Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoes bipartisan bill to combat squatting, election bills

[Vambram]

Arizona Gov Katie Hobbs vetoes bipartisan bill to combat squatting, election bills

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed SB 1129, which would have permitted a homeowner to request law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter from their property.

www.foxnews.com

Democrat Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed a bill aimed at strengthening the rights of homeowners looking to evict squatters from their property, despite the bill being passed in bipartisan fashion and as a wave of squatting cases continue to terrify homeowners across the country.

The bill, SB 1129, would have permitted a homeowner to request law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter from their property, had the squatter invaded a home and unlawfully claimed a right to live there. Police, acting on an owner’s affidavit, would have had the permission to immediately go in and have someone evicted.

 

[rambot]

Arizona Gov Katie Hobbs vetoes bipartisan bill to combat squatting, election bills

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed SB 1129, which would have permitted a homeowner to request law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter from their property.

www.foxnews.com

Democrat Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed a bill aimed at strengthening the rights of homeowners looking to evict squatters from their property, despite the bill being passed in bipartisan fashion and as a wave of squatting cases continue to terrify homeowners across the country.

The bill, SB 1129, would have permitted a homeowner to request law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter from their property, had the squatter invaded a home and unlawfully claimed a right to live there. Police, acting on an owner’s affidavit, would have had the permission to immediately go in and have someone evicted.

I always wonder why folks would choose not to provide the justification for her choice:

"Today I vetoed Senate Bill 1129," Hobbs wrote. "This bill 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."

Other democrats have expounded these issues in more detail but I couldn't find it.

And I can understand the concern. A spousal abuser should not have the right to weaponize the legal system against their victim and have them removed from their house. It seems like this should be a relatively simple thing to fix or at least find solutions to. It doesn't sound like she's averse to the IDEA behind the law.

Do you think it's good to try to minimize the impact on domestic violence victims?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Arizona Gov Katie Hobbs vetoes bipartisan bill to combat squatting, election bills

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed SB 1129, which would have permitted a homeowner to request law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter from their property.

www.foxnews.com

Democrat Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed a bill aimed at strengthening the rights of homeowners looking to evict squatters from their property, despite the bill being passed in bipartisan fashion and as a wave of squatting cases continue to terrify homeowners across the country.

The bill, SB 1129, would have permitted a homeowner to request law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter from their property, had the squatter invaded a home and unlawfully claimed a right to live there. Police, acting on an owner’s affidavit, would have had the permission to immediately go in and have someone evicted.

The way this is written up in your post it sounds like just an affidavit would be sufficient to trigger law enforcement removal without any kind of possible legal intervention by "the squatter". (The police could decline, as nothing in this write-up implies that police are *required* to act swiftly.)

 

[Vambram]

I always wonder why folks would choose not to provide the justification for her choice:


Other democrats have expounded these issues in more detail but I couldn't find it.

And I can understand the concern. A spousal abuser should not have the right to weaponize the legal system against their victim and have them removed from their house. It seems like this should be a relatively simple thing to fix or at least find solutions to. It doesn't sound like she's averse to the IDEA behind the law.

Do you think it's good to try to minimize the impact on domestic violence victims?

Hobbs' excuse for her stupid veto was correctly countered by one of the state congresswoman. Hopefully you read the rebuttal to the governor.

 

[Vambram]

The way this is written up in your post it sounds like just an affidavit would be sufficient to trigger law enforcement removal without any kind of possible legal intervention by "the squatter". (The police could decline, as nothing in this write-up implies that police are *required* to act swiftly.)

Did you read the rest of the article which also had rebuttals to the governor from Senator Wendy Rogers and Senator Justine Wadsack?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did you read the rest of the article which also had rebuttals to the governor from Senator Wendy Rogers and Senator Justine Wadsack?

It doesn't tell me anything you didn't already. I also know who Wendy Rogers is and I don't trust her judgement.

 

[Vambram]

It doesn't tell me anything you didn't already. I also know who Wendy Rogers is and I don't trust her judgement.

Actually, I know that if you read the rebuttals you would see more information than the few paragraphs I copied in my op.

I am curious to know if you trust Katie Hobbs' judgment.

 

[rambot]

Hobbs' excuse for her stupid veto was correctly countered by one of the state congresswoman. Hopefully you read the rebuttal to the governor.

I read a response in the article but is there a reason you didn't include what you felt was a particularly strong rebuttal? Like not strong enough for you to include but strong enough that I should respond to it?

Cause I read thr article and founding nothing damning...just partisan commentary

 

[Vambram]

I read a response in the article but is there a reason you didn't include what you felt was a particularly strong rebuttal? Like not strong enough for you to include but strong enough that I should respond to it?

Cause I read thr article and founding nothing damning...just partisan commentary

I believe those rebuttals by the two state Senators are very strong. I did not know that I had to copy paste them into the thread. It is too easy to read the entire article.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually, I know that if you read the rebuttals you would see more information than the few paragraphs I copied in my op.

I am curious to know if you trust Katie Hobbs' judgment.

More than Wendy Rogers or you. (I did read the article.)

 

[Vambram]

More than Wendy Rogers or you. (I did read the article.)

It's doubtful the Kate Hobbs actually read the bill in question.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's doubtful the Kate Hobbs actually read the bill in question.

I'm sure she discussed it with lawyers on her staff, unlike you or I.

 

[Vambram]

I'm sure she discussed it with lawyers on her staff, unlike you or I.

Why are you sure about that?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why are you sure about that?

You've discussed this bill with lawyers?

 

[Vambram]

You've discussed this bill with lawyers?

I was talking about the governor.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I was talking about the governor.

It's part of her duties to know what she is signing and why. (or in this case not signing)

 

[rambot]

I believe those rebuttals by the two state Senators are very strong.

Why would you think that? Neither of them really directly addressed her precise concerns. Given that the first Senator does not really address the concerns laid out by Hobbs, I don't understand what's strong about it. Also if the critique is that "this bill has nothing to do with landlord tenant law", seems like kind of a stupid critique for a simpleton like me.
Yes squatters are arguably not tenants, but hte issue could be that a landlord could claim they are tenants and, ultimately, it is a landlord and there is someone residing in their property (hence: tenant).
She doesn't say anything about family members and Rogers also doesn't address the domestic violence component.

I dunno. Just doesn't seem a strong critique.

In all the writing in the several articles I read, this is the only sentence that describes the bill:

"The squatter bill, initiated by state Sen. Wendy Rogers, aimed to simplify the eviction process by allowing police to act immediately on an owner’s affidavit to evict squatters. "

TBH, I could see a LOT of problems if this is a adroit and precise summation of the bill (though I'm sure there's more to it).

In fact, the 2nd senator was just whinging. And I'm sorry but just because you agree and you think it's a stupid move, doesn't ALSO mean that the senator had a strong rebuttal.

I did not know that I had to copy paste them into the thread. It is too easy to read the entire article.

Well no you don't. It just seems weird that you yourself wouldn't quote them....that's all. If I think something is strong, I'll just use their words instead.

 

[rambot]

Why are you sure about that?

Because she's has a professional obligation to do that in her role.
Now, why would you be unsure about it?

 

[Vambram]

It's part of her duties to know what she is signing and why. (or in this case not signing)

Yet her excuses for the veto show she's ignorant about the details of what is actually in the bill according to Arizona state senators.

 

[Pommer]

Yet her excuses for the veto show she's ignorant about the details of what is actually in the bill according to Arizona state senators.

Perhaps the Arizona state senators are wrong?