Squatters live rent free while homeowners deal with growing debt

| April 9, 2024

One man reported that he was using his pension money to pay for upkeep on a home occupied by squatters. A woman reported that if she were to shut the hot water to her squatter occupied home, she would be fined $250 per day up to $15,000. She also could face up to five years in jail. Another homeowner said that he paid gas and electric bills while not receiving rent from the squatters.

From Townhall:

Under New York City law, anyone who lives in a home or apartment for at least 30 days can claim squatter’s rights, even if they broke into the property without permission from the owner.

Squatters are taking advantage of New York City laws while homeowners go broke.

Several homeowners told CBS that they would be “arrested instantly” if they were to change the locks, evict the squatters, or turn off necessities such as hot water. They are forced to pay for the upkeep of the homes while squatters, many of whom are illegal immigrants, get to live in them for free.

One woman told the outlet that she is in debt with maxed-out credit cards after having to pay for all of the expenses as squatters take over her home.

“They turned off the hot water and then reported that they had no hot water. It’s a $250 fine per day, up to $15,000 punishable by five years in jail,” homeowner Susan Mascara said. (Via CBS News)

Townhall has more on these homeowner’s experiences, as well as a video, at this link.

Category: Government Incompetence, Illegal Immigrants, Society

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Why do they keep voting for people that keep enabling these policies?

Not all of them mind you, but there’s far too many of them that continue to vote for the same people that make it to where the criminals are protected and the victims are punished.


Democrats hate normal, law-abiding and patriotic people.

Last edited 2 months ago by Anonymous

“even if they broke into the property without permission from the owner.”

The fact any lawmaker can… well… think this is a sane and reasonable law is just proof they hate the concept of ownership or private property. It’s so far beyond a ludicrous and fucked up system it’s amazing they could even propose it with a straight face.

I wouldn’t bat an eye if the law was the other way around and squatters were shot on sight. Would happily carry on with my day. Guarantee you the crime in such a place would be nonexistent.

jeff LPH 3 63-66

In Florida, the squatters rights went out the window when the Gov. changed things around. Guy goes into his house and a squatter is their so the homeowner shoots and wounds the squatter and the Sheriff makes a comment that the homeowner should improve his shooting which went something like that when I heard the story on WFTL 850AM, Fl. Anyone else hear the same story and correct me if I told the story wrong. This happened a few weeks ago.

Veritas Omnia Vincit

You are spot on, the Sheriff actually said that the Sheriff’s office holds weekly classes to help homeowners get better with their firearms, he also said that way the homeowners aren’t wounding these people but killing them and saving the taxpayers’ the expense of housing them in prison….it was pretty awesome.


Saw the video on X. I thought it was glorious.


I remember hearing a story along similar lines. Not sure if it concerned squatters, but the sheriff did say spend some time getting familiar with your weapon and practice authentic range to improve aim.

The usual cast of characters went apoplectic.

Old tanker

This is about as close to a true communist situation as one could hope to find. The lower “worker” takes property away from the rich land owner for their own use and the state allows it. Very demokrat of them.


Where all this “woke” sh*t is going anyway.
comment image


I once sold a place thru a realtor.
The buyer started moving in before I got paid.
I showed up and padlocked off the electric service.
County Sherriff got all over me and threatened to arrest me.
Then, all of a sudden the realtor pays me.
Funny how that works…


If you voted for lawmakers that put these policies in place, then you’re getting exactly what you deserve. Squatters deserve only one thing: A very quick and violent eviction.


I have a simple, yet convoluted, philosophy when it comes to squatters and their ilk, along with the politicians that protect them. That philosophy is that there are the Haves and the Have-Nots. Haves earn what they possess and manage to make do. You don’t have to be rich; working at McDonald’s to pay rent and put food on the table make you part of the Haves community. Naturally, there are tiers, and the more you have, the more the Have-Nots want.

Now, Have-Nots could be anyone who is struggling to make ends meet. But they are not necessarily inherently bad as a group. Subcategories of Have-Nots include what I call Askers and Takers. Askers see what the Haves possess and feel it’s only right to ask for something. That’s not inherently bad, but they should know that’s there’s a limit to charity and generosity. Takers, on the other hand, simply take what’s ours. Squatters fall into this category, as does the system that protects them.

I’m not rich by any means. But I’ve got three incomes (full-time job, retirement, and disability), a house with a fair amount of equity, a driver’s license, and a clean record. In the eyes of friends and family, I’m a Have. The only civilian friend I maintain any form of contact with is an Asker. He’s not the worst type, usually wanting to work or do favors in exchange for money, but he’s become less reliable over the years. My brother is both an Asker and a Taker, more than willing to ask before exceeding any limits I’d established. We learned that when we put him in the last flipper home. Before long, he was renting out a room, asking for groceries, and then spending our money lavishly. We’d go to Food Lion and buy the $0.55/loaf Cha-Ching bread for our kids, he’d toss some $3/loaf Sunbeam in the cart and walk out with $200 in vittles, most of which ended up in the garbage.


Essentially, my brother became a squatter in a home we’d purchased in anticipation of a quick flip. He was renovating it, but after a month or so, the repairs slowed down and he became more reliant on us. After watching him evolve from an Asker to far more of a Taker, we let him know his time was limited, and for better or worse when it was time to get him out, he and a couple of his “friends” ended up jailed for a couple of months, not for squatting, but for being general POS’ with outstanding warrants and drug issues.

As a property owner, I think it’s sick that others feel entitled to take what I’ve worked hard for. Even when it comes to inheritance, we receive that which our parents or other loved ones bequeathed us for a reason. The lady in NYC who was arrested for changing the locks on the $1M property she inherited should have been protected by the law, not persecuted by it. But that’s NYC and Big City politicking for you. The Haves tend to be either uber-rich Liberals or working Conservatives. Let Hochum, Adams, AOC, or another NY state or NYC politician have their property taken and there will be hell to pay. Those of us that work towards an end probably don’t vote for their like anyway, so we can be tossed under the legal bus in favor of those Takers that are likely to vote for more free stuff.

Rant over, hopefully it made some sense. 🍻


There oughta be a law against “lawmakers” passing laws that give these takers ANY rights to take what legally belongs to others. If these “lawmakers” want to give these takers anything, let the “lawmakers” give the takers their property The only thing I’m gonna give the takers is a bad case of lead poisoning…and the option of being the main course at a feral hog banquet.


This is a perfect case of the flaw in the theory of legal rights – they are always, ultimately, subordinate to natural rights.

Your legal right to protection in accordance with the social compact means less than jack shit when you violate someone else’s natural rights and they take uncompromising issue with it.

If I find you in my home without justification when I walk through the door, I’m going to treat you exactly the same as if you gained access after I was home. There is no option to rethink and change your actions – this is real life, you get one choice, and you’ve already made the wrong one.


comment image


I believe it was on this page, sometime in the past, I learned the best, most efficient and proper way to deal with those who enter or remain in a property illegally.

“So, you came in here and no one knows? Like, you snuck or broke in? Oh, you told your buddy? Well, when he comes asking, I never saw you and no one will come looking for your body”.

I think the sheriff jeff LPH referenced (yes, I heard that story and laughed and laughed too) would give that investigation all the care, concern and effort it warranted. Too bad that is not the response of every law enforcement office nation-wide. Problem would be solved. Actually, this and a lot of other problems as well.

When the criminal does not fear the law, they must be taught to fear their potential victim.


If only more LEOs used their powers of discretion in such a manner. Cops are overworked and underpaid. “Shame that homeless meth addict went missing, I know that their buddy said they were staying in that vacant house on Elm Street, but we have priorities. The homeowner said he ‘didn’ see nuffin’, and we’ve adopted our inner-city brethren’s policy on crimes like this. Now, if you don’t mind, I have to go assist in the searching for that missing little girl before continuing my investigation into the murder of that business owner.”

Apply the principles of triage to policing and prosecution, and you’ll likely see less crime. If I’m a law-abiding property owner and a squatter with multiple felonies ends up deceased, that should take lower priority than missing children, SAs, and the assault or homicide of the truly innocent. If I’m a gang-banging thug bleeding out on the street, I should expect less effort to be placed into finding my assailant than would be placed into locating someone kidnapping young men and women.

I wrote my dissertation on my philosophy about Takers earlier (💩) but suffice to say that I was armed every time I ventured on that property, usually both openly and with a concealed backup. When my brother was arrested, his “friends” still had stuff stashed on the property. Among his “friends” are members of the Pagans MC. Part of my pre-retirement gun-buying spree was due to this, as my tried-and-true collection was substantial, but I wanted more modern guns. The Glock 17 (and a few other pistols), Ruger AR-556, and my trusty old Mossberg 590A1 were all companions as I teleworked out of that derelict house half expecting some “friends” to show up to collect stuff or enact revenge.


“Mossberg 590A1”

Put a bayonet on it.


My M9 bayonet fits perfectly. Not as intimidating as the M12 with the M1917 bayonet, but very reassuring for close combat. 😊


They do apply triage. Just not the way you and I would assume.

The homeless meth addict is a handful of problems, probably won’t be bothered to show up for court, and doesn’t care if he goes to jail anyways.

He’ll be nasty to manhandle and if the color gradient between him and the officers is just right, one heartbeat away from the arresting officers spending life in prison and national riots.

The property owner? Probably docile and compliant. Will willingly get in the patrol car, plea guilty, and get the District Attorney another win for their stats.


“Crime cannot be tolerated. Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society’s understanding.”


And for the left/libtards whose BS they exploit:
comment image

Last edited 2 months ago by Anonymous
A Proud Infidel®™

So just what happens if the Homeowners stop mortgage payments and let the place go into foreclosure, would the banks be allowed to evict the squatters?


During the Obama regime, many lenders allowed defaulted mortgages to run for years without foreclosing and proceeding with eviction suits. Those properties were frequently occupied by squatters or persons with fraudulent leases. This occurred with one house in my neighborhood for over six years.


The answer to your question is yes. The bank conducts a foreclosure sale. The buyer at the sale or the bank via a credit bid then has title to the property; then it can file an unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit. In most states, these proceedings can take four to six months.


Arson? Not suggesting at all mind you…

President Elect Toxic Deplorable Racist SAH Neande

Maybe not arson, but how about, “I’ve decided to totally renovate. Bring on the Cat scoops! Tear it ALL down!”
They can’t squat on what ain’t there.

Last edited 2 months ago by President Elect Toxic Deplorable Racist SAH Neande

The right to life, liberty, and PROPERTY – the foundation of liberalism and this Great American Experiment. Real liberalism, not modern-day American liberals.

The Second Amendment has never been about self defense, it is about safeguarding one’s inalienable rights. Were I one of these homeowners, I’d make sure my crime fits the punishment before I let them ship me off to the gulag.


Yet another reason to avoid that shit hole.


We should invade and ‘ squat ‘ in the 5 Star hotels used to house these criminal subhumans at public expense.
Make the illegals go live in shitty ass barracks instead. They may get hungry enough to solve the rat problem. The little illegals will no doubt snack on those sweet, sweet lead paint chips which have been shown to drastically reduce fertility. Win-Win in my books.


Of course, it’s completely morally wrong for the squatters to invade peoples property.
These laws were put in place because landlords who had disputes with tenants, were putting them out on the street with no notice.
Thats why the requirement that the people have been in the house for at least 30 days and the landlord is not allowed to just turn off the utilities to win the dispute.
He has to to go to court and both sides get to talk to the judge about the needed repairs, witheld rent and the judge sorts it all out.

However, the answer to squatting is obvious.
The homeowner needs to “counter squat.”
When the squatters go out, the homeowner breaks in, changes the locks, and now the squatters have to go to court to try to evict the homeowner.
It’s impossible to do because it costs thousands of dollars and they have no legal documents showing any right to be there.
The homeowner, of course needs to hire three thugs to continuously occupy the house so the squatters have no chance to counter the countersquat and break in when the homeowner is out.

I’ve already seen ads for a Counter squatting company.
it’s way cheaper than hiring a lawyer and going to court and evicting in the squatters six months from now


“Will counter-squat for MREs and ammo” –Me

I’ll cook bacon and garlic, at any hour, at all hours, until your situation is resolved.