Squatting is Not a Right
By Michelle Gamble
Over the last several years, squatting has hit the headlines. Tales of squatters moving into properties and refusing to leave. Stories about vacant properties being taken over by homeless people, criminals or random individuals who simply don’t respect private property rights. It became especially concerning when an overflow of migrants in sanctuary cities began occupying vacant properties. Property owners’ frustrations began to rise as they faced not only losing control over their rentals, but also the loss in revenue from not being able to rent their units.
The only people winning in these scenarios are the squatters not the property owners who end up having to pay expensive legal fees to remove these people. To add insult to injury, squatters often trash the property or deliberately destroy it before leaving. So, on top of legal fees to remove these unauthorized occupants, owners then get left with often thousands of dollars in repairs. The worst consequences the squatters face is being kicked out.
Recently, the California legislature began developing bills to combat the growing problem. Three bills in particular have been introduced: SB 448 (Umberg) a CalRHA sponsored bill; AB 897 (DeMaio) Spot bill. Intent of the author to amend the bill. Intent is to protect property rights and remove squatters; and AB 1097 (Avila Farias) intent of the bill is to enact legislation to address trespassing on private property.
Let's explore these bills. First, SB 448 summarized would permit property owners to request law enforcement within the county in which the dwelling is located to immediately remove the individual by providing a sworn affidavit that the individual has unlawfully entered the property, remains on the property after being directed to leave, and has no right to occupy the property. The bill goes on to describe penalties that would be levied at the trespasser(s). The East Bay Rental Housing Association (EBRHA) supports this bill.
The bill seems reasonable in that it aims to quicken the legal process to remove these squatters at a faster pace and free up the property to be repaired and rented. During a housing shortage, it has the potential to open dozens of spaces once unavailable. It gives owners an expedient opportunity to get these people off the property, restore it, and get legitimate renters back in. The losses in income diminish because owners don't have to spend months proving the squatter is being illegally housed; and the squatters have less time to damage the property.
The bill also addresses justice and creates a deterrent by enacting penalties. Squatters who walk away without punishment are more likely to do it again somewhere else. Anytime crime is allowed to go on without consequences, it makes it attractive and easy to do it over and over again. It also creates a nomadic society where squatters jump from residence to residence to avoid paying rent. Of course, the owners are the losers and victims in these crimes, so it's common sense to use deterrents.
The next proposed law, which EBRHA also supports is AB 897 (DeMaio), also intends to protect property rights and remove squatters. According to CalMatters, "Existing law provides that a renter is guilty of unlawful detainer if the renter continues to possess the property without permission of the property owner after the renter defaults on rent or fails to perform a condition or covenant of the lease under which the property is held, among other reasons. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation protecting property rights and removing squatters from leased properties."
According to an article on Bakerfield Now, "The proposed legislation seeks to provide property owners with more authority to evict squatters by defining unlawful squatting, creating an arrest process for offenders, and requiring certification of documentation presented by squatters to avoid eviction.
"Unfortunately, California state laws basically prohibit any help for property owners, and my bill would change that. It would uphold private property rights and it would end squatting in our state," said DeMaio, who represents California's 75th district.
This law highlights expediency in removing squatters. It also tilts the scale in favor of property owners protection of their private property, but also keep in mind property ownership is a business. Therefore, this law protects the livelihoods of owners. The shift away from squatter protections and back toward owners bodes well for either the law above to be passed or this one, whichever one gets passed is a shift in the right direction.
The last bill AB 1097 (Avila Farias) intends to enact legislation to address trespassing on private property. The bill's summary posted on BillTrack50 said: This bill amends the California Penal Code to expand trespassing laws, specifically focusing on trespassing on Indian lands and private property. The bill makes it a misdemeanor to enter Indian lands or private property where signs forbidding trespass are displayed, particularly in areas where animals are being raised. It clarifies that trespassing includes entering lands to injure property or interfere with lawful business. The bill allows for trespass warnings from both peace officers and tribal police officers and establishes that a person can be prosecuted for reentering private property or Indian lands within 48 hours after being asked to leave. The legislation also provides for tribes to enter into agreements with law enforcement agencies to enforce exclusion orders. The bill defines key terms such as 'federally recognized Indian tribe,' 'Indian lands,' and "order of exclusion," and specifies different time limits for trespassing restrictions based on the type of prior conviction. Additionally, the bill includes technical changes and stipulates that no reimbursement is required for implementing these new provisions since they primarily relate to creating or modifying criminal offenses."
The theme in these bills address efficient law enforcement to remove squatters and create consequences and penalties to prevent it. As a society we cannot embrace allowing squatters. It's unfair to property owners to pay the cost of squatting. Local and state governments and organizations that facilitate squatter's rights negate the rights of the owners who pay the bills.
Property ownership is not a social housing program. It's not welfare for citizens to just move in at will. It's a legitimate business where owners earn their livelihoods through hard work and dedication. To enable squatters to take over properties and then erect barriers that cost the owners even more money creates patent unfairness.
These proposed bills shift the conversation away from laws that aren't based in fairness or common sense. If we allow anyone to do whatever they want and then make it difficult to correct it, it is not only unjust to owners who foot the bills, but also it encourages chaos and lawlessness. These bills demonstrate a change in people's attitudes away from blaming owners and making it hard for them to do business and putting it where it belongs, on the squatters.
Michelle Gamble is the editor of Rental Housing Magazine.