NationStates Jolt Archive

In light of the recent incident at the Ungdomshuset squat, I decided to make a thread about squatting. What is your opinion on Squatting as a movement? Do you think people have a right to Squat? Which takes precedent, Squatter's rights or private property rights? What do you think governments should do about Squatters?

This is why we need low-income housing.

If these people are squatting it's because they either need to take a crap or live in the ultimate crap shack.

Private property rights.

No different from any other kind theft.

This is why we need low-income housing.

If these people are squatting it's because they either need to take a crap or live in the ultimate crap shack.

Low-Income housing FTW.

Private property rights win over, but it is bad form for any nation to have a need to have the debate in the first place. Low income housing is needed, and needs to be done right. Shoving hundreds of the impoverished into one large building and calling yourself Mother Theresa is a failed model.

Private property rights.

No different from any other kind theft.

What about abandoned or vacant lots/houses/buildings?

What about abandoned or vacant lots/houses/buildings?

Those should be seized using eminent domain, razed to the ground, and redeveloped. Some of it certainly could be redeveloped as low-income housing.

Squatters rights take precedence.
Use it or lose it.

Low-Income housing FTW.
Yes, FTW.

If we had low-income housing, we would get the homeless and squatters off our streets and not lock them up while providing them with their own place.

http://weaselhut.net/needs.png

This brings to mind Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs).

Until a person has the base foundation, they are unable to go anywhere.

Squatters rights take precedence.
Use it or lose it.

QFT.

What about abandoned or vacant lots/houses/buildings?

Well, if they don't belong to anyone, then it isnt private property.

If they do belong to someone, and that person doesn't want squatters living there, then they can't live there.

It may be personally immoral for someone not to allow squatters into an otherwise idle building, but it is a worse wrong to abandon private property rights and the rule of law.

If a society wants to make a law that requires owners to make use of their property or risk having it eminant-domained away, that is it's business.

One night my friend and I were feeling adventureous, and drunk. So we walked to the nearby abandoned recycling plant. Mind you the thing has been empty for over two decades. We scale a broken part of the fence and climb down into the basement via a broken window.

What I saw resembled Silent Hill to the goddamned letter and even creepier there was a guy in an office wearing a chemical suit. We immediately 'bounced'.

Lesson learned: don't mess with abandoned buildings.

Depends on the level of activity of the owner. If the property was seized by the squatters because the no one had been using the property for at least a year then squatters should be able to move in (use it or lose it) - similar to the way in which private property can become common land in the UK.

If, however, the property was seized why the occupants were on holiday then I would side with the owners.

It may be personally immoral for someone not to allow squatters into an otherwise idle building, but it is a worse wrong to abandon private property rights and the rule of law.

If a society wants to make a law that requires owners to make use of their property or risk having it eminant-domained away, that is it's business.

if it is morally wrong, then society ought pass such a law

Well, if they don't belong to anyone, then it isnt private property.Just because a lot is vacant or abanndoned doesn't mean it doesn't belong to anyone. I live right opposite a vacant lot that is surrounded by a concrete fence, and owned by a developer. But from what I've heard no one from the company has visited the site in years.

The company did some work to knockdown the previous building and put topsoil down, but apart from that - nothing.

The way the laws currently stand I'd have to side with the property owner. The property owner is liable for injuries/ accidents that happen on their property. So if a homeless person falls through a floor in an abandoned building the property owner could be sued.

Also, one has to look at the destruction squatters would cause. Maybe a property owner has a perfectly developable building and is waiting for the right tenant. Maybe they are waiting for a building code change so they can make necessary renovations.

if a piece of land or property is not being used by its owner there is no reason why it shouldn't be used by people who are willing to do so. space and land is at a premium in this world and wasted land is a crime. squatter's rights take precedence when a land owner is not willing to make use of their land. aesop's 'dog in the manger' springs to mind.

The way the laws currently stand I'd have to side with the property owner. The property owner is liable for injuries/ accidents that happen on their property. So if a homeless person falls through a floor in an abandoned building the property owner could be sued.In this case laws should be drawn up to reflect this. Similar to either UK or Dutch law.Also, one has to look at the destruction squatters would cause. Maybe a property owner has a perfectly developable building and is waiting for the right tenant. Maybe they are waiting for a building code change so they can make necessary renovations.According to UK law if an owner checks up on a property fairly often then they would notice such squatting and be able to have the squatters evicted for trespassing.

Those should be seized using eminent domain, razed to the ground, and redeveloped.

and who should gain the property? the state? rich people?

In light of the recent incident at the Ungdomshuset squat, I decided to make a thread about squatting. What is your opinion on Squatting as a movement? Do you think people have a right to Squat? Which takes precedent, Squatter's rights or private property rights? What do you think governments should do about Squatters?Property rights is a concept spawned in the deepest, darkest pit of hell. The only thing it does better than simple usage rights, is promoting inequality. And what the fuck's the point of that?

The Ungdomshuset situation is somewhat unique, as it wasn't a squat in the traditional sense. The building was owned by the city and the youth group responsible for running Ungdomshuset, ran the place with the belssing of the city.

The city unfortunately decided to violate it's contract with the group running Ungdomshuset, but because of the fucked up concept of property rights, the city can now wash it's hands of the affair, a fanatical religious cult can wage their war on the atheist youths, and the users of Ungdomshuset are screwed for no reason at all. In other words; the city reps realized they could prevent the local dissidents from organising without suffering anything more severe than a paintbomb & some bad press, so they went for it.The way the laws currently stand I'd have to side with the property owner. The property owner is liable for injuries/ accidents that happen on their property. So if a homeless person falls through a floor in an abandoned building the property owner could be sued.In this case, the city violated it's agreement with the legitimate users of the building by selling it. But because property rights are more sacret than usage rights, the courts let the sale stand.Also, one has to look at the destruction squatters would cause. Maybe a property owner has a perfectly developable building and is waiting for the right tenant. Maybe they are waiting for a building code change so they can make necessary renovations.In this case, the city consistently violated it's maintenance agreement with the legitimate users of the building, so the situation's quite the opposite. Local reps consistently used all their resources trying to get the building condemned so they could get rid of the users legitimately, for example by not fulfilling their end of the deal on building maintenance & repairs. The 'squatters' foiled them however, by doing what the city should've been doing.

At a basement party on saturday, I tripped over no less than three girls squatting out in the garden.

Good times.

Usually, if a building's abandoned, it's abandoned for a reason. Squatting just seems like a bad idea, property concerns aside.

Usually, if a building's abandoned, it's abandoned for a reason.

like because its cheaper to let the building decay than to muck about with actually fixing things. and there is always the hope that someday some developer will come and give you millions for the land.

like because its cheaper to let the building decay than to muck about with actually fixing things. and there is always the hope that someday some developer will come and give you millions for the land.

Yeah, and decaying buildings are usually pretty damn dangerous. If squatters had the technical skill to fix it up properly, I wouldn't really mind them moving in, but that's hardly guaranteed. I wouldn't want someone to be injured or killed because they moved in to an unsafe abandoned building.

if it is morally wrong, then society ought pass such a law

Relying on the law to cover every immoral occurance is futile.

In light of the recent incident at the Ungdomshuset squat, I decided to make a thread about squatting. What is your opinion on Squatting as a movement? Do you think people have a right to Squat? Which takes precedent, Squatter's rights or private property rights? What do you think governments should do about Squatters?

Squatters have no right to live somewhere without paying. That's like.. tax evasion..!

Sorry, I need sleep.

Squatters have no right to live somewhere without paying.You're right, sadly. PErhaps setting fire to a few landlords & politicians will remidy the situation. That's like.. tax evasion..!Depends on where & how. Typically, a squat won't have heating, functioning sanitation or power, nor do they get any sort of rights to the property. Thus there's no grounds for paying taxes.

Yeah, and decaying buildings are usually pretty damn dangerous.No shit. Plenty of children die playing in abandoned buildings. If squatters had the technical skill to fix it up properly, I wouldn't really mind them moving in, but that's hardly guaranteed. I wouldn't want someone to be injured or killed because they moved in to an unsafe abandoned building.Squatters are, at least in my experience, generally adults. They're not stupid & they frequently have extensive experience with abandoned buildings, and of course, what it takes to make the places livable. I've never heard of a single case where squatters had time to fix their place, but couldn't or didn't. If you care to look at European squatting history, you'll find that renovating the buildings is the best tool squatters have for being allowed to stay.

As previously mentioned, Ungdomshuset is a perfect example of a city council failing to use the "But it's just a trashed up place only fit for condemnation", despite more than 20 years of actively trying to run the place into the ground.

You're right, sadly. PErhaps setting fire to a few landlords & politicians will remidy the situation.

I like this remedy of yours.
Depends on where & how. Typically, a squat won't have heating, functioning sanitation or power, nor do they get any sort of rights to the property. Thus there's no grounds for paying taxes.

I'm just comparing squatting to tax evasion because you're avoiding paying in both cases.

there was a HUGE fire in Worcester, MA. (USA) A vacant cold storage building (actually a historic building...couldn't be torn down, or outwardly modified...I'm not sure of it's rental, ownership status at the time) burned. The fire was started by squatters, a candle tipped over, it had been left burning while the squatters were not in the building.

Rather than just fighting the fire from the outside, as they should have been able to do, because it was a "vacant" building, someone said..."hey...I know a bunch of homeless people have been living there." Fire and Rescue had to go into the building then, because there was potential that there were lives that needed to be saved.

at least 6 firefighters lost their lives that day. Going into a building to save people who really had no right to be in the building.

I'm all for having safe, legal low income housing, but...the problem with squatters, is that the building they are living in doesn't belong to them, and so, they don't treat it as carefully as a house or apartment they are vested in. The building I am referring to was a huge brick building...it wasn't a building that went up like a tinderbox. There had to have been debris around. If it were actual low income housing, then there would have been less flammable material around, people (hopefully) would care more about it, it wouldn't be as much of a fire hazard. If it did burn, then there would be rhyme and reason for the fire department to follow to make sure people got to safety.

SO...do I think that squatters have rights. Not really. Should they have somewhere to go...absolutely...but those are 2 very separate issues.

Squatters are, at least in my experience, generally adults. They're not stupid & they frequently have extensive experience with abandoned buildings, and of course, what it takes to make the places livable In my experience, the squatters I've seen around, and heard about are generally homeless, often mentally ill, and looking to get out of the elements. I am not saying they are stupid at all, but I don't see them as people who are just trying to avoid paying rent.

In my experience, the squatters I've seen around, and heard about are generally homeless, often mentally ill, and looking to get out of the elements. I am not saying they are stupid at all, but I don't see them as people who are just trying to avoid paying rent.I'm guessing you're from the US then? European countries tend to have shelters for crazies, drunks & druggies. Squatters here are rarely any of those things, which is why they squat shit instead of live in shelters.

Of course, another reason is that there's frequently a total absence of places to go & shit to do for misfit (read: anti-authoritarian) youths in European cities, so the only option's to create such places themselves.

In either case, if they do a good job of it, there's some small chance they'll get to keep what they've made. Typically squatters don't hit functional, socially coherent neighbourhoods, so when it happens, the neighbourhood tends to improve quite drastically.

You're right, sadly. PErhaps setting fire to a few landlords & politicians will remidy the situation.

it'll lower the heating costs at any rate

it'll lower the heating costs at any rateReason enough for me.

Property owners rights. After all: who's more likely to take care of a building? Someone who's have to pay if someone broke in and got hurt? Or someone who shouldn't really be there and wouldn't be liable to anything other than inflicting bodily harm personally? There's a reason why property rights were established. It's so that people, especially families and people whose lives are at risk, like royalty, are garanteed, by law, to have a place safe from the dangers of the outside world.

Squatting just seems to insult this very important right. This reminds me of this story I heard about these two squatters. They "moved" into a house because the owners haven't been there in a while. The squatters made renovations using money they got from selling stuff that was inside the house. Long story short, they discovered that the building wasn't abandoned and they were arrested for tresspassing and, hopefully, theft and property destruction.

Land ownership is an important right. While it may not be as important as it was before almost-industrial comercial farming when you basically needed large tracts of land to grow the food you need for, you know, eating and not being killed to death by starvation, but it's still important to those who have families or businesses.

Squatting isn't illegal enough when any homeless guy can break into a building, live there for awhile, break a leg, and sue the owners for possibly millions. Sure, the homeless guy can now get all the food and booze he wants, but the owners are screwed. The deaths of the homeless is proof that you shouldn't try to fuck with natural selection. After all, all deaths are painless. Sure, burning hurts but death doesn't. Being liquified in a blender hurts but death doesn't. Call me crazy but death is the only thing garanteed. It's the great equalizer. A dead king is no better or worse off than a dead peasant. Why is death so hated and reviled so much? He's just doing a very important job. If you don't believe me and think that as soon as things get too bad, we can move to Mars or space, let me tell you some stuff:

A. You are a fucking moron.
B. If it's that easy, why don't we know how to do it?
C. Even if we did know how, we don't have the tools to do it.
D. Gravity prevents muscle atrophy. No gravity means muscle atrophy. Space means no gravity. Muscle atrophy can be lethal because not only is the heart a muscle, muscles power the lungs.
E. We'd just screw up Mars and space like we did Earth. Nuclear is clean my ass. If it's clean, then what's Yucca about?

Property

...

other stuff

/rant

well that was random

well that was random

I'm pretty sure the last part of it was related to my (quite successful) argument for ending the crime of involuntary death a while back...

...Someone who's have to pay if someone broke in and got hurt?...

This doesn't point out a problem with squatters. This points out a problem with property rights being so infinitely sacred that the squatters never become responsible for the places they appropriate to themselves.

Squatting isn't illegal enough when any homeless guy can break into a building, live there for awhile, break a leg, and sue the owners for possibly millions.

Another example of the property rights fucking you over.

...The deaths of the homeless is proof that you shouldn't try to fuck with natural selection. After all, all deaths are painless...

And I have no clue what you're trying to say here. Homeless people should die?

a few months ago a lot of people squated a building belonging to scientology in Brussel. it used to be a hotel and was in good shape, but it wasn't used by anyone. that while the prices of homes where on an all time hight. the people who squatted it often had children and couldn't pay the rent anymore.
i fully suport this kind of squatting where people almost have no other option, and they didn't destroy the building (they couldn't cook inside for instance to prevent fires). of course it would be better if there were houses they could afford, but there are already very long lists for social housing.

Private property rights.

No different from any other kind theft.

Theft deprives the owner of the use of their property.

That's the distinction which matters. "Squatter's rights" can deny the legal owner the free use of their property, so they're bunk.
Squatters crapping on the carpet or tearing up the floorboards for firewood are depriving the legal owner of their property (and shitting in their own nest as well.) That's also plainly wrong.

But squatters can actually be a positive for an unoccupied property. They protect it from vandals (eg being burnt to the ground,) might care for the garden or give the house a lick of paint. Sure they aren't paying, but their interests are aligned with those of the owner -- to make a nice home that's worth something. And the owner isn't (as far as I know) legally responsible for the building meeting health or safety standards, as they would be if they were asking rent for it.

Can actually be a win-win, so it's not theft plain and simple.

I've spent a few years squatting, and a lot of my fellow squatters had a bad attitude: if they couldn't live there, they'd wreck the place so no-one could. They modified houses (eg knocking out walls or taking out the stairs to make a secure upper story, or burning floorboards) in ways that plainly would require expensive repairs to make the house marketable again.
I like to think I left every squat better than I found it. And I'd politely ask for a week to move house, if asked to leave. I never claimed "squatter's rights" to something I was getting for free. That just seems dumb to me.

In light of the recent incident at the Ungdomshuset squat, I decided to make a thread about squatting. What is your opinion on Squatting as a movement? Do you think people have a right to Squat? Which takes precedent, Squatter's rights or private property rights? What do you think governments should do about Squatters?

If a property has been left empty and unatendted then I see no problem with squatting.

The pitfalls of a multinational board - everyone has different laws and defintions of Squatters and their legal rights....

In the UK a squatters only right is that they cannot be evicted except by lawful means. This right is primilary to protect renters who get into disputes with their landlords, but due to the nature of the disputes and the like is extended to include anyone living in a building owned by someone else outside of the persons permission or agreements made when they moved in.

If someone manages to squat for a certain number of years without being noticed then they take ownership of the building... if the landlord did not notice anyone living there in over a decade then they probably should not miss it too much.

I support the law as it protects lawful tenants from abusive landlords and it protects people squatting from dubious methods of eviction - I also support the ownership law as I would liken someone not knowing what went on in a property they owned for over a decade to someone leaving a £20 note on a park bench and hoping to retain ownership of it.

Land does not cease to belong to someone when they cease to use it, especially if they continue to pay property taxes on it, this land should be protected from the infringement of squatters upon it by the state or the private owner.

If a squatter refuses to leave, they should be compelled to leave with sufficient force. Up to, and including lethal violence if said squatter resists sufficiently violently. As it stands, non-lethal options do exist, but are not known for being immensely effective with meth freaks and crackheads.

If a squatter refuses to leave, they should be compelled to leave with sufficient force. Up to, and including lethal violence if said squatter resists violently.

Imagine you're a tennant with a verbal contract with the landlord.

You pay all your rent on time a month in advance.

You have just paid your rent and the next day the landlord comes about with a bunch of big and heavy guys and threatens to break your legs if you do not leave.

Legal?

Imagine you're a tennant with a verbal contract with the landlord.

You pay all your rent on time a month in advance.

You have just paid your rent and the next day the landlord comes about with a bunch of big and heavy guys and threatens to break your legs if you do not leave.

Legal?

Of course not, as this is a violation of a verbal contract, which is still a contract. Squatting does not entail a verbal contract, or the payment of any form of rent, and thus, such a situation is irrelevant.

Furthermore, the individual should have acquired a written contract, not a verbal one, and kept records of the payments.

Of course not, as this is a violation of a verbal contract, which is still a contract. Squatting does not entail a verbal contract, or the payment of any form of rent, and thus, such a situation is irrelevant.

Furthermore, the individual should have acquired a written contract, not a verbal one, and kept records of the payments.

He says there was no contract.

Does that give him the legal right to exict you on a whim?

Or should he have to go through the courts to show he has the right to evict you?

He says there was no contract.

Does that give him the legal right to exict you on a whim?

Like I said, there was a contract, and said case ought to be argued in court.

Like I said, there was a contract, and said case ought to be argued in court.

So you agree a landlord should get a court order before they are allowed to evict someone they claim does not have a right to live there?

So you agree a landlord should get a court order before they are allowed to evict someone they claim does not have a right to live there?

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

That is the entireity of squatters rights.

Their only right (in the UK) is not to be evicted except by lawful means.

That is the entireity of squatters rights.

Their only right (in the UK) is not to be evicted except by lawful means.

I thought there was a loophole where squatters who lived somewhere for a certain length of time were awarded property rights? Or was that closed?

I can't support that. And I actually don't support the requirement of court orders before eviction. If a person has a contract with the owner to live somehwhere (a lease or rent agreement) then they have some right to be on the property - having no such contract, and not leaving when asked, is trespass.

I don't know much about this, but I do know that it's certainly not a thing to chuck molotovs around over.