They usually don't have them because someone cares enough to keep the fire lit, usually people with a lot of free time. I have lived in successful areas that had an abandoned building with boarded up windows. Soon a local started pushing the city to get involved until it was finally condemned, as the owner didn't want to sell it to someone who would use it.

I can see how poor areas, especially with lots of renters and slumlords, are going to be less proactive themselves.

> Soon a local started pushing the city to get involved until it was finally condemned, as the owner didn't want to sell it to someone who would use it.

I find it a bit sad that we have a political system that so strongly protects proprietors that they can choose to let a building fall into condemnation instead of just... let people use it.

Why shouldn't people be allowed to just... move into and maintain a building, if it's otherwise not used?

I like the idea of letting the city put delapidated buildings up for auction and mailing the owner a check.

> what’s next, make warrentless, no knock searches legal

For 60% of the US population, this is already the case. Not by police, but border agents have been granted warrantless hone access by the supreme court this month: https://nitter.net/anildash/status/1534639563167105025#m

Maybe next time you see random post on Twitter you should research it before sharing. In the case, ruling had to do with an assault and the right to sue, not warrantless entry; victim was an informant and reported a crime, law enforcement responded, which is completely legal, unless I am missing something; obviously assaulting someone is not.

> In the lawsuit against Egbert, Boule argued Egbert had retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights and that he had entered his private property, refused to leave and pushed him to the ground violating his Fourth Amendment rights.

As far as I understand it the decision does not contest that Boule's 4th amendment rights were violated, but it doesn't extend the right to sue a federal officer from "Bivens" to border patrol agents.

So yes, while the case itself is not warrantless entry, the precedent extends to all fourth amendment rights and says that someone subjected to a warrantless search by border patrol has no recourse.

It actually seems to say that they have recourse through an established process with congress and that the courts decline to override this process. Apparently Boule availed himself of this process but was dissatisfied with the results (I guess because though it prompted an internal investigation of the agent it didn't result in any damages being awarded to him?)

Basically it sounds like if you don't agree that border patrol agents should be allowed to conduct warrantless searches near the border for the sake of national security then you should contact your congressperson and voice your condemnation of the policy.

"availed himself of the process"

Literally the ruling here is that the border patrol can't be sued because instead they will investigate themselves. Guess how that investigation tends to go?

Sure, it's a little fucked, but they're granted that power by congress, and congress is controlled by me and you!

You didn’t address that Boule reported a crime on his property and law enforcement respond, which is probably cause; that is no warrant was required and once law enforcement has it, they have the right to enter the property regardless if the property owner requests they don’t, which in this case was oddly also Boule.

take it up with the supreme court then I guess, you could let them know that they got their reasoning all wrong.