Most of the time what I want are the real squatters, those who moved in on a property with the intention to act illegally. In this regard I have discovered that prior to 1900 many people thought of property rights as something malleable and slightly inconvenient. Sort of like jaywalking, which is something everyone does but can be infuriating in others when you are driving the car that nearly runs them down. Actual occupancy and usage was the standard these people held property to. Idle property was a kind of crime against society. That perspective not only justifies squatting but makes it a moral imperative. Progress demands that the land be put to some productive use, and some squatters enthusiastically and loudly pursued this goal to extremes. Most were quieter and more modest consumers of others land but the rationalization among squatters is strikingly uniform: Empty Land is Aristocratic and squatters were the ultimate urban yeomen, democrats and levelers without exception.
The progressive rationalization of squatter sovereignty is possibly intentionally ironic since the squatters themselves were viewed by the mainstream as key obstacles to progress. And here is where things get complicated.
The ideological front loading of "squatter" with its intimations of anti-progress and illegality made it an effective smear tool in eviction battles. There is no doubt that the inhabitants of the shantytowns of Manhattan, Brooklyn, or East San Pedro and many other locations knew that they were taking use of the land away from the rightful owners. These are the intentional squatters. The tricky ones are those who got sucked in to squatting through no fault of their own. Problem is, it isn't easy to tell who is who. An example from the June 5, 1901 New York Daily Tribune:
JAMAICA BAY SQUATTERS MUST PAY RENT.
The action brought by the New-Jersey Co-operative
Land Company, of which F. W. Dunton is secretary,
to oust Edward Essix from the occupancy
of certain lands in the meadows of Jamaica Bay,
of ¦which the company claims to be the lessee, tried
before Justice Kadian in the Municipal Court, at
Jamaica, having been decided in favor of the petitioner,
a warrant of eviction was issued and executed
yesterday. The petitioner proceeded upon
the theory that Mr. Essix. who had built a house
on the land, which he occupied as a summer residence,
was a squatter, as his occupancy was without
authority.
The defense set up that the lease held by the
company, which was originally granted by the
town auditors of Jamaica when they were in
authority, prior to the consolidation, and since
then continued under the commonalty of the city
of New-York, was invalid, and that the company
had no legal control over the land.
Justice Kadian held that the validity of the lease
cannot come in as part of the case— least, not
in his court—and. further, that the lease was before
him. and he had no choice but to treat it as
a good lease. He signed an order for the removal
of Mr. Essix from the land.
Th. order was placed in the hands of Sheriff De
Bragga for service. With deputies he went to the
house in question yesterday. and found no one
there. The house is situated on Shad Creek, and
is a two story one. costing, perhaps. $1,500. The
Sheriff forced an entrance and his men carried out
all the furniture, depositing it on the beach. The
doors and windows were then sealed and a sheriff's
notice posted, warning all persons from entering
the house. The company will now demand
rent from the twenty-five other squatters, and if
it is not paid will evict them.
The action brought by the New-Jersey Co-operative
Land Company, of which F. W. Dunton is secretary,
to oust Edward Essix from the occupancy
of certain lands in the meadows of Jamaica Bay,
of ¦which the company claims to be the lessee, tried
before Justice Kadian in the Municipal Court, at
Jamaica, having been decided in favor of the petitioner,
a warrant of eviction was issued and executed
yesterday. The petitioner proceeded upon
the theory that Mr. Essix. who had built a house
on the land, which he occupied as a summer residence,
was a squatter, as his occupancy was without
authority.
The defense set up that the lease held by the
company, which was originally granted by the
town auditors of Jamaica when they were in
authority, prior to the consolidation, and since
then continued under the commonalty of the city
of New-York, was invalid, and that the company
had no legal control over the land.
Justice Kadian held that the validity of the lease
cannot come in as part of the case— least, not
in his court—and. further, that the lease was before
him. and he had no choice but to treat it as
a good lease. He signed an order for the removal
of Mr. Essix from the land.
Th. order was placed in the hands of Sheriff De
Bragga for service. With deputies he went to the
house in question yesterday. and found no one
there. The house is situated on Shad Creek, and
is a two story one. costing, perhaps. $1,500. The
Sheriff forced an entrance and his men carried out
all the furniture, depositing it on the beach. The
doors and windows were then sealed and a sheriff's
notice posted, warning all persons from entering
the house. The company will now demand
rent from the twenty-five other squatters, and if
it is not paid will evict them.
How does one read this? Are Mr Essix and others acting in good faith? The New Jersey Land Co-Operative won this case, but only on the merits of a a lease that the judge refused to question. Call me a cynic, but it might be that the leases were as invalid as claimed by the defendant and the NJ Land Co-Operative stole land from the rightful owners. Maybe the Co-Op is the squatter in this story, albeit a successful one.
Anyone know where Shad Creek was? I think it was on an island in the bay, just south of the wildlife refuge, but I can't be sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment