|
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
natesidwesturbex This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: St, Louis Mo Gender: Male Total Likes: 9 likes
| | | | Urbex is legal in Kansas city!? < on 9/18/2017 1:15 AM > | Reply with Quote
| | | SB 742 - This act allows a person who is not the owner of real property in Kansas City or who is a creditor holding a lien interest on the property, and who suspects that the real property may be abandoned, to enter the premises to visually inspect the property to determine whether it is abandoned. If the person makes a good faith determination based on the inspection that the property is abandoned, the person may secure the property, remove trash or debris from the grounds, landscape, maintain, or mow the grounds, and remove or paint over graffiti. This act defines what it means for a property to be "abandoned". This act provides that the person is immune from claims of civil and criminal trespass and all other civil liability, unless the act or omission constitutes gross negligence or willful, wanton, or intentional misconduct. This act specifies that, in the case of real property that is subject to a mortgage or deed of trust, the creditor holding the debt secured by the mortgage or deed of trust may not enter the premises of the real property if entry is barred by an automatic stay issued by a bankruptcy court. This act is nearly identical to SB 228 (2015). -mindwaave (Underground ozarks)
[last edit 9/18/2017 1:19 AM by natesidwesturbex - edited 2 times]
| https://www.instagram.com/urban_explora/ |
| Aran
Location: Kansas City Gender: Male Total Likes: 1848 likes
Huh. I guess covid made me a trendsetter.
| | | Re: Urbex is legal in Kansas city!? < Reply # 1 on 9/18/2017 3:47 AM > | Reply with Quote
| | | True, but that only protects against trespassing, and even then only on a property that you believe is abandoned. This does not appear to protect against Breaking and Entering (which the minimum amount of force is usually opening a door), Burglary, or Disturbing the Peace (if a cop is looking for a reason). Furthermore, this only appears to cover activities outside the building. Nothing is mentioned about how this holds up indoors. Lastly, it does not say whether a "no trespassing" sign overrides the belief that the building is abandoned. All I'm saying is that while this is a pretty nice law, it also has lots of intricacies that could potentially screw you over if you take this as carte blanche to throw caution to the wind.
[last edit 9/18/2017 3:47 AM by Aran - edited 1 times]
| "Sorry, I didn't know I'm not supposed to be here," he said, knowing full well he wasn't supposed to be there. |
| Quarantine
Location: Denver Gender: Female Total Likes: 76 likes
retired former old-school UE'er
| | | Re: Urbex is legal in Kansas city!? < Reply # 6 on 9/20/2017 9:11 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | I'd be curious to see the full text of this in context with the rest of the related state statutes, but my reading of it is that this is probably related to Adverse Possession doctrine. This doctrine (coded in law in many/most US states) is essentially heavily-stipulated squatters rights, allowing for someone other than the lawful owner to gain legal possession of a property that is "Abandoned" (generally defined as being unoccupied and having a delinquent tax bill) if 1. The non-owner occupies the property for a period of time (usually 3-5 years) 2. The lawful owner makes no attempt to remove the occupier during that period of time 3. The occupier makes efforts to secure & maintain the property during that time. My guess is that this statute is related to #3; in a city with many abandoned properties it can behoove to the city government to allow, if not encourage, reoccupation & rehabilitation of derelict properties that have absent, uncooperative, or deceased legal owners who are failing to pay taxes & allowing the properties to be in a state of disrepair that would require costly demolitions by the municipal government if a 3rd party did not step in. Local governments love private property rights, but they also love not ending up with a bunch of shitty abandoned houses on their hands that they have to maintain or demolish. I don't believe this would cover urban exploring in general, although with a good enough lawyer one could perhaps pass a claim that they were simply inspecting the property. Something tells me that entering a building to simply hang out and take recreational photos would be considered by the court "gross negligence or willful, wanton, or intentional misconduct".
*** I am not even remotely a lawyer but I've done a lot of research abt Adverse Possession in various states. YMMV
| |
| Pearson
Location: Chicagoland/Sometimes Austin Total Likes: 472 likes
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
| | | | Re: Urbex is legal in Kansas city!? < Reply # 8 on 9/21/2017 3:36 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by Quarantine I'd be curious to see the full text of this in context with the rest of the related state statutes, but my reading of it is that this is probably related to Adverse Possession doctrine. This doctrine (coded in law in many/most US states) is essentially heavily-stipulated squatters rights, allowing for someone other than the lawful owner to gain legal possession of a property that is "Abandoned" (generally defined as being unoccupied and having a delinquent tax bill) if 1. The non-owner occupies the property for a period of time (usually 3-5 years) 2. The lawful owner makes no attempt to remove the occupier during that period of time 3. The occupier makes efforts to secure & maintain the property during that time. My guess is that this statute is related to #3; in a city with many abandoned properties it can behoove to the city government to allow, if not encourage, reoccupation & rehabilitation of derelict properties that have absent, uncooperative, or deceased legal owners who are failing to pay taxes & allowing the properties to be in a state of disrepair that would require costly demolitions by the municipal government if a 3rd party did not step in. Local governments love private property rights, but they also love not ending up with a bunch of shitty abandoned houses on their hands that they have to maintain or demolish. I don't believe this would cover urban exploring in general, although with a good enough lawyer one could perhaps pass a claim that they were simply inspecting the property. Something tells me that entering a building to simply hang out and take recreational photos would be considered by the court "gross negligence or willful, wanton, or intentional misconduct".
*** I am not even remotely a lawyer but I've done a lot of research abt Adverse Possession in various states. YMMV
| It has to do with mortgage and bank companies, in this case you have to be a lien holder for the bank who owns said property.
| |
| |
This thread is currently Public. Anyone, including search engines, may see it. |
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 140 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 739604649 pages have been generated.
|
|