The “Water Cooler” is a feature on Claycord.com where we ask you a question or provide a topic, and you talk about it.
The “Water Cooler” will be up Monday-Friday in the noon hour.
Several women and their children were evicted from a vacant home in Oakland this week. They’ve illegally occupied the home since November of 2019.
QUESTION: What’s your opinion on this issue?
Talk about it….
96 comments
judge made a good decision
I agree but wonder why a judge was involved. Couldn’t the property owners have simply called the sheriff and report squatting.
a legal/liability issue… Sheriff needs the court order…
This is a case of squatting.
Squatting is different from trespassing in that the person in POSSESSION of the property is not there for a temporary period of time. They are not tenants because there is no legally binding contract with the landlord, and thus an eviction action is not possible. This is not trespassing because the women had already taken physical possession of the residence, and they could not be detained without proper notice, hearing, and a court order.
In this case, it was necessary to go to the Court for an ejectment action to remove the squatters. The redevelopers merely had to prove that the women had no right to possess the property and had no ownership interest. Notwithstanding their grievances against the lack of affordable housing, the judge could not take that into account in addressing their legal right to possession.
Thanks S & Legal…I totally get it now.
To Legal Eagle: It should be trespassing because the woman had to trespass before she could take possession.
Trespassing is not a chargeable offense in cases like this one because the police consider this a civil (not a criminal) matter.
If the women took an affirmative act of possession, such as activating utilities at the residence and paying the expenses in their own name, it could be argued they have a claim for residency. Self-help remedies, such as padlocking doors or turning off all utilities in an attempt to remove the squatters, are frowned upon by the court. Such acts could leave the true owners subject to heavy fines.
To Legal Eagle (again). Thanks for all the info on squatters. It is unbelievable that the owners could actually be fined.
Real law abiding citiziens there.
Squatters don’t serve $hit…. except to be arrested.
If anyone else feels they were treated “unfairly”, then I recommend that you take them in.
Those women are nothing but common street thieves. I am sympathetic to the housing problem, I am not, however, sympathetic to theft of property. It is troubling to me that these women cannot afford the lives in front of them and continue to have children. Judge made a very good decision and I am embarrassed for Libby Schaaf not defending her Police Officer and Judges.
I absolutely agree!
Last time I checked this was America.If I want my house to sit vacant keep up my property tax you have no business moving into it without my permission.Throw them in jail.
I have not followed the story but wondered why the property owners could not have immediately had them charged and arrested with breaking and entering a residential dwelling and criminal trespass.
The word “eviction” in the Claycord article implies a landlord/tenant relationship. I doubt the property owners ever accepted payment for the use of their property. Thus there was no contract and thus no landlord/tenant relationship.
If someone feels entitled to free housing then they can state their reasoning for their entitlement beliefs. Stating claims and beliefs is allowed under the first amendment.
You’re wrong about payment of rent being a condition of landlord-tenant relationship in CA.
A guest (or a squatter) who stayed for more than 2 weeks over 6 month period can be considered a tenant under CA law. The person doesn’t have to pay rent or have a signed or even a verbal contract. All they need is to have their own key(s) to the property and move in pets or furniture or start receiving mail.
That’s why most residential leases restrict the time for which guests can stay in the property to 2-3 weeks/year. Think about it next time you have friends or family members staying with you for an extended period of time.
Its called walking on eggshells for fear of “racist’ being hurled at you,and they take full advantage of that social stigma.These people are users.
To evict means to force someone out by legal process. In CA, property owners go to court to legally evict. Trespassing is a criminal offense, and squatting is a civil matter.
You don’t need a tenant/landlord relationship to evict.
This was handled properly.
@tashaj – I used the word “payment” as it’s a condition of contract law. Technically it’s an exchange of goods, services, money, or promises for something. As there was no exchange there was no contract.
The two weeks thing you mentioned seem to only apply to guests that were there with the owner or leaseholder’s permission. In this case a judge ruled that the women had “no valid claim of possession” for the house and they were removed by Alameda county sheriffs.
What I’m puzzled about is why did it take a court order? If I discover a trespasser on my property I would hope that phoning the local police department to have them cited and removed would be enough.
WC Resident – To legally evict squatters from a property, the owner needs to serve them with an eviction notice, followed by a court order. if they fail to leave agreeably. A court order is obtained by filing an unlawful detainer lawsuit.
Once again – trespassing is CRIMINAL, and squatting is a CIVIL MATTER. They’re NOT TRESPASSING, THEY’RE SQUATTING.
Phoning the local police will not have them removed. You have to go through the eviction process the same way you’d evict a tenant for non-payment of rent. Eviction is eviction, and it doesn’t matter who you’re evicting. The process is the SAME.
Thank you Kentucky Derby.
Unfortunately, none of people who had been occupying the house showed up in court. Thus, we will never know for sure if they were squatters from a legal standpoint.
One person did show up in court, admitted that she was an advocate, and that she did not occupy the property. The court considered, and denied, this person’s request to proffer testimony through expert witnesses concerning federal and international legal authorities regarding the right to housing as they did not seem relevant to the right to possession claims by the other defendants.
The concerning aspect for property owners is that a person claiming to be a squatter can tie things up in the legal system. That will drive the cost of housing up which makes it less available for people.
Question: Where are the fathers’ that produced the children. Why are they not providing? I just don’t understand, someone explain it to me.
Pretty self-explanatory
🙂 Good one grape…somehow I think no one needs to explain it to you though.
Dead, gone, jail, down on their luck, or just running from responsibility. There are many reasons why White, Black, Yellow or Purple men fail to support their children. RACE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Anonz what is your source?(dontcha hate that?)
Anonz don’t have a stroke,nobody mentioned race except you.
The women trespassed.
They had no legal or moral right to take over a home they did not own.
It is the correct decision to remove the women from the home and their punishment should be appropriately harsh.
They were not really evicted as they were not legal tenants, i assume they never paid rent or taxes, so they were squatters, illegally occupying a privately owned house. So law enforcement was just enforcing the laws we all follow in the country that we have and removing illegal squatters who were breaking and entering a vacant house.
My opinion is to arrest them for breaking and entering and squatting, is what should of been done, and the squatters should be held liable for any damage they caused to the house.
My opinion is that they broke the law and should be prosecuted. They broke into someone else’s house and started living there without permission. Squatting is still illegal. Now they are playing the race/victim card and using their children as ammunition for sympathy to the cause. Despicable and pathetic entitlement behavior. Give in to these clowns and next thing you know it will start happening everywhere.Prosecute and make an example now or vacant houses everywhere will be loaded with miscreants. Prediction- Nothing will happen to them and somehow or someway Burris will get involved in this nonsense and these women will be coddled and worshiped and probably get a free house or money for their efforts. Sad!
I agree with the eviction, and they’re in jail where they belong – even if they’re being released. Pay for your housing, especially the women who are employed. If you can’t afford your own housing, don’t become a mom.
They cannot stay. As someone said, it’s like stealing something and you cannot keep it.
Now if they could find some vacant GOVERNMENT property, I say SQUAT AWAY!!!
Oh, good thinking. That way the costs of eviction, cleanup, and renovation can be passed to taxpayers rather than be the burden of a private property owner. Genius.
By living there, they stole from the owner of the house. They owe rent for the time they lived there.
Rent? Can you imagine how bad that place smells, and how many things are now broken, after having had these visitors?
There are laws for a reason. If we want a civilized society, whether you like it or not, there must be enforcement of laws. I think we are all becoming very aware of what a society becomes when you do not enforce laws. San Francisco is it’s new poster child.
This situation should never have gone to court in the first place. The squatters should have immediately been arrested the very second they trespassed on the property.
They thought they had rights. They were offered two months rent free. Turns out they have somewhere else to go. People have strange ideas.
Trespassing.
Send them a bill for any damages.
Squatters need to be arrested, stop playing up the “Mother” act.
No one should be allowed to do that WITHOUT PAYING RENT.
They did not own the property therefore it belongs to the owner to do with what they have planned or not planned. I have sympathy for their plight but would you really want someone to do this to your home if you were out of town for a extended period? We can’t set a president for take over of property.
Sorry to say they fought the law and the law one.
Some of the typos and spelling, (charitably described), seen in these threads are hilarious!
The law one two three!
California’s new state motto is “The Entitlement State”, soon to be on license plates.
There are NO FREE LUNCHES…
What still motivates any sane person/corporation to rent housing in this state is beyond me.
300 supporters in 15 minutes……..working people wouldn’t be able to do that.
Hopefully they didn’t FEEL disrespected.
How is it legal to live in a house without Utilities? I am guessing water and power were cut off??
The problem is not the greed of corporations. It’s the bad decisions these low IQ people continue to make. Baby daddies and mommies are not good pragmatic sensible adult decisions.
Last time I checked I have to pay to stay in my house—mortgage, prop taxes, insurance, utilities etc. And I’m a mom, btw. I get up and go to my job five days a week. Someone please tell me if I’ve been doing this wrong.
My white privilege alarm sounds every morning at 5 o’clock.
“Eviction” implies you were a legal tenant at one time – which they were not.
The level of entitlement in this country is getting to levels that are hard to comprehend, and its covering all socioeconomic levels.
I’ve listened very closely to these woman, and the words they use to justify them squatting in this house are interesting; they have a “right” to use this property because it’s vacant, they are “entitled” to have a roof over their children’s heads. Because the house was vacant these ladies seem to think it’s first come-first served and the owners should just forfeit ownership. I’m glad they kicked these people out. I’m sure one of the many people supporting this illegal activity in front of that house opened up their home to them to live since they feel so strongly about it.
I am glad they made them get out. If they would have let them stay it would have opened the flood gates for homeless living in homes illegally.
Where did they live before this happened? Did they live in Section 8 housing and get welfare checks every month? Where’s the baby Daddy?
I could have guessed what the uninformed opinions would be here. It was a protest about affordable housing in Oakland. Any of you actually watch the video or just react to the description? It was about what the Wedgewood, the house flipping company was up to and in the process making housing less affordable. You can expect more in the future as long as corporations use gangland tactics to make money.
As an aside I didn’t know that they would allow Chopper 5 to fly that low at the Santa Rita Jail (LOL!)
Sure thing, just ignore all those pesky laws that you don’t like.
“It was about what the Wedgewood, the house flipping company was up to and in the process making housing less affordable.”
Does that somehow excuse the illegal occupation of private property?
What’s funny as well as hypocritical is how folks here go on about Lennar in a similar way. 🙂
It only became a protest once they realized they would be kicked out. It did nothing to help rising housing costs and left a negative impact on lower income families housing issue’s. You can’t take what doesn’t belong to you. What are they teaching the children? People have a right to flip home’s and make money. Yes rents are outrageous but you still have to abide by the law. Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.
To Susan: Well said.
Susan, the house stood empty for two years. Please explain how you make money flipping house that is vacant and you’re paying taxes on it yet generating no income from it? The protesters knew what they were doing. They knew what the penalty would be. But they wanted to make a point that this kind of rogue behavior on the part of corporate America must stop.
That’s the beauty of freedom, comrade. If you own it, it is yours to do what you what with it within the confines of the law.
If these were five “shopping cart” homeless, OPD would have been on them like a cheap suit. Night sticks and dogs. I have no sympathy for them. They broke into the house and refused to leave. One of the women said she took the house cuz nobody done nothing for her. One of the women moved back here from Mississippi. I never heard why.
What I loved was when the women said they offered to buy the house for what the property company paid for it. Now where in the heck are they coming up with $500,000?
I think this was set up by an advocacy group for the theater value and the women were being used
They are most likely the new grab and run mentality. Using their race as a sympathy issue! we are disgusted tired of it
My question is why is the sheriff talking about charging the owners $10,000 for their services they should be going after the Mom’s for the money. Since when did we start penalizing the victim?
The women ARE victims of today’s society and where the F**K do you think they would come up with $10k if they can’t afford to rent one house? #DOH
@AnonZ: How are they “victims of today’s society”? They’re living with the results of their own poor choices. I feel sorry for the kids….. not the women.
Some of the comments in this thread reflect poorly on our community. There is some shamefully loaded language posted by some people. We should be able to debate and discuss issues better.
Corporate house flipping and speculative buying is a problem, in Oakland and even in Concord. This is a house that had just been sitting empty, because a corporation was just hording it. Empty homes can create blight and other problems in a neighborhood, so it is bad when houses just sit around. Keeping houses off the market also artificially raises the costs of houses on the market, by artificially limiting the supply.
Indeed, we should be able to debate and discuss issues better. And try and propagate unsubstantiated myths to which we have personal emotional attachment – which is what you did.
What proof do you have that the house was sitting empty because the corporation was hoarding it?
What proof do you have that the corporation was keeping it off the market with an explicit purpose of limiting supply and not to arrange for renovation?
Was this house on the Oakland’s list of blighted properties? What other proof do you have that this particular house was creating blight?
I’m guessing – none. Prove me wrong.
And if this house was indeed a blighted property, there are legal avenues to force the owner to maintain it. File a complaint with the City of Oakland (on paper, by phone or over the internet), the city will send an inspector and a courtesy letter, followed by a violation notice, an order to abate, a fine, enforced clean up and boarding up and a lien.
Squatting in the house is not a legal avenue to enforce maintenance of a blighted property – quite the contrary.
Their illegal actions didn’t suddenly become legal because YOU don’t like the victim.
“Some of the comments in this thread reflect poorly on our community.”
Sometimes the ugly truth needs to be stated clearly and in plain language.
Agree with Natalie.
tashaj: Google it, it’s a huge issue in many cities.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Oakland-s-vacant-property-tax-takes-effect-13563273.php
House flipping and purchasing on spec. is part of our free-market society, adding to our robust economy. If CA is the 5th largest economy, why are its schools rated at the bottom? There’s a saying that goes something like this, good education helps prevent poverty. Better education leads to better jobs. Homelessness is a symptom, not the problem, Newsom should focus on education, so future generations are not in the same boat. Those moms should be the face of that.
More delusion from the left. It’s an illegal occupation, plain and simple. Nothing will happen to them as the landlord doesn’t negative publicity.
The yours is mine approach doesn’t work.
I read a comment elsewhere that said just because property owned by another is unused does not mean someone else can take it for their own. Our stolen car crimes would skyrocket were that the case. If you want something – shoes; bling; a computer; a car; or a house, better yourself to be able to purchase these things; otherwise, you belong in prison.
No sympathy.
They had NO right to occupy this building.
They should be fined (funds deducted from welfare/section 8/food stamps/etc) to reimburse owners for expense to evict them.
They (also) assaulted Sheriff deputies and should be jailed and sentenced to community service.
Maybe if the government would just give away jet skies for “reparations” as was advocated on “My Name is Earl”.
😂👍🏼
Can’t get what you think you are owed? Take it! Now that’s a good message.
I sympathize with their situation. I know lack of housing IS a big issue. On the other hand, you can’t just move into a house because it’s vacant.
I also have no sympathy for these criminals. Every generation has these issues. People with morals and goals work for living and do not think they are owed everything for free and become leeches off of society.
I come from immigrants on both sides of my family and we would never do what society allows these criminals (yes, criminals) to get away with in California and the rest of the United States,
Call it what it is – society has lost it’s mind and the few of us that still are old school and believe in law and order must try to get the country back on track and stop wasting time and tax payer monies to defend useless issues.
Drag them out and put them in the Grey-Bar Motel if necessary. Last time I checked we weren’t living under Stalinism…but California is certainly heading in that direction under the Single-Party rule of Democrats.
How would any of you feel if you went to work in the morning, and came home to find that some homeless people had moved into your house?
Democrats made this housing crisis. Government fees are close to $100,000 to build 1 unit of housing in the Bay Area. Add in bureaucratic delays and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
BTW- Why not free up some of the Open Space owned by government and use it to build low-income housing?
I can guarantee if some went and squatted in one of these women’s houses they wouldn’t use the law to remove them. They would go down there and beat them to a bloody pulp and drag them out. I wonder why Libby doesn’t let people stay for free in any of her multiple homes in Oakland or better yet what would happen if they squatted in one of her houses? Would she lead by example and let them live there for free?
1) If they had their own place to live they wouldn’t be there.
2) There is no one living there now so there is no one to beat them down.
While I don’t agree with their method, there is no reason for you to resort to Foxnews Style Babble to try and make some type of point.
I thought exactly the same thing this morning when I was watching the ultra kind, caring, lovely, Ms. Liberal Shaft. She most likely has an extra bedroom and is a wonderful cook. I’m certain her family would be equally kind and giving and would adore having the “moms” etc. over for a meal.
You go there with a good sized dog,they pick up and leave,you change the locks,put up a fence,alarm.OR op there and play heavy metal music really loud all day and night and just out of principle they will leave out of embarrasment cause that music isn’t welcome there.The military used that tactic during desert storn,they blasted the enemy day and night with heavy metal
Many years ago the convenience store on Olivera near Port Chicago had a problem with young people hanging around at night, and subsequent problems with theft and graffiti. The owner installed speakers and played classical music through the night. The kids stayed away.
The moms “crisis” isn’t housing, it’s lack of family planning.
Family planning is racist.
Sho nuf Rob,putting in that 1 cent….this one was more like a centavo….
Lots of people are homeless but they don’t choose to make a spectacle of it.
The real issue is the damning statement it makes about our society when mom’s with children are down to this type of solution.
Yea ,right,and fathers aren’t mentioned or expected to be responsible?Sounds like a social issue with certain areas.This isn’t society,this is those that avoid society and responsibility.
Next time try facts,not emotional opinions.
My inspiration on this topic comes from the women that have taken over this house, and, with that in mind, here are some suggestions:
– Most mattress stores are closed over night. The most dangerous time to be “homeless” is during night time hours. Thus, the logical solution is to keep mattress stores open overnight thus allowing the “homeless” access to safe sleeping accomodations, including the store’s restrooms. A taxpayer payed employee can assist them with any needs they may have and will escort them out when the store opens for regular hours.
– Most department stores are closed over night so they provide another option to assist the “homeless”. For example, restrooms are available. Cooking appliances, kitchen items, etc. would be available at no cost to the “homeless”.
The logic here is that, since these locations (like the house) are not in use, they should be made available for those in need at no cost.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
I hope AnimalLover’s comment was meant to be sarcasm.
Christopher Columbus that house ladies! I just discovered this house! Jk.
Squatting should be illegal and you have no right to someone elses property. Get a job, save money and pay your deposit. Dont be a dirtbag
Why do some people think that they have “the god given right” to just do as they please….shoplift, steal, etc. etc. and think it’s okay??!!??
Don’t get me started. They do not have the right to steal a house! People rationalize to think they are doing the correct way to get their way. Hell no.. they do not have that right to take over any vacant house or even an empty lot. I heard their interviews and wow what attitudes of entitlement they have! They believe they have been screwed during the real estate crash and that blacks got kicked out of the market, therefore they couldn’t get loans so they deserve a house for free by stealing it! Sorry ladies, the world does not owe you a thing. We all get treated unfairly. That is life.
Comments are closed.