Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"Please break down the numbers for us. You are asserting a known fact, right?". I could ask the same of you David. In the end, it doesn't matter. A thief is a thief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Derrick102 said:

"Please break down the numbers for us. You are asserting a known fact, right?". I could ask the same of you David. In the end, it doesn't matter. A thief is a thief.

Yes, except that I'm not the one who made the otherwise unsubstantiated statement of "fact". That was you. I merely asked you how you know what you say you know and what the source of your information is. It's not likely that you've personally interviewed every squatter in Costa Rica, so there must be some other source of this certain knowledge of yours. I'm simply asking what that source is. And whether this is firsthand knowledge of yours or something definitive you've read, I asked you to break down the squatters by type -- "paid types" and other types.

Do you actually know of a single instance of a "paid type" squatter? If yes, how about some details? Who's paying him or them? How much? Why and for how long? 

And in the end, it does matter. Clearly, squatters are using vacant land that does not belong to them for their own benefits, but that doesn't make them thieves. If it did, they'd be thieves instead of squatters, but they're not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2020 at 10:05 AM, Derrick102 said:

David are you looking for fairness? Look at the fact that a large portion of the "squatters" here are the paid type...

It isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, Derrick. You asserted a "fact" (see above) that a large portion of squatters are the "paid type". I'm just asking how you know that fact. If it's true, how do you know? Or is this purely conjecture on your part? 

Edited by David C. Murray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you’re not the land’s owner, your best recourse is most likely regarding the trees.  MINAE takes a very dim view on removal of any trees whether on your own land or otherwise.  Even if you can’t immediately prove the trees were actually on your land file a denuncia ASAP saying they were on your land and start the administrative process.  MINAE has more and broader powers than the municipality and usually moves quickly.  This is a good example why I have my property lines staked.  Also a good example of one of the few advantages of concession property - no squatting allowed!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you post something here as fact, I don't think being asked how you came by that information is unreasonable. If you are asked for that and refuse to provide it, the people reading those "facts" are much more likely to dismiss them. 

I have always been concerned about the spreading of misinformation, but am even more concerned about that due to the events of the past few years. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derrick/  I David,

about the comment about 'paid squatters' ?  I was confused by that too,

but....lol, we here have a guy who cleans up all the gringo's yards and he has used theisquatters lot for a few years for planting. We think that he is in bed with the squatter, maybe even paying him to build something on it, so that the gardener would get the property.

paranoid, I know, but our situation is very fishy.

as suggested abovce

we already have an inspection team from the muni coming to check the property.

a Denuncia  has been filed.

apparently, the owner of the property was murdered in 2017 in San Jose.

He has 3 kids, the oldest is 8 or 10 yrs.

we are looking for his lawyer who handled the estate or whatever.

today the squatter planed some trees that in a couple years could block my view from the deck, which is why I got the place.

this is scary for me.

If I lost my vista, I would sell.

 

Oh, Derrick, thanks for the link on paid squatters

I saw that after I wrote this post

 

 

Edited by doppelt
add on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sweikert925 said:

If you post something here as fact, I don't think being asked how you came by that information is unreasonable. If you are asked for that and refuse to provide it, the people reading those "facts" are much more likely to dismiss them. 

I have always been concerned about the spreading of misinformation, but am even more concerned about that due to the events of the past few years. 

You're one hundred percent right, Steve. The problem with asserting unsubstantiated "facts" is that someone else, someone who may not yet have joined this Forum but will later, may take that unsubstantiable assertion as a true fact. If they then act on that fact, which isn't really a fact at all, they may be led to a less than optimal outcome. 

Imagine that someone reading this Forum wished to have a jaguar kitten to raise as a housepet. Somebody else  (somebody who is talking through his hat) might write that it's safe and legal. If  no one takes that second person to task, then the inquiring party just might get his or her hands on a jaguar kitten and get into a world of trouble as well as jeopardizing the animal's welfare. That's why it's always a best practice to know what you're talking about and, when pressed, to be able to support your assertions of "fact".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Derrick102 said:

If that was posted to back your statement that "a large portion of the squatters here are the paid type", I'm not sure that fills the bill. Assuming this second hand account is true, one is not the same as "a large number". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, sweikert925 said:

If that was posted to back your statement that "a large portion of the squatters here are the paid type", I'm not sure that fills the bill. Assuming this second hand account is true, one is not the same as "a large number". 

Exactly right again, Steve. One account of someone paying squatters to occupy a property hardly qualifies as  proof of widespread abuses. Note, too, that nowhere in the article does the author assert that squatting, paid or not, is common. He refers only to one or two instances.

We have still to learn of the source of Derrick's assertion and so must take it for a figment of his colorful imagination (and maybe bias).

25 minutes ago, Derrick102 said:

David, Get over yourself...

Derrick, that's all you've got?  " . . Get over yourself . . . "? Still nothing to back up your assertion of "fact"?

We can only conclude that you were, in fact, fabricating this "fact" out of your colorful imagination and will regard it as such. Consider the implications for your future contributions here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.