Trey Yingst’s May 8 report, which aired on FOX at about 1:57 PM Eastern time. Yingst claimed that the court decision to evict certain residents of that neighborhood was based on “an obscure Israeli law.” Yingst also quoted the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs claiming that the residents are at risk “if the [Israeli] Supreme Court sets a new standard.” Of course, there is nothing “obscure” about the requirement that tenants pay rent, nor is it a “new standard.”
 
NGO Monitor reports that, “according to a 1989 High Court decision, and re-affirmed repeatedly in subsequent cases, as in the case of any tenant living on someone else’s property, residents … were required to pay rent to the organizations that owned the properties. Their failure to do so, along with instances of illegal building and illegally renting properties to others, resulted in the current legal proceedings against them, culminating in the District Court decision.”
 
And the Kohelet Policy forum explains, “the leasehold and trespass legal issues at stake are similar to those found throughout the world, other than the unusually strong rent control and tenant protections given to the protected tenants (Palestinian Arabs in this dispute).”
 
While Yingst interviewed two residents of the neighborhood on camera, he did not interview anyone who could reliably give an accurate legal perspective.
 
While a decision on the case has now been postponed for up to a month, the violence that it has spurred continues to escalate, so it’s important for journalists and the public to understand the facts. Moreover, as described below, Yingst’s reporting on continuing events also adds new errors.  

Be aware that the media often reports on events in Israel without knowing or including the background information that explains what is happening.

 

This Is Really NOT A Good Idea

Living in New York City is not cheap, but it is supposed to be glamorous. If you look at realtor.com, you can find a 500 or 600 square foot apartment for about $2500 a month. Then on top of that you pay city, state, and federal income tax. It’s a pretty pricey place to live. At those prices, you expect a few benefits. Many buildings have doormen. You are close to restaurants and entertainment. Central Park is beautiful. The museums are great. But New York City is changing. Crime is up. The homeless population is up. Many areas of the city are simply not appealing because of changes in the law that make peeing in the street not a crime. One partial answer to this is a return to the ‘broken windows’ policy of Rudy Giuliani. Unfortunately Mayor De Blasio is heading in the other direction.

The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article on Friday reporting the following:

Mayor Bill de Blasio on Friday revealed a plan to buy properties around the city and turn them into permanent affordable housing, after moving more than 10,000 homeless people into hotels during the COVID-19 pandemic and shaming rich residents who have left the city as ‘fair weather friends’. 

At a press conference on Friday, he did not say which type of buildings the city had its eye on and the city is refusing to give more details, citing ‘privacy concerns’.  

De Blasio only said there was an ‘opportunity to get creative’ now when it came to finding housing for New York’s homeless. 

It presents a stark scenario for landlords or building owners who may be struggling to collect rent from current tenants, many of whom – both commercial and residential – have absconded.  

The homeless-in-hotels scheme set up by de Blasio is one of many components to an escalating downward change in the city.

Before the Mayor gets too wrapped up in the homeless-in-hotels idea, he might want to look at a recent Fox News article detailing a similar program in San Francisco.

The article at Fox News notes:

Police arrested two adults accused of operating a low level meth lab at a San Francisco hotel designated as a safe shelter for people on quarantine, at risk for COVID-19, or without housing.

The call came in about a strong chemical odor coming from a hotel room and officers responded to the Civic Center Motor Inn about 2:30 p.m. on Saturday.

The U.K. Daily Mail also notes:

Many of New York’s wealthy residents fled months ago – taking their disposable income and their tax dollars with them – and there are fears they may never come back.

Crime is on the up but de Blasio has stripped the police force of $1billion in response to Black Lives Matter protests.

Some retailers and restaurants have been forced to close permanently and those who are hanging on face continuously changing and difficult rules, like having to sell ‘substantial’ amounts of food to customers to avoid crowds gathering.

De Blasio and Cuomo are enforcing checkpoints to stop tourists from 35 COVID hotspot states from entering the city without quarantining for 14 days too.

Earlier this year, it emerged that 139 struggling hotels are taking in homeless people to avoid deathly COVID-19 breakouts in shelters. The effort is being mostly paid for by FEMA, but 25 percent of it is coming from the city’s shrinking budget. It brings some cash to the struggling hotels which were decimated by the pandemic. 

Through the program, they take $175 per person, per night which – with more than 13,000 homeless currently being housed in hotels – is more than $2.275million, according to anonymous city sources who have been quoted since May. 

Please follow the link to the article at the U.K; Daily Mail for further details on the Mayor’s idea.

I suspect in the very near future, you will be able to buy a condo or rent an apartment in New York City at bargain-basement prices.

Creating A Catch-22 For Landlords

Owning rental property is one way to plan for your retirement. If you are handy and live close to the property, it can be a very profitable investment. If you don’t live nearby, a good rental agency can handle the details for you.

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted a story about a new federal regulation that is going to make being a successful landlord more difficult.

The article reports:

The Obama administration has just made it easier for felons to move in next door. Landlords who don’t want tenants who are going to mug their neighbors or deal drugs will now be treated as racists and potentially sued.

Last week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued new guidelines to landlords, warning that bans against renters with criminal convictions violate the Fair Housing Act because they disproportionately affect minorities.

In effect, the Obama regime is now outlawing criminal background checks for apartment rentals, even though such screening is critical for the protection and security of tenants and property, and serves a legitimate business need.

In a newly released 10-page missive, HUD warns landlords they can be held liable for discrimination if they deny housing over criminal records.

It gets really interesting when you consider the other side of the coin:

So now landlords, real estate agents and property managers will think twice before turning away drug dealers and thieves, even rapists, who are members of this “protected class” — even though barring high-risk tenants serves a legitimate, nondiscriminatory purpose.

This puts landlords in a terrible legal bind.

To protect themselves from federal action, they would be wise to avoid even inquiring about the criminal records of prospective tenants. But if they fail to adequately screen them and rent to one who robs or hurts a neighbor, they could be sued by the victim for negligence.

No doubt many will see no option but to raise rents to indirectly exclude criminals from their rentals, which will just end up hurting everybody who rents housing — including innocent, law-abiding tenants.

In a move to protect the rights of convicted felons, the federal government has just created problems for the average American. I believe people who are renting property have the right to know the background of their renters. If a landlord feels that a former criminal has changed his ways, he should be free to rent to him. However, if there is no indication that a former criminal has changed his ways, the landlord should have the right to determine whether or not he wants to rent his property to that person.