BajaNomad - news forwarded - not from me, Punta Arena

news forwarded - not from me, Punta Arena

Pages: 1 2

capt. mike - 8-14-2008 at 05:28 AM

I have sad news to share. XXX ZZZ were informed this afternoon (Aug. 13) that every structure on their beach at Punta Arena just south of Mulege, was burned to the ground, evidently intentionally, yesterday. A group of about 15 part time residents had build a winter-time community on beach over the last ten years, on rented plots of land. A friend of Davis' had gone over yesterday to water their plants, and had noticed that the beach seemed deserted, even the full time guard that the little community employed looked like his house had been cleared out. When the same friend went past today, every structure, every vehicle, boat, shed, everything had been burned to the ground. The structures are far enough apart that there is no possibility that it was an accident. The friend sent about 20 digital pictures showing nothing left but an occasional charred propane tank or boat trailer.

Motive at this point is not clear. The owner of the land had informed the residents that this would be their last season that their leases would be renewed, as she would be putting the land up for sale at some point soon.

I'm not sure to what extent actions like this should influence my visits to Baja. But it certainly is disturbing!

CaboRon - 8-14-2008 at 06:01 AM

OMG !!!!!!!!!

My condolances to those who lost their homes.

CaboRon

[Edited on 8-14-2008 by CaboRon]

capt. mike - 8-14-2008 at 06:04 AM

according to a safe source the renters were told some time ago that the site was sold and they needed to move off. they didn't and well i guess mexico has it's own brand of pragmatism that may not be as PC as we in America expect in polite company!!

CaboRon - 8-14-2008 at 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by capt. mike
according to a safe source the renters were told some time ago that the site was sold and they needed to move off. they didn't and well i guess mexico has it's own brand of pragmatism that may not be as PC as we in America expect in polite company!!

I guess no condolances are needed then ....

Just a big DUH ... what were you thinking :?:

Oh, I see, they weren't :wow:

CaboRon

k-rico - 8-14-2008 at 07:02 AM

Is/was that the first small community that you can walk to by following the shoreline "north" from Santispac?

google map link

capt. mike - 8-14-2008 at 08:03 AM

SI ! i theeeeeeenk so. would ju like a free breakfast and listen to a great opportunity to have your own special casita en baja?! :lol:

tsgarcia69 - 8-14-2008 at 10:51 AM

It's because of the Mexican law which gives squatters rights. Even though those people had no leases, they could make trouble for the landowner as they had possession of the land.

It is not unusual for developers to hire vigilantes to clear out land they intend to develop.

ELINVESTIG8R - 8-14-2008 at 11:21 AM

I can see it now. Tit for tat. If this was not a consensual burning of homes then any new structure being built by the people who had these old timer's homes burnt down they too will have their new structures burned down. It is going to be war.

Santiago - 8-14-2008 at 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tsgarcia69
It's because of the Mexican law which gives squatters rights. Even though those people had no leases, they could make trouble for the landowner as they had possession of the land.

It is not unusual for developers to hire vigilantes to clear out land they intend to develop.

Almost all countries have some sort of squatter-rights. If someone occupies a property they do not own with full knowledge of the owner, make improvements (I guess T1-11 ply counts), and do so for a certain length of time, then some kind of claim can be made. My understanding of the original post makes this case different: the people had a 'lease', or more likely a rental agreement, and the owner informed them that it would not be renewed when the time was up. Time is up and the folks did not move. Doesn't mexican law allow the land owner, after proper notices are given, to remove the improvements in any way they see fit? Can't they forcebly remove them? Does the land owner have an obligation to first remove personal property such as boats, vehicles, etc. or does everything, the improvements and all personal property belong to the landowner when the time is up.
I have raised these questions before to thundering silence - maybe people don't care or don't know - but this issue will become more and more important as more people make a little home of some kind in baja on leased land and over the next 10 years it turns into a nice little casa and then the landowner sells/dies/changes their mind. You would think somewhere on the World Wide Web you could find a simple explaination of the issues but I can't find it.
And please, no "don't invest more than you can walk away from". This is obvious and is what leads to unpainted T1-11 plywood with tar-paper roofs. Real nice too look at when it's your neighbor.
And before anyone posts a picture, I do have some tar paper and unpainted ply on mine but it's on the to-do list. Really. :rolleyes:

Mexicali_Kid - 8-14-2008 at 12:13 PM

Quote:

Hire someone to remove squatters? We do it ourselves!

Santiago - 8-14-2008 at 12:44 PM

Mexicali_Kid: What are squatter's rights in Mexico? What do they have to do and for how long in order to 'earn' those rights? What do you, the landowner, have to do, and when, to negate those rights? Are you required to inform anyone (squatters or authorities) that you intend to remove them. What if it's 'ok' with you that someone lives on your property for free while you are letting the land sit fallow. In the USA we have to rent the land to them for $1 per year - same for you?
Thanks

gnukid - 8-14-2008 at 12:45 PM

Sad news.

Try to put yourself in the land owners position or future buyers. The people were told they had to move this year before this next winter but perhaps it was confusing and the dates where unclear. They apparently had no ability to do so, since they are not all wealthy nor are their items all portable-where could they go? I met some of these people heading south looking for other beaches to squat with permanent palapas but there are none?

I suggested they buy land but ocean front land is now way too expensive for most people, of course nothing would be as nice as what they had so they failed to move on, were unable to, didn't believe they should or felt it would slowly work out. Its very sad but also I think its time to accept that you can not maintain beach camps forever especially if you are not there on other peoples land regardless of your lease, too many forces come and go and its an insecure position.

It's quite understandable on both sides of the circumstances and this should be seen as sign of things to come. BCS is no longer cheap, free and easy living unless you are mobile with limited stuff. Its unfortunate but it seems camper squatters have fewer and fewer places to go where they can stay for long periods, but if you are mobile and self-sufficient there are options. I am unsure but I think one can argue that beach front arroyos are fair game in the winter for periods of time. Though I know that they can ask you to move on after a few weeks and then you can return.

Whats so strange is when you fly you see endless beaches on the pacific and sea of cortez so imagining there is no place to go to make permanent camps for limited budgets seems hard to believe.

Head to the hills!

Cypress - 8-14-2008 at 01:24 PM

That's one way to jack-up the rent!

We'll burn you out if you've got any questions.

tsgarcia69 - 8-14-2008 at 02:19 PM

In Mexico, if a person occupies a property for 5 years without a legal protest from the owner, he can get legal title to the property. The legal process to evict a squatter can take years.

howat - 8-14-2008 at 02:21 PM

I believe this is the sold property in question

http://www.tierrasdebaja.com/Dev_All_Props.html

mtgoat666 - 8-14-2008 at 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid
Try to put yourself in the land owners position or future buyers.

It's quite understandable on both sides of the circumstances and this should be seen as sign of things to come.

newkid,
hardly justifies arson. civilized people follow civilized eviction procedures. uncivilized people resort to arson. who bought the place? their first act on taking possession may have been arson of the previous tenants. given the story, i would avoid dealing with either new or old owners, too much risk in dealing with people that may solve their problems through arson

Bruce R Leech - 8-14-2008 at 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tsgarcia69
In Mexico, if a person occupies a property for 5 years without a legal protest from the owner, he can get legal title to the property. The legal process to evict a squatter can take years.

where in the world did you here that :lol:

that is the biggest bunch of BS I think I have ever seen :lol:

loki - 8-14-2008 at 06:22 PM

The property at Punta Areana had been for sale and there was a canadian company that had been dealing with the owners back in 2005. I have a good friend there and this is very sad news indeed.
I guess they did not get the same courtesy as the folks at Santispac Beach got with the notice there.
Mexico is changing and this is another example of how little in the way of rights you have if there is any dispute in regards to lease property. Just burn it down and the americans will pack up and not fight it.

Bruce R Leech - 8-14-2008 at 06:26 PM

allot of it has to do with who you deal with. If you try to save some money and deal with the Devil you WILL get burned.

Packoderm - 8-14-2008 at 06:30 PM

I hope that any action taken, if any, by those burned out is some type of legal action. I would hate to see one of them arrange for the burning of whatever new gets built there.

loki - 8-14-2008 at 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm
I hope that any action taken, if any, by those burned out is some type of legal action. I would hate to see one of them arrange for the burning of whatever new gets built there.

Your kidding right?

Mulege is still the wild west and the ministerial publico office there takes the highest bid offered. Ask anyone who has lived there and done business there. There are some Mexicans in Mulege that can get away with anything and have a get out of jail card because of who they are and who they are related to.
These burned out folks have no hope of justice. Besides, only palapas burn and concrete does not.

k-rico - 8-14-2008 at 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by capt. mike
SI ! i theeeeeeenk so. would ju like a free breakfast and listen to a great opportunity to have your own special casita en baja?! :lol:

How did you know what I was thinking? Afterall, it is a really nice beach and a buyers' market. I wonder what's being planned.

BTW you need to use a spell checker. :biggrin:

I dont know what the law is

Bajajack - 8-14-2008 at 06:47 PM

in mexico but as just about everywhere else they probably do have a squatters law.

And I do know how it works in the PI, it only takes one year on unused land and you cannot get em off, so it leaves the landowners no choice.

But they have the perfect solution, the landowner hires local militia, they go to said property at 4 in the morning, roust everybody, give em 5 minutes to be gone or stay there forever, then they torch it.

Problem solved, cased closed.

Santiago - 8-14-2008 at 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce R Leech
where in the world did you here that :lol:

that is the biggest bunch of BS I think I have ever seen

Bruce: This is from http://www.answers.com/topic/squatting-2.
Mexico squatters are known as paracaidistas (that is, paratroopers, because they "drop" themselves mostly at unoccupied lands), and it is a common practice in large cities. Since the most valuable real property is located near the downtowns of the cities, the paracaidistas usually establish slums at unoccupied lands at the outskirts of the cities. Since Mexican laws establish that an individual may take legal possession of a property after 5 years of peaceful occupation, many paracaidistas establish themselves with the hope that the legitimate owner will not discover them and expel them before 5 years. Large extensions of many Mexican cities were established originally as squats (for example, Neza City, in Mexico City).

I have no idea how accurate this is but I have read the same thing in 5 or 6 web sites so far. From what I've been able to discern, it's hard to legally get rid of someone who is occupying your land but it's also hard for the squatters to get a legal right to re-occupy the land once they've been removed. Hence - it's way better for the land owner to just make life unbearable so the Castros leave (oh - sorry ESL, slipped out). :rolleyes:

I ran across a web site that told Mexican property owners to wait until the deadbeats and/or squaters leave the premises, change the locks and make sure the utilities are in the owners name. They seemed to indicate that this was on rather thin legal ice but often worked. I find it facinating what people will do when the legal system is very difficult to access. Lots of grey areas open up are soon accepted as the way to do things. I think the English system is better than the Roman system of law but most of Europe and all of South America use the roman system. 6 million coyotes can't be wrong.

David K - 8-14-2008 at 07:07 PM

"Hence - it's way better for the land owner to just make life unbearable so the Castros leave (oh - sorry ESL, slipped out)."

That's a good analogy Santiago! May he rest in peace!
:light:

Chopy and I, Cielito Lindo, Sept. 2002 (BBBB#4)

[Edited on 8-15-2008 by David K]

tsgarcia69 - 8-14-2008 at 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce R Leech

Quote:

where in the world did you here that :lol:

that is the biggest bunch of BS I think I have ever seen :lol:

This one's on the house, Bruce. The next time you make a fool of yourself, it is going to cost you.

Quote:

Congreso del Estado de B.C. Codigo Civil para el Estado de Baja California.

P�gina 217
CAPITULO II
DE LA PRESCRIPCION POSITIVA
ARTICULO 1138.- La posesi�n necesaria para prescribir debe ser;
I.- En concepto de propietario;
II.- Pac�fica;
III.- Continua;
IV.- P�blica.
ARTICULO 1139.- Los bienes inmuebles se prescriben:
I.- En cinco a�os, cuando se poseen en concepto de propietario, con buena fe,
pac�fica, continua y p�blicamente;
II.- En cinco a�os, cuando los inmuebles hayan sido objeto de una inscripci�n de
posesi�n;
III.- En diez a�os, cuando se poseen de mala fe, si la posesi�n es en concepto de
propietario, pac�fica continua y p�blica;
IV.- Se aumentar� en una tercera parte el tiempo se�alado en las Fracciones I y III, si
se demuestra, por quien tenga inter�s jur�dico en ello, que el poseedor de finca r�stica no la ha
cultivado durante la mayor parte del tiempo que la ha pose�do, o que por no haber hecho el
poseedor de finca urbana las reparaciones necesarias, esta ha permanecido deshabitada la
mayor parte del tiempo que ha estado en poder de aquel.
ARTICULO 1140.- Los bienes muebles se prescriben en tres a�os cuando son
pose�dos con buena fe, pac�fica y continuamente. Faltando la buena fe, se prescribir�n en cinco
a�os.
ARTICULO 1141.- Cuando la posesi�n se adquiere por medio de violencia, aunque
�sta cese y la posesi�n contin�e pac�ficamente, el plazo para la prescripci�n ser� de diez a�os
para los inmuebles y de cinco para los muebles, contados desde que cese la violencia.
ARTICULO 1142.- La posesi�n adquirida por medio de un delito, se tendr� en cuenta
para la prescripci�n a partir de la fecha en que haya quedando extinguida la pena o prescrita la
acci�n penal, consider�ndose la posesi�n como de mala fe.
ARTICULO 1143.- Fue reformado mediante Decreto No. 205, publicado en el
Peri�dico Oficial No. 27, de fecha 30 de junio de 2006, Tomo CXIII, expedido por la H.
XVIII Legislatura, siendo Gobernador Constitucional el C. Eugenio Elorduy Walther 2001-
2007; fue reformado por Decreto No. 338, publicado en el Peri�dico Oficial No. 23, Tomo
CXIV, de fecha 01 de Junio de 2007, expedido por la Honorable XVIII Legislatura, siendo
Congreso del Estado de B.C. Codigo Civil para el Estado de Baja California.
P�gina 218
Gobernador Constitucional el C. Eugenio Elorduy Walther, 2001-2007; para quedar como
sigue:
ARTICULO 1143.- El que hubiere pose�do bienes inmuebles por el tiempo y las
condiciones exigidas por este C�digo para adquirirlos por prescripci�n, puede promover juicio
contra el que aparezca como propietario de esos bienes en el Registro P�blico de la Propiedad
y de Comercio, a fin de que se declare que la prescripci�n se ha consumado y que ha
adquirido, por ende, la propiedad.
ARTICULO 1144.- La sentencia ejecutoria que declare procedente la acci�n de
prescripci�n, se inscribir� en el Registro P�blico y servir� de t�tulo de propiedad al poseedor.

loki - 8-14-2008 at 07:59 PM

Wow.

Bruce R Leech - 8-14-2008 at 08:04 PM

This one's on the house tsgarcia69 this dose not work when the land owner is renting you the land and paying all the taxes. if he cancels your lease you have 3 months to leave if your lease expires you have 30 days after he gives you notice. if you try to homestead you will be sorry. :bounce:

do you really think the laws you posted apply in this case or were you posting them for some other thread :lol:

[Edited on 8-15-2008 by Bruce R Leech]

Bruce R Leech - 8-14-2008 at 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by loki

Quote:

Loki is 100% corect in this post

tsgarcia69 - 8-14-2008 at 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce R Leech
This one's on the house tsgarcia69 this dose not work when the land owner is renting you the land and paying all the taxes. if he cancels your lease you have 3 months to leave if your lease expires you have 30 days after he gives you notice. if you try to homestead you will be sorry. :bounce:

do you really think the laws you posted apply in this case or were you posting them for some other thread :lol:

Well, for one thing, you just changed the criteria. In the case which is the subject of this thread, the landowner was no longer renting the land to those who possessed it, in fact, it may not even be the same land owner. For seconds, there probably was no written lease, just a handshake deal with monthly payments. And for thirds, I would like you to be a good fellow and post the source of your information, chapter and verse, just like I did for you.

Unless, of course, that is just some BS?

rpleger - 8-14-2008 at 09:48 PM

Where in hell is PI?

New at 11

CasaManzana - 8-14-2008 at 10:36 PM

Imagin Andy Rooney saying this- "DID-JA ever wonder if this story about Punta Arena is really true...." Well this will something I may be able to help with when I can get there to whitness when I am there on Saturday. I will report my observations shortly thereafter....camera in hand :?:

loki - 8-15-2008 at 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CasaManzana
Imagin Andy Rooney saying this- "DID-JA ever wonder if this story about Punta Arena is really true...." Well this will something I may be able to help with when I can get there to whitness when I am there on Saturday. I will report my observations shortly thereafter....camera in hand :?:

Jim,

Could you take a picture of Santispac as well on your way back to Pasada from Punta Arena.
I have not seen it for some time and I am curious about the changes there.
Thanks

capt. mike - 8-15-2008 at 06:56 AM

Richard - PI i think is the phillippine islands?

one of the former owners has some interesting factoids re all this over on the BBP board today.

CaboRon - 8-15-2008 at 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by capt. mike
Richard - PI i think is the phillippine islands?

one of the former owners has some interesting factoids re all this over on the BBP board today.

It would be helpful if you could cut and paste the BBP post.

They want fourty nine dollars to access that forum.

No can do.

CaboRon

Bruce R Leech - 8-15-2008 at 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tsgarcia69

Quote:

do you really think the laws you posted apply in this case or were you posting them for some other thread :lol:

so your interruption of the law is anyone renting a house for five years and stays on good terms with there land lord gets to keep the house :lol:

rpleger - 8-15-2008 at 09:36 AM

Some may be jumping the gun a little on thinking that this is a landlord/tenet dispute...
This could be some vandals out having a good ole time...
This could be...if some of the beach dwellers had insurance...what some call ***ish lighting, to recover some of their future loses...
Or it could be, as some have stated a landlord/ tenet dispute because of the pending sale of the property.

I went out and took some fotos and have a look around,,,there did not look as if anything had been taken or disturbed since the fire...

sorry - the dues support our lobby efforts

capt. mike - 8-15-2008 at 09:55 AM

in Mexico city which costs big $$$$ so no free lurking without joining up. the site publishes all kinds of useful current info to pilots and travelers that might not be available elsewhere. too many were getting data but never contributing $$s by joining or buying guides so Jefe closed it to non members this year with the full support of the members. there are several who watch this space that are members of BBP and some are not pilots.

$49 a year is one starbucks a month. or a margarita if you so choose. :lol:

the trip reports found there are unique and describe incredible adventures to all parts of mexico and centro amerika. :coolup:

Quote:

Originally posted by CaboRon

Quote:

Originally posted by capt. mike
Richard - PI i think is the phillippine islands?

one of the former owners has some interesting factoids re all this over on the BBP board today.

It would be helpful if you could cut and paste the BBP post.

They want fourty nine dollars to access that forum.

No can do.

CaboRon

Cypress - 8-15-2008 at 10:54 AM

Every structure, vehicle, and boat burned? Were all the "structures" palapa sun shades? Didn't they burn all the palaps at Santispac a while back? :?:

woody with a view - 8-15-2008 at 11:04 AM

where are the fotos?

Bruce R Leech - 8-15-2008 at 11:30 AM

I wonder why we haven't heard anything From Bob and Susan? they live right in sight of this Beach. I hope they are OK. My guess is Bob will know more about this but it could be that he shold sty silent.

Cypress - 8-15-2008 at 11:37 AM

Bruce R. Leech, You're dead on. Hope they're not having to stock up on fire extinguishers.

Bruce R Leech - 8-15-2008 at 11:42 AM

Bobs property is titled and separate from plia Ariana but still they are close.

Bob if you are out their let us know you are OK

gnukid - 8-15-2008 at 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce R Leech

Quote:

Originally posted by tsgarcia69

Quote:

do you really think the laws you posted apply in this case or were you posting them for some other thread :lol:

so your interruption of the law is anyone renting a house for five years and stays on good terms with there land lord gets to keep the house :lol:

Bruce,

It is well known that the laws vary but allow for mexican people to squat and over time maintain rights. This is apparent as very powerful mexican people can not get people off of the land that was previously theirs. For example, in La Paz the owner's of CCC have tons of property they can not reclaim because squatters can prove they have been there for some period, either 5 years or more. They do not have utilities nor pay rent or taxes and their is no way to legally remove them. They have even been offered complete homes with doors and windows in trade in regions away from the ones they are squatting on. They refuse since they prefer to be near the water in el centro where they can live off fish and handouts.

This presents serious problems since they will never improve their property, nor pay for utilities or pay taxes yet they remain. There are even people who squatted in the street blocking the road but they can not be removed by even the most powerful people.

Those are the facts which have historical origins, not unlike the USA where a person can pay property for 5 years and claim any property they access. For example a person may use an easement over your land and in short-time you will lose it. This is the law and has a powerful history in Mexico and California for good reason I am sure.

In fact where I live many people have followed the history you describe, they rented shacks when people left, those people haven't returned and now 5 and ten years later the renters have title to their property simply by possession and payment of utilities and taxes. This is why people must maintain their historical utility receipts in mexico they are very important and powerful.

Consider that you might be unaware of Mexico's historical land rights which by the way are written about often in reference to conflicts, such as the one we are discussing now.

Taxes??? You're kidding, right?

Dave - 8-15-2008 at 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce R Leech
this dose not work when the land owner is renting you the land and paying all the taxes.

I'd be willing to bet there were NO valid leases...ever. None legally drawn, or recorded, or taxes paid on rental income, or legal receipts (facturas) given. Legally, these renters weren't renters...but squatters.

In any case it really doesn't matter...

'Cause they're gringos.

baja Steve - 8-15-2008 at 11:56 AM

I was just looking at photos from the fire and nothing is left. if anyone wants me to forward in email photos u2u me with email address

Bruce R Leech - 8-15-2008 at 11:58 AM

the point is these folks were not squatters so none of this applies.

Bruce R Leech - 8-15-2008 at 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
Bruce R. Leech, You're dead on. Hope they're not having to stock up on fire extinguishers.

It is kind of strange that Bob has never said anything about this situation. also Edith just came back up from Mulege yesterday and she heard nothing about the fire. :?:

Cypress - 8-15-2008 at 12:29 PM

Bruce R Leech, Strange? Yep!

CaboRon - 8-15-2008 at 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by baja Steve
I was just looking at photos from the fire and nothing is left. if anyone wants me to forward in email photos u2u me with email address

Why don't you just post them ?????????

woody with a view - 8-15-2008 at 12:41 PM

just rec'd the fotos from steve. assuming (dangerous) that he can't post fotos i have a few of them.....what a bummer.... :no:

woody with a view - 8-15-2008 at 12:42 PM

.

[Edited on 8-15-2008 by woody in ob]

IMG_0136.JPG - 39kB

woody with a view - 8-15-2008 at 12:45 PM

.

IMG_0137.JPG - 46kB

Bob and Susan - 8-15-2008 at 12:47 PM

we're fine...
just not talking...

pretty big show...
lots of explosions...
lots of flames
we were up from 12-3am watching

we wached from the lighthouse...
punta arena is 2 miles away as the crow flies

had a few ashes in the pool...

woody with a view - 8-15-2008 at 12:47 PM

.

IMG_0134 (Small) (Small).JPG - 46kB

woody with a view - 8-15-2008 at 12:48 PM

.

IMG_0141.JPG - 41kB

woody with a view - 8-15-2008 at 12:49 PM

.

IMG_0145.JPG - 29kB

Cypress - 8-15-2008 at 12:54 PM

woody in ob, Thanks for the picture.

A picture is worth a bunch of words, maybe a thousand or two.

No appliances, boats, vehicles, no anything, only ashes.

Looks like somebody's beach camp burned down. :no:

Cypress - 8-15-2008 at 01:00 PM

woody in ob, My apologies.

The latest photos paint a sinister picture.

Cypress - 8-15-2008 at 01:06 PM

Bob and Susan, Good luck with all your trials and tribulations.

Ya'll have a beautiful place down there.

woody with a view - 8-15-2008 at 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
woody in ob, My apologies.

The latest photos paint a sinister picture.

no need to apologize to me....glad i don't know anyone who maybe doesn't even know there stuff is GONE...it really sucks that folks can't work together.

It's a real shame to see something

Bajajack - 8-15-2008 at 01:17 PM

like this happen for sure and also a wake up call. Baja and it's people have changed.

Things like this show the real mexican attitude regarding Americans.

When they need us we're loved, when they don't or something better comes along it's Adios Gringo.
:rolleyes:

Bob and Susan - 8-15-2008 at 01:19 PM

this is NOT true...

the owner notifed the RENTERS in NOVEMBER 2007

the renters chose not to move out...

k-rico - 8-15-2008 at 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob and Susan
this is NOT true...

the owner notifed the RENTERS in NOVEMBER 2007

the renters chose not to move out...

Thank you Bob and Susan. I was wondering why the extreme action. So the owner took action 9 months after he notified the renters.

Before everybody jumps all over "the Mexicans" could somebody tell us whether or not the new owners are Mexican?

Cypress - 8-15-2008 at 01:28 PM

Bob and Susan, Thanks for the story behind the misc. BS. :yes:

So I guess one could assume

Bajajack - 8-15-2008 at 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob and Susan
this is NOT true...

the owner notifed the RENTERS in NOVEMBER 2007

the renters chose not to move out...

rather than to pursue legal means to evict them it's just easier to burn em out!

ELINVESTIG8R - 8-15-2008 at 01:47 PM

This reminds me of the 1974 attack on the Mormon colony south west of Colonia Vicente Guerrero located next to the salt flat. Two truck loads of Ervil LeBaron�s cult members firebombed every building, killed two people and seriously injured dozens. Was this one of those religious groups or is it just a landlord tenant dispute?

This is where the PGR needs to come in and conduct an investigation.

[Edited on 8-15-2008 by ELINVESTI8]

Cypress - 8-15-2008 at 01:47 PM

Bajajack, :light:

Good point ! :bounce:

tripledigitken - 8-15-2008 at 01:50 PM

Has anyone had contact with any of the renters?

Is it fair to assume that no one was injured?

Being summer I would imagine not a high percentage of the renters would even be there. But no one there seems strange. :?:

Ken

Sharksbaja - 8-15-2008 at 02:13 PM

Thanks Bob. The drone gets unbearable sometimes.

I highly doubt "nationals" would leave themselves that vunerable nor would they have ignored the warning or heads-up.

Most of what was lost was probably just disposable U.S. stuff or junk. Why else then would they leave it so unprotected and at risk.
A very hard lesson indeed.

Sharksbaja - 8-15-2008 at 02:16 PM

Oh, and how in the world would an American or whoever become a bonafide "squatter" in the first place? Would you not have to be a citizen and/or ??

gnukid - 8-15-2008 at 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajajack

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob and Susan
this is NOT true...

the owner notifed the RENTERS in NOVEMBER 2007

the renters chose not to move out...

rather than to pursue legal means to evict them it's just easier to burn em out!

If YOU own land and previous renters left their property behind and are not available to remove the property there is nothing illegal about burning down the remaining items on YOUR property. This happens in the USA or anywhere all the time. In most cases where month to month tenancy is the rule 30 days notice is all that is required and only by posting a note on the door of the premises.

This is hardly a racist issue, nor abuse as far as we can see from the info we have of which seems accurate by all verifiable accounts.

It is a little bit presumptuous to assume there is something wrong here without evidence. The fires appears to be consistent and valid attempt to clear the property for valid use. I am so sorry to come to this conclusion for the people who lost their property but I am more offended by posts which assume something illegal occurred where no evidence exists.

As an analogy, what would happen if you didn't pay your Public Storage bill or failed to move when requested to do so? You would be out of luck and possibly guilty of failure to pay the final clean up costs which could be pursued in court as a unpaid bill forever to mark your credit history.

I believe you will see this often as long as people leave their stuff behind.

[Edited on 8-15-2008 by gnukid]

Cypress - 8-15-2008 at 02:34 PM

Sharksbaja, :spingrin:

Very thankful that I didn't buy/lease/squat anything down in Baja. It's hard to tell the difference between the three.

Let me see?

If the hiers/owners/neighbors decide it's time for you to go? Is it bye-bye time? :tumble:

You've got papers on your property. :lol:

tsgarcia69 - 8-15-2008 at 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharksbaja
Thanks Bob. The drone gets unbearable sometimes.

I highly doubt "nationals" would leave themselves that vunerable nor would they have ignored the warning or heads-up.

Most of what was lost was probably just disposable U.S. stuff or junk. Why else then would they leave it so unprotected and at risk.
A very hard lesson indeed.

So, it only took you a few hours to rationalize that it is OK to destroy other peoples' property? What would happen to the landowner if the property was in the US?

Do you want to propose any possible US scenarios?

Gnukid

Bajajack - 8-15-2008 at 02:51 PM

I find it hard to believe the people there would just up and leave their personal belongings behind, that assumption just don't float.

tripledigitken - 8-15-2008 at 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajajack
I find it hard to believe the people there would just up and leave their personal belongings behind, that assumption just don't float.

It does "float" from the standpoint that many Gringos live part time in the Mulege area and now is not high season. Many pack up and leave in April and May not to return until October. 2nd car, boats and toys are often left behind.

From the looks of the photos a lot of the dwellings were old trailers that aren't worth the effort to move either. Many 2nd cars in Baja are beaters with no current US registration also. I bet many are just now finding this out and are stateside.

Ken

Bruce R Leech - 8-15-2008 at 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajajack

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob and Susan
this is NOT true...

the owner notifed the RENTERS in NOVEMBER 2007

the renters chose not to move out...

rather than to pursue legal means to evict them it's just easier to burn em out!

once again you are correct. this is the same thing that happened on Sataspac except they used a bull Dozer instead of the torch. it seems the Gringos were given 6 months to clear out and he gave the 3 more witch is legal and fair.

Cypress - 8-15-2008 at 03:30 PM

tripledigitken, I see. If you're only able to live in Baja for a couple months out of the year and drive old beaters, it's OK for someone to burn you out? Jeez, Lucky me! Had to drive my ole beater back to the states and didn't leave anything behind to be burned, took my memories with me.

vandenberg - 8-15-2008 at 03:37 PM

Quote:

Aha, the old Bruce is back. :biggrin:

roundtuit - 8-15-2008 at 03:44 PM

Bulldozer Never even seen a backhoe. Just a bunch of locals salvaging what the Gringos didn't take with them. In fact some of the materials the locals bought with cash from the gringos :?:

tripledigitken - 8-15-2008 at 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
tripledigitken, I see. If you're only able to live in Baja for a couple months out of the year and drive old beaters, it's OK for someone to burn you out? Jeez, Lucky me! Had to drive my ole beater back to the states and didn't leave anything behind to be burned, took my memories with me.

Cypress,

How did you get that from my post?

one more time.

I was explaining why no one might not be there, and why there would be cars around and no people. (Bajajack found it hard to believe.)

Do you get my point? How could you possibly think that I thought it was ok for them to be burned out because they had beater cars? JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE

Ken

ELINVESTIG8R - 8-15-2008 at 04:08 PM

I should have expanded

Bajajack - 8-15-2008 at 04:11 PM

on that a little further. What I meant to say was I cant believe they would have left everything as if they were coming back if they had any idea something like this could possibly happen.

gnukid - 8-15-2008 at 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajajack
I find it hard to believe the people there would just up and leave their personal belongings behind, that assumption just don't float.

I do not know about anyone of them, I do not think that's relevant, for example, we do not need know why people did leave their Public Storage and fail to reply to the certified letter? We do not need to know what their reasons are? The point here has been made and I think quite well, if you have place on the beach that you are not the primary owner of, it will be subject to changing values and pressures. If you are asked to move you will be required to do so and it will be quite difficult because structure can not be moved easily, old mobile homes are not mobile, old cars and trailers do not fair well on the beach for long distance travel.

I am making the argument that there are two sides to the story, the owners side is quite reasonable, the renters side has little firm ground.

This comes as an aside from speaking to people who claim to have been from there and told me their plight, the difficulty in moving and the lack of places to go resulting in the acceptance that times are a changing.

Lets draw a bigger picture, if anyone visits Baja and finds a cool place to establish a camp and pays the "owner" to rent space while they develop the location, the perceived value will increase and change. Overtime the perception will be this is a higher value location worth development and the initial "renters" will be asked to leave. Its a pattern that repeats over and over in Baja. If they fail to move they will be subject to confrontation and eventually they will lose.

On the other hand, people who visit and go to extensive lengths to purchase property owner to owner they will have a far greater likelihood they can maintain their improvements and rights to the space.

I hope that we can drop the devious declarations and criminal suggestions where they are not warranted.

Perhaps this thread defines the division between the rights, privileges and circumstances of temp renters and permanent owners. We always say, never make a semi-permanent beach camp with items you can not afford to lose. It seems these "renters" felt the same way.

Bruce R Leech - 8-15-2008 at 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajajack
on that a little further. What I meant to say was I cant believe they would have left everything as if they were coming back if they had any idea something like this could possibly happen.

the thing they hired a Mexican Lawyer. :?:

and anyone that has been around the block in Mexico knows that the Lawyer always says don't worry I will take care of everything :lol:

so they thought the were safe when really they were not. so these poor folks not only lost there beach camps but they got riped off by there Lawyer for big bucks.

stanburn - 8-15-2008 at 04:40 PM

Okay a question for the collective "braintrust".

If many are saying 9 months is not sufficient time to clear out your stuff, then what is? I am not justifying the burning, just trying to pin down the gum flapping, or finger tapping.

comitan - 8-15-2008 at 04:45 PM

Just a side note a lot of those people had been there 20 or more years, I think they got there moneys worth since none of the improvements amount to very much for the use they got out of them.

Cypress - 8-15-2008 at 04:47 PM

tripledigitken, :yes:

Sometimes I shoot from the lip. I apoligize for taking your statement the wrong way. :spingrin:

But it did draw some replies. :yes:

Now I am confused!

tripledigitken - 8-15-2008 at 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
tripledigitken, :yes:

Sometimes I shoot from the lip. I apoligize for taking your statement the wrong way.......

Accepted. No problem.

Ken

Santiago - 8-15-2008 at 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by comitan
Just a side note a lot of those people had been there 20 or more years, I think they got there moneys worth since none of the improvements amount to very much for the use they got out of them.

This is more than a side note - it really strikes at the root of the issue. You rent a spot on some beach in Baja that 15-20 years ago was hard to get to and cheap. Now, 20,000,000 Boomers are saying to themselves, "I need to get me a spot someplace where it's warm and the fishing is good. Oh wait, I know, Mexico!" The road gets better, utilties get better, air ambulance insurance is not too bad, solar energy is getting better and soon even the wife thinks it's a good idea just as long as you fix the bathroom and the kitchen. This becomes an obvious development target because now there's a bunch of folks who are willing to buy a lot for $50K to $100K - not rent. The low-hanging fruit has/is being picked and the rest is not far behind.
Anyone who rents a place on or near the beach that you can drive a sedan to is in the very same situation. Maybe not today but just look ahead 5 or 10 years, the economy is humming again, homes are worth more that anyone could ever imagine and the boomers are even older.
Of course, you can always go about 20 miles east of Viz and be pretty sure of renting a place, worry-free, for the next 20 years. I think.

Bruce R Leech - 8-15-2008 at 05:26 PM

renting in Mexico anywhere is only a month to month thing at best. never invest in upgrading someone else's land.

Why would you hire a lawyer?...Unless

Dave - 8-15-2008 at 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce R Leech
the thing they hired a Mexican Lawyer. :?:

and anyone that has been around the block in Mexico knows that the Lawyer always says don't worry I will take care of everything :lol:

so they thought the were safe when really they were not. so these poor folks not only lost there beach camps but they got riped off by there Lawyer for big bucks.

If the leases had expired then why an attorney? No more lease-no more nada.

Some obviously thought they had a lease. Wonder why? :lol:

Most leases aren't worth caca.

It's by design.

Bruce R Leech - 8-15-2008 at 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce R Leech
the thing they hired a Mexican Lawyer. :?:

and anyone that has been around the block in Mexico knows that the Lawyer always says don't worry I will take care of everything :lol:

so they thought the were safe when really they were not. so these poor folks not only lost there beach camps but they got riped off by there Lawyer for big bucks.

If the leases had expired then why an attorney? No more lease-no more nada.

Some obviously thought they had a lease. Wonder why? :lol:

Most leases aren't worth caca.

It's by design.

because that is what most people from the USA do when things go wrong in there lives is look for someone to sue. nothing is ever there fault. :lol:

rakers - 8-15-2008 at 06:15 PM

Whoa people!
luv the way some assume the facts.
We are former http://forums.bajanomad.com/images/smilies/no.gif
:no:

residents of the arsonned beach -- the only ones there when the TWO WK evict notice arrived and were able to recup our investment, baja "treasures", and memories. Most of the others who work in the summer to be able to spend winters in their PA homes were not so lucky. but they had been in contact with owner and had WRITTEN and verbal assurances that security would be there until October when they could return.
Re: our "squatter" status: we had a written agreement with the owner as "lessees" and paid her rent for the land usually 6 months in advance. Those whose places were burned had paid their rent thru November. The notice we received in Nov 07 was that she "was likely" to sell the property but would give us "a fair term to evacuate". Don't think 2 weeks was fair -- that was the first notification. But after communications, she extended it to 6 weeks, then after attorneys were involved, she agreed to extend and provide security til Oct 15, 08/

mtgoat666 - 8-15-2008 at 06:23 PM

[Only a marooon does demolition via fire. Burning refuse and houses leaves a concentrated residue of metals and PAHs, and that soil is not something anyone should want in their yard. The future buyers of this property should insist on soil removal and testing to verify acceptable soil conditions before buying -- at least that's what we would do in the US, if buying a lot after a house fire. Future gringo buyers beware.

In the US, eviction is civilized -- landlords place the belongings on the street for residents to claim. There are laws against destroying peoples belongings during eviction. Of course, expecting civilized behaviour seems to be silly with the property owner in question.

woody with a view - 8-15-2008 at 06:23 PM

Quote:

winner. WINNER. not knowing anything, but this seems to be the most logical factoid of the day.....

woody with a view - 8-15-2008 at 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666
[Only a marooon does demolition via fire. Burning refuse and houses leaves a concentrated residue of metals and PAHs, and that soil is not something anyone should want in their yard. The future buyers of this property should insist on soil removal and testing to verify acceptable soil conditions before buying -- at least that's what we would do in the US, if buying a lot after a house fire. Future gringo buyers beware.

In the US, eviction is civilized -- landlords place the belongings on the street for residents to claim. There are laws against destroying peoples belongings during eviction. Of course, expecting civilized behaviour seems to be silly with the property owner in question.

i'll refrain from the niceties, goatee. that ain't the good 'ol US.

somebody stop me.....please!

Pescador - 8-15-2008 at 06:33 PM

Go for it Woody, Like I thought this property was on Conception Bay, and the last I checked that was south of the border (so to speak).

CaboRon - 8-15-2008 at 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce R Leech

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce R Leech
the thing they hired a Mexican Lawyer. :?:

and anyone that has been around the block in Mexico knows that the Lawyer always says don't worry I will take care of everything :lol:

so they thought the were safe when really they were not. so these poor folks not only lost there beach camps but they got riped off by there Lawyer for big bucks.

If the leases had expired then why an attorney? No more lease-no more nada.

Some obviously thought they had a lease. Wonder why? :lol:

Most leases aren't worth caca.

It's by design.

because that is what most people from the USA do when things go wrong in there lives is look for someone to sue. nothing is ever there fault. :lol:

OMG Bruce,

Are you a closet Canadian ??

CaboRon

k-rico - 8-15-2008 at 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rakers
Whoa people!
luv the way some assume the facts.
We are former http://forums.bajanomad.com/images/smilies/no.gif
:no:

rakers, thanks for the post. Has the property changed hands? If so, who are the new owners and was it the new or old owners who torched your houses?

Pages: 1 2