Ow, touche!(I don’t know the ASCII code to put an accent over the e)I deserved that.
Ya know, there’s one thing about this argument I find a bit off. It’s the “theft of property” business.
[Lawyer Hat ON]
“Adverse Possession” is a concept dating from early English common law, and adopted by every state in this country, most of whom have now codified it. Under adverse possession, anyone may take over the real property of another, if they take and hold the property openly, actually, (insert a few other conditions I forget right now), for a period of time that varies from state to state.
There are good public policy reasons for this concept. We want real estate used, not standing fallow. If the actual owner (not sure who that is from the above posts) shows no interest in the property, then we, under the law, have determined he/she has forfeit his/her rights to it.
Adverse possession doesn’t yet apply here, because the homeless family hasn’t moved in yet, and the clock hasn’t started. However, it’s not theft of property until the owner decides it is.
[/Lawyer Hat OFF]
Sua
Hey, pleddy!
Anytime, you monkey-spank.
As for your “giving to the homeless”; I don’t believe it.
You might give to, say, homeless rats; but hey, that’s yer family so it don’t count.
No post you have put on this board convinces me that you have the capacity for agape (if ya don’t know what it is, look it up). You care only for your goddam smelly beasts, and then only for the cute ones.
See this, Bosda? This is me pretending I give a shit about what you do and don’t believe about me. I have the advantage of knowing the truth, while you, on the other hand, are just some dickhead at the other end of the Internet. You are nothing. You are some dog turd masquerading behind some goofy sci-fi screen name, who isn’t proud enough of his own name to use it to own his opinions.
By the way, how many homeless people live in your house? Yeah, that’s what I thought, you holier-than-thou ass. At least when I give, I’m accomplishing something, even if it’s only helping someone eat that day.
Get back to me when you have some facts. Otherwise, shut your frigging pie-hole, and don’t you dare call me a liar unless you’re in possession of some firsthand knowledge about me.
I’ve got firsthand knowledge. You have publicly stated, in this forum, that you believe that it is better not to do medical research that will kill an animal , in order to save human life.
That is flatly & unequivocably immoral.
Second, I do & have given to homeless causes; as well as individual homeless persons. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you were one of several people on this board who argued against giving directly to the homeless.
As for my being a bodiless voice on the Internet… well, I hate to break this to you, but all of us here are… :rolleyes:
As for you, you feckless fuckhead: I wonder how anybody whose self-control blows a fuse as easily as yours does can possibly hold a job; 'cause ya must get fired every single day.
Sorry about not posting earlier. You see, I’ve got this thing called a job; & I can’t post anytime I want to.
I didn’t realize how tiring it would be bludgeoning kittens into semi-consciousness in order to run them through the sausage machine would be. 
The last thing I want to do is get stuck between a flame-fest, but I would just like to ask one question.
Bosda - Please point out to me anything in this thread that even remotely suggests that Phil is not compassionate to the plight of the homeless. I have read and re-read, and unless I am totally blind, I just can’t see it. Why the attack?
I have read Phil’s posts for a number of years now. This is not the first time the topic of the homeless has been discussed. I can say with all certainty that I would have noticed and remembered any cruel or uncaring comments he may have made against the homeless. I have never seen it.
I also think it is unfair and a little ignorant to assume that animal activists are unable to be humanitarians, and visa versa.
“It’s his [the owner’s] house. If he wants to come back and kick their asses on the street, he’s got the right. Course, given the legal system today, what would happen is that the activists would get lawyers and claim that since he “abandoned it” it’s now public property or some bullshit.”
Well, maybe that “public property…bullshit” isn’t such a bad idea. I agree with whoever said that an abandoned, bored-up house is far worse than squaters cleaning it up for a homeless family to use. How much longer would this place been left to rot if these activists didn’t do something with it?
And if the owner does indeed bother to come back and “kick their asses on the street,” fine. That’s his right, should he ever bother to exercise it, which he may or may not do. At least he’ll be showing the place some attention.
I don’t agree that neighbors should have some say in who moves in to their neighborhood (if that were true in my hometown of Parma, Ohio, the place would STILL be whiter than snow). But I do see the neighbors caring how another house looks in so far as a boared up place or one with overgrown grass is not only an eyesore, but could bring down the value of the houses near it. In short, I think the activists did a good thing with a bad situation. Maybe the neighbors will chill out once they meet the family moving in.
Patty
Sorry! I replied to one post before reading a latter one that said the squaters were kicked out. Heck, at least the place was cleaned up for a while…
Should the owner of the property ever emerge (and he hasn’t yet, as far as I know), he ought to let the otherwise-homeless family rent there, dirt cheep. My rationale…
-
An occupied house is better for a neighborhood as a whole than an abandoned, boarded up one.
-
Even if the family pay a SUPER cheap, token rent there - even a measly $5 a month - that’s still more than the owner has been getting for the past two years (i.e. zippo).
-
If this owner is a slum-lord - and by his (lack of) actions, I’d say that’s a real posibility - he could use all the good karma he can get.
Question - could the owner be dead? Has anyone found an update on his whereabouts? If he is indeed “taking a dirt nap” and no next of kin are found, I say the government should sell or rent the property to the family dirt cheap and pocket the $$$ for the back-taxes the owner wasn’t paying. Everybody’s happy.
Saving the Universe One Issue at a Time,
Marvel 
The owner is currently in Uganda. However, since he has failed to pay his taxes, the house will be sold at auction by the gov’t.
I’m not clear on this but it seems to me the activists could buy the house and then give it to the couple, assuming the auction price doesn’t go too high. The repairs the activists did probably increased the house’s value.
The washington City Paper has just written the best article yet on this brouhaha. I will try and post a link to it once they post it on their website. The general address is http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com