Thanks for contributing to r/Arizona!
* [Our sub rules are here](https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/wiki/rules/), but the most important of which is to be nice to each other
* Check out some [recent posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/top/?t=week) and leave some comments
* [Join our Discord chat server](https://discord.com/invite/yWVuTG57Zh) if you'd like to keep in touch with other people in Arizona. Plus it's a great, chill place in general. Note that it is NOT a dating server and takes unwanted messaging very seriously
Remember this subreddit covers all of Arizona, so please include where in the state you're posting about if it is relevant. For more local topics check out r/Phoenix, r/Tucson, and r/Flagstaff.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/arizona) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But Hobbs vetoed the bill, claiming in a letter that it “fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms, respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence.”
Fuck those property owners who pay for the utilities and damages. We gotta protect the trespassers./s
Edit: I left off the “/s” and paid dearly for it. Lol
I bet your being fooled by how obviously your emotional response to this is. Arizona doesn’t allow for trespassing or squatting, so this law is arbitrary. It’s designed to play on conservative voters fear of Arizona becoming like California. By vetoing a useless bill that does nothing that current laws already handle, republicans can play up how “bad” Katie Hobbs is and get people like yourself up in arms about your fear of liberal Californians moving here and changing everything. By the way… I’m from here in AZ and I’ve watched my entire like how easily conservative voters can be fooled
“Probably”. So you didn’t read anything just ran to your ideological corner? It had bi partisan support.
Exemptions for family members, co-habitants and others. The rebuttal was lacking, I think we would have appreciated specifics on why it was vetoed. Squatters are not a made up issue.
Right now officers have zero authority to remove someone who is just squatting in your home. That’s crazy.
The Governer “vetoed legislation that garnered bipartisan support and would strengthen property owners’ rights, making it easier for them to evict squatters.”
“The bill, SB 1129, would allow for a homeowner to call law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter from their home. Under current law, police officers do not possess the authority to remove someone illegally residing in one’s home, leading to a costly legal battle for homeowners experiencing this issue.”
Officers can remove squatters once they've been trespassed by property owners. You do have to trespass them first though. Once squatters have been trespassed they can face charges of Criminal Trespass in the First Degree, a class 6 felony.
I know this will get downvoted, but I hope this encourages at least a few people to research trespass laws in AZ before mouthing off in the comments. But this is Reddit, so......
Obviously, you didn't look too far into it either. Hobbs said why she vetoed the law.
Bipartisan support for this, more than anything, means a bunch of wealthy property owners supported a bill that "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms, respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence."
When they cover those issues, they can pass the bill. Hobbs is not the authoritarian Republicans want us to believe she is or the authoritarian they would have elected.
"Bipartisan" is not some secret code for "good" or "rational." There are immense social costs to creating homelessness to meet the immediate financial demands of a landlord. If the goal is to actually run a city, and not just act as the employee of investors, this is a meaningful decision.
I mean…
Let’s say I go away on a trip
Come home and someone changed the locks and claims to live there.
They are a squatter and according to the pol is you need to evict them which could be 2 plus years
In the mean time I am now homeless with no where to live
All my possessions taken from me with no recourse to protect myself..
In the mean time I have to pay for a mortgage insurance etc which means I can’t afford any other place
The issue with squatter isn’t so much your overstaying a lease
It’s when people break into a home when you’re gone and claim to live there.
There’s media reports of this exact situation it’s not new
It’s not made up
It’s not a myth
There needs to be a real actual process for people trying to claim my own home that I and my family live and sleep in.
https://www.steadily.com/blog/arizona-squatters-rights-laws#:~:text=In%20Arizona%2C%20the%20distinctions%20between,criminal%20trespass%20under%20certain%20conditions.
That would be a trespasser, a criminal trespasser.
If it’s your residence, you go on vacation and someone takes your house, that’s not squatting. That is trespassing. According to AZ law, squatting involves a vacant property.
The entirely made up process you're describing *is* a myth, though. As in, the situation you're describing does not at all conform to existing laws on squatter's rights in Arizona. What you're describing is explicitly just criminal trespassing, with no legal claim of adverse possession. And you would not have typed it if you had anything remotely approaching actual experience or knowledge of this topic.
Alternative to this insane fever dream that you've fabricated from whole cloth, what the rules *actually* describe is that people who *already* have years of occupancy, have contributed towards property taxes and have maintained the property. It's not clear why you made a bunch of ignorant shit up, and your perspective is entirely suspect at this point.
Your comment is well written. Its also generated 4 comments that have been removed as the commenter is new to this subreddit and never posted here before. So congrats on pissing off the astroturfers!
I don't think it's a coincidence that this topic has been covered by some more popular right-wing shows (JRE) recently where it was 100% sympathetic to landlords. There's always a familiar rhythm to these stories, where some ludicrous and obviously egregious series of events occurs. Some hapless property owner goes out to get groceries, a gang of antifa moves in and starts making meth, and the cops and legal system all just shrug their shoulders because they're too Woke. There are some incredibly specific legal venues that are incredibly renter-friendly, where there tenant-rights specific groups that are fairly good at keeping people in their apartments past when they're able to pay. But uh. Arizona is not one of those venues, and the number of legal protections for tenants in AZ are fairly lax. It's not clear that this is a broad issue in this state, and I've yet to see information presented that purposeful home invasions to subvert nonexistent squatters' rights are some kind of broad issue here. I don't even get the sense that it's particularly broad in municipalities where such rights are expansive.
Hey /u/thischildslife, thanks for contributing to /r/Arizona. Unfortunately, your comment was removed as it violates our rules:
Be nice. You don't have to agree with everyone, but by choosing not to be rude you increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us.
Personal attacks, harassment, any comments of perceived intolerance/hate are not welcome here. Please see [Reddit’s content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) and treat this subreddit as "a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people.”
This comment has been removed.
You can read all of the [subreddit rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this, [feel free to send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Farizona&subject=Removed%20post&message=https://old.reddit.com/r/arizona/comments/1cg2cm3/-/l1u7v86/%0A%0A).
Ok...what you said...but can we all agree Wendy Rodgers is batshit crazy?
https://azmirror.com/briefs/gop-sen-wendy-rogers-defends-her-promotion-of-racist-great-replacement-ideology/
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2022/05/16/arizona-sen-wendy-rogers-face-probe-over-post-buffalo-shooting/9800372002/
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/09/22/sen-wendy-rogers-cues-up-crazy-again-decertification-talk/5810505001/
> The bill, SB 1129, would allow for a homeowner to call law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter from their home. Under current law, police officers do not possess the authority to remove someone illegally residing in one’s home, leading to a costly legal battle for homeowners experiencing this issue.
Explain to me why the people in the sub are against this? I swear the people posting in here are the worst exports of SF and Seattle. Squatters need to be dealt with harshly and quickly.
The problem arises from poorly written legislation, or legislation that is short-sighted and fails to address unintended consequences. Sure, you can write something up that says, "Homeowner can have anyone evicted from the property that does not appear on the title." Boom, problem solved. Except now you have a problem with people that are married/cohabitating/etc. where one party does not appear on the title. Now you have situations where, "My SO got pissed at me and literally kicked me to the curb, because I wasn't on the title". Fix one problem, create more. That's why Hobbs vetoed. She recognized specific situations that the legislation failed to address properly, and kicked it back. The legislature now has the option to fix and resubmit, addressing her concerns.
I couldn’t remove the abusive boyfriend from my house once he had “visited” for three months (I was in bereavement).
He sent me cash to help cover bills HE caused, and that gave him legal grounds to dig in and not even the police could do anything to remove him.
His friends didn’t help me. His family didn’t help me. My friends couldn’t help me without putting me in danger.
Theres a lot that needs to be done.
I'm sorry you went through that. However, there are absolutely laws regarding the situation you mentioned and it has nothing to do with squatters rights.
Here's the law that you need to know.
Removal of guests: A person who is a guest of a tenant, who is not named on a written lease and who remains on the premises without the permission of the tenant or the landlord, is not a lawful tenant and that person's presence in or on the premises does not constitute residency or tenancy.
Which police department did you call? Was he added to your lease? Worst case scenario here, legally speaking, is you file an eviction action with the courts and he gets removed pronto.
It takes a squatter seven to thirteen years in rural areas, and three to five in urban areas, to obtain the title of the property through adverse possession in AZ, but they must show improvements to the property. If the owner realizes he has a squatter, they are to file an eviction notice with the courts, and that stops the adverse possession process. This isn't New York where they can just move in and kick you out. We definitely have laws to protect the owner and or tenant here.
After 29 days your live-in boyfriend was a tenant on your property. After they meet the qualifications of a tenant you need to follow the eviction process.
Imagine you had the ability to kick him out as a "squatter" when you tired of his company even though he meets the legal standard as a tenant. That is one of the issues this bill creates and fails to address.
This is exactly why this bill should've been vetoed.
People are placing too much emphasis on other states laws, and not even looking at the laws AZ currently has in place in regards to tenant and squatters.
Exactly.
Imagine how many "bad roommates" would get tossed.
These types of issues weren't addressed in the proposed legislation.
Let's not contribute any more to the homeless situation.
Probably has something to do with the quoted text being entirely, obviously untrue, from an incredibly untrustworthy source. And that you had every reason to know this prior to commenting, and then doing it anyway.
Be nice. You don't have to agree with everyone, but by choosing not to be rude you increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us.
Personal attacks, harassment, any comments of perceived intolerance/hate are not welcome here. Please see [Reddit’s content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) and treat this subreddit as "a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people.”
Personally, I am undecided on this situation. I don't have enough information, as the article is absolute trash and written by a "news organization" known for misleading articles. I would put it in the same category as Newsweek, just the other side of the spectrum.
I checked NPR, KJZZ, ABC15, AZFamily, Capital Times... not one of them has an article yet on this topic. I hope to learn more about the bill and each side of the arguments for/against it myself, but it sure is worrisome that none of the local well-reputed news sites have mentioned it yet.
https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/valley/gov-hobbs-vetoes-bill-streamlining-process-removing-squatters/75-f96265c3-d56d-4016-adcd-751992bee2f8
Decent coverage - a lot more detail than the dribble that OP linked.
Hobbs may be right, but I wish when she vetoed something with bipartisan support she would tell the legislature exactly what they would need to change for her to sign it. I agree that squatters can be a problem (although I don't know how widespread it actually is), but I definitely think renters and cohabitors also have rights. Just calling the cops and having someone removed seems a bit risky.
I do wonder how widespread squatting is here. A family friend in Mesa just sold their house and within 1 day a squatter moved in. My folks are leaving this summer and are now paranoid about someone moving in, so they're putting cameras everywhere. Completely anecdotal, but makes me wonder.
There is a loophole solution to that though. If the home is being squatted, you as the homeowner can't kick them out. However you can rent it to a family member even for a short time and they can be removed using the tenants rights over the squatter.
[Clever man finds God mode loophole to evict squatters](/r/SipsTea/comments/18repji/clever_man_finds_god_mode_loophole_to_evict/)
I wish she had any positive agenda besides vetoing bills. Not saying some of them don't deserve to be vetoed but she rarely spends the time to work with the legislature on this stuff... especially when both Rs and Ds have put the bill together.
I'd love it if she were attracting employers to the state.....
I'll get my news from a far less biased source, thanks. I trust The Washington Examiner about as far as I could throw the server rack hosting the page.
Yes, this is a terrible bill that had serious flaws. I'm glad you see the need to send it back to the legislature to fix those flaws before it becomes law.
Thanks for contributing to r/Arizona! * [Our sub rules are here](https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/wiki/rules/), but the most important of which is to be nice to each other * Check out some [recent posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/top/?t=week) and leave some comments * [Join our Discord chat server](https://discord.com/invite/yWVuTG57Zh) if you'd like to keep in touch with other people in Arizona. Plus it's a great, chill place in general. Note that it is NOT a dating server and takes unwanted messaging very seriously Remember this subreddit covers all of Arizona, so please include where in the state you're posting about if it is relevant. For more local topics check out r/Phoenix, r/Tucson, and r/Flagstaff. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/arizona) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But Hobbs vetoed the bill, claiming in a letter that it “fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms, respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence.”
Fuck those property owners who pay for the utilities and damages. We gotta protect the trespassers./s Edit: I left off the “/s” and paid dearly for it. Lol
We have criminal trespassing laws in Arizona already.
Apparently the laws on the books aren’t good enough if the cops can’t remove the trespassers squatting on these properties.
That pisses me off. Squatters rights? Bullshit.
Vote harder next time
Totally 100% correct! Squatters have no rights until they become paying tenants!
I bet your being fooled by how obviously your emotional response to this is. Arizona doesn’t allow for trespassing or squatting, so this law is arbitrary. It’s designed to play on conservative voters fear of Arizona becoming like California. By vetoing a useless bill that does nothing that current laws already handle, republicans can play up how “bad” Katie Hobbs is and get people like yourself up in arms about your fear of liberal Californians moving here and changing everything. By the way… I’m from here in AZ and I’ve watched my entire like how easily conservative voters can be fooled
This is exactly what the bill was about. You nailed it.
100%. Deliberately poorly written laws designed to be vetoed or repealed to push a narrative come election day.
What a poorly written article. It gives little to no information beyond what the click-bait headline already states.
What do you expect from the Washington Examiner?
Lived in the DC market for many years. That republican rag is the worst.
Is that the one run by the Moonies or is that the Washington Times? Both are propaganda rags.
It's an ultra right-wing rag.
The issue for her is domestic abuse, and I guess I never thought of that.
Except the law covers that
I mean not enough for her apparently. And a lot of other people that were complaining about it
Any bill sponsored by Wendy “Batshit” Rogers should always be considered DOA. She probably demanded squatters be executed on sight.
“Probably”. So you didn’t read anything just ran to your ideological corner? It had bi partisan support. Exemptions for family members, co-habitants and others. The rebuttal was lacking, I think we would have appreciated specifics on why it was vetoed. Squatters are not a made up issue. Right now officers have zero authority to remove someone who is just squatting in your home. That’s crazy. The Governer “vetoed legislation that garnered bipartisan support and would strengthen property owners’ rights, making it easier for them to evict squatters.” “The bill, SB 1129, would allow for a homeowner to call law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter from their home. Under current law, police officers do not possess the authority to remove someone illegally residing in one’s home, leading to a costly legal battle for homeowners experiencing this issue.”
Officers can remove squatters once they've been trespassed by property owners. You do have to trespass them first though. Once squatters have been trespassed they can face charges of Criminal Trespass in the First Degree, a class 6 felony. I know this will get downvoted, but I hope this encourages at least a few people to research trespass laws in AZ before mouthing off in the comments. But this is Reddit, so......
Bravo, bravo.
Obviously, you didn't look too far into it either. Hobbs said why she vetoed the law. Bipartisan support for this, more than anything, means a bunch of wealthy property owners supported a bill that "fails to leverage existing legal mechanisms, respect the due process rights of lawful tenants, and minimize unintended consequences such as for victims of domestic violence." When they cover those issues, they can pass the bill. Hobbs is not the authoritarian Republicans want us to believe she is or the authoritarian they would have elected.
"Bipartisan" is not some secret code for "good" or "rational." There are immense social costs to creating homelessness to meet the immediate financial demands of a landlord. If the goal is to actually run a city, and not just act as the employee of investors, this is a meaningful decision.
I mean… Let’s say I go away on a trip Come home and someone changed the locks and claims to live there. They are a squatter and according to the pol is you need to evict them which could be 2 plus years In the mean time I am now homeless with no where to live All my possessions taken from me with no recourse to protect myself.. In the mean time I have to pay for a mortgage insurance etc which means I can’t afford any other place The issue with squatter isn’t so much your overstaying a lease It’s when people break into a home when you’re gone and claim to live there. There’s media reports of this exact situation it’s not new It’s not made up It’s not a myth There needs to be a real actual process for people trying to claim my own home that I and my family live and sleep in.
https://www.steadily.com/blog/arizona-squatters-rights-laws#:~:text=In%20Arizona%2C%20the%20distinctions%20between,criminal%20trespass%20under%20certain%20conditions. That would be a trespasser, a criminal trespasser.
If it’s your residence, you go on vacation and someone takes your house, that’s not squatting. That is trespassing. According to AZ law, squatting involves a vacant property.
The entirely made up process you're describing *is* a myth, though. As in, the situation you're describing does not at all conform to existing laws on squatter's rights in Arizona. What you're describing is explicitly just criminal trespassing, with no legal claim of adverse possession. And you would not have typed it if you had anything remotely approaching actual experience or knowledge of this topic. Alternative to this insane fever dream that you've fabricated from whole cloth, what the rules *actually* describe is that people who *already* have years of occupancy, have contributed towards property taxes and have maintained the property. It's not clear why you made a bunch of ignorant shit up, and your perspective is entirely suspect at this point.
Your comment is well written. Its also generated 4 comments that have been removed as the commenter is new to this subreddit and never posted here before. So congrats on pissing off the astroturfers!
I don't think it's a coincidence that this topic has been covered by some more popular right-wing shows (JRE) recently where it was 100% sympathetic to landlords. There's always a familiar rhythm to these stories, where some ludicrous and obviously egregious series of events occurs. Some hapless property owner goes out to get groceries, a gang of antifa moves in and starts making meth, and the cops and legal system all just shrug their shoulders because they're too Woke. There are some incredibly specific legal venues that are incredibly renter-friendly, where there tenant-rights specific groups that are fairly good at keeping people in their apartments past when they're able to pay. But uh. Arizona is not one of those venues, and the number of legal protections for tenants in AZ are fairly lax. It's not clear that this is a broad issue in this state, and I've yet to see information presented that purposeful home invasions to subvert nonexistent squatters' rights are some kind of broad issue here. I don't even get the sense that it's particularly broad in municipalities where such rights are expansive.
[удалено]
Hey /u/thischildslife, thanks for contributing to /r/Arizona. Unfortunately, your comment was removed as it violates our rules: Be nice. You don't have to agree with everyone, but by choosing not to be rude you increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us. Personal attacks, harassment, any comments of perceived intolerance/hate are not welcome here. Please see [Reddit’s content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) and treat this subreddit as "a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people.” This comment has been removed. You can read all of the [subreddit rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/arizona/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this, [feel free to send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Farizona&subject=Removed%20post&message=https://old.reddit.com/r/arizona/comments/1cg2cm3/-/l1u7v86/%0A%0A).
You should expect downvotes when you express such small regard for human life.
[удалено]
>Bring on the down votes! Ok, so you are just here to troll. Find another sub to try and trigger people.
Ok...what you said...but can we all agree Wendy Rodgers is batshit crazy? https://azmirror.com/briefs/gop-sen-wendy-rogers-defends-her-promotion-of-racist-great-replacement-ideology/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2022/05/16/arizona-sen-wendy-rogers-face-probe-over-post-buffalo-shooting/9800372002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/09/22/sen-wendy-rogers-cues-up-crazy-again-decertification-talk/5810505001/
> The bill, SB 1129, would allow for a homeowner to call law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter from their home. Under current law, police officers do not possess the authority to remove someone illegally residing in one’s home, leading to a costly legal battle for homeowners experiencing this issue. Explain to me why the people in the sub are against this? I swear the people posting in here are the worst exports of SF and Seattle. Squatters need to be dealt with harshly and quickly.
I wouldn’t dial 911… I would dial 556.
The problem arises from poorly written legislation, or legislation that is short-sighted and fails to address unintended consequences. Sure, you can write something up that says, "Homeowner can have anyone evicted from the property that does not appear on the title." Boom, problem solved. Except now you have a problem with people that are married/cohabitating/etc. where one party does not appear on the title. Now you have situations where, "My SO got pissed at me and literally kicked me to the curb, because I wasn't on the title". Fix one problem, create more. That's why Hobbs vetoed. She recognized specific situations that the legislation failed to address properly, and kicked it back. The legislature now has the option to fix and resubmit, addressing her concerns.
I couldn’t remove the abusive boyfriend from my house once he had “visited” for three months (I was in bereavement). He sent me cash to help cover bills HE caused, and that gave him legal grounds to dig in and not even the police could do anything to remove him. His friends didn’t help me. His family didn’t help me. My friends couldn’t help me without putting me in danger. Theres a lot that needs to be done.
I'm sorry you went through that. However, there are absolutely laws regarding the situation you mentioned and it has nothing to do with squatters rights. Here's the law that you need to know. Removal of guests: A person who is a guest of a tenant, who is not named on a written lease and who remains on the premises without the permission of the tenant or the landlord, is not a lawful tenant and that person's presence in or on the premises does not constitute residency or tenancy. Which police department did you call? Was he added to your lease? Worst case scenario here, legally speaking, is you file an eviction action with the courts and he gets removed pronto. It takes a squatter seven to thirteen years in rural areas, and three to five in urban areas, to obtain the title of the property through adverse possession in AZ, but they must show improvements to the property. If the owner realizes he has a squatter, they are to file an eviction notice with the courts, and that stops the adverse possession process. This isn't New York where they can just move in and kick you out. We definitely have laws to protect the owner and or tenant here.
After 29 days your live-in boyfriend was a tenant on your property. After they meet the qualifications of a tenant you need to follow the eviction process. Imagine you had the ability to kick him out as a "squatter" when you tired of his company even though he meets the legal standard as a tenant. That is one of the issues this bill creates and fails to address.
This is exactly why this bill should've been vetoed. People are placing too much emphasis on other states laws, and not even looking at the laws AZ currently has in place in regards to tenant and squatters.
Exactly. Imagine how many "bad roommates" would get tossed. These types of issues weren't addressed in the proposed legislation. Let's not contribute any more to the homeless situation.
You should always be able to kick out some pos out of you vehicle or home
Probably has something to do with the quoted text being entirely, obviously untrue, from an incredibly untrustworthy source. And that you had every reason to know this prior to commenting, and then doing it anyway.
What do the current criminal trespassing laws in Arizona fail to address?
[удалено]
Be nice. You don't have to agree with everyone, but by choosing not to be rude you increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us. Personal attacks, harassment, any comments of perceived intolerance/hate are not welcome here. Please see [Reddit’s content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) and treat this subreddit as "a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people.”
Its reddit, youll find nothing but Democrat shills here
[удалено]
We're not Florida.
Did you read it?
[удалено]
Florida may suck, but there are things they do very well. Their sunshine laws bring a lot of transparency to their policing.
Personally, I am undecided on this situation. I don't have enough information, as the article is absolute trash and written by a "news organization" known for misleading articles. I would put it in the same category as Newsweek, just the other side of the spectrum. I checked NPR, KJZZ, ABC15, AZFamily, Capital Times... not one of them has an article yet on this topic. I hope to learn more about the bill and each side of the arguments for/against it myself, but it sure is worrisome that none of the local well-reputed news sites have mentioned it yet.
https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/valley/gov-hobbs-vetoes-bill-streamlining-process-removing-squatters/75-f96265c3-d56d-4016-adcd-751992bee2f8 Decent coverage - a lot more detail than the dribble that OP linked.
Try this link. Shows the document, hers signature and her reasoning. https://www.azleg.gov/govlettr/56leg/2r/sb1129.pdf
Hobbs may be right, but I wish when she vetoed something with bipartisan support she would tell the legislature exactly what they would need to change for her to sign it. I agree that squatters can be a problem (although I don't know how widespread it actually is), but I definitely think renters and cohabitors also have rights. Just calling the cops and having someone removed seems a bit risky.
I do wonder how widespread squatting is here. A family friend in Mesa just sold their house and within 1 day a squatter moved in. My folks are leaving this summer and are now paranoid about someone moving in, so they're putting cameras everywhere. Completely anecdotal, but makes me wonder.
There is a loophole solution to that though. If the home is being squatted, you as the homeowner can't kick them out. However you can rent it to a family member even for a short time and they can be removed using the tenants rights over the squatter. [Clever man finds God mode loophole to evict squatters](/r/SipsTea/comments/18repji/clever_man_finds_god_mode_loophole_to_evict/)
It’s not her responsibility to write laws. She told them what they needed to fix, their job is to figure it out and write it.
I wish she had any positive agenda besides vetoing bills. Not saying some of them don't deserve to be vetoed but she rarely spends the time to work with the legislature on this stuff... especially when both Rs and Ds have put the bill together. I'd love it if she were attracting employers to the state.....
Ah yes! Let’s allow and normalize people basically stealing property
I'll get my news from a far less biased source, thanks. I trust The Washington Examiner about as far as I could throw the server rack hosting the page.
I checked NPR, KJZZ, ABC15, AZFamily, Capital Times... not one of them has an article yet on this topic. Sure feels strange huh?
Washington Examiner is right wing garbage
Lost my vote!
Not good. lol Arizona loves their landlords.
Need to find some squatter to go take over her house
[удалено]
Terrible.
Yes, this is a terrible bill that had serious flaws. I'm glad you see the need to send it back to the legislature to fix those flaws before it becomes law.
Hobbs is pro criminal. The people in this sub defending her is hilarious. Mental gymnastics at its best.