Is squatting wrong?

[Dave]

once I squatted twice?

 

[Coiffeur_En_Flame]

Mind you, when I see elderly women at the gym doing those yoga-squatting-thigh-excercise routines with their lycra pants riding halfway down their arse...

There ought to be a law...


Coiff.

 

[chica]

Mind you, when I see elderly women at the gym doing those yoga-squatting-thigh-excercise routines with their lycra pants riding halfway down their arse...

There ought to be a law...


Coiff.

Ageism!

 

[Jane Birkin]

Squat the world say I.

 

[Jane Birkin]

Mind you, when I see elderly women at the gym doing those yoga-squatting-thigh-excercise routines with their lycra pants riding halfway down their arse...

There ought to be a law...


Coiff.

Shouldn't you be more worried about your own excercise routine?
People come in all shapes and sizes, plus being old is not a crime (not yet anyway)

 

[Buzzetta]

I know the problem is more rampant in Europe than it is in the States- well at least in NY anyway. In the states usual squatters are those that take a vacant home or building and turn it into a drug den. This is not the stereotype this is the norm. We call them crackhouses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_house

Another problem is that squatters have no pride. I have never seen people take over vacant buildings and make them better. (See: Bronx circa early 1980's) Pride comes with ownership. I know there are going to be several people here who claim to say "Hey, f*** you Buzzetta- I have pride." My response is "Did you buy the place and fix it up?" Are you keeping it clean and presentable? If there is a problem or a leak do you fix it or do you simply move on to the next place? Pride comes with ownership. I am more likely to screw around with the rental or the leased car than I am with the car I bought outright. There is still that notion of "someone else's car." The same holds true when you are taking someone elses property and settling there for free.

Go ahead.... hate.

 

[MunchyBrain]

I think my experiences with squatters are really different to what some people have said here. All the squatters I know only squat in buildings that they're sure aren't inhabited. They stay away from heavy drugs like crack and heroin, some smoke weed, but this isn't anything to do with being squatters. The most common thing to do is start a social centre, which is like an anarchist resource centre, with zines, places for bands to rehearse, groups to have meetings, sometimes a vegan cafe etc. A few people normally live there and look after it. These places normally stay open for about half a year, but the police always evict them eventually. The most successful one in London (RampART) been open 4 years.

Most of the poeple I know who squat do it by choice, but it's not because it's cool or faux-poverty or anything like that. It's about having an autonomous space free from ownership or commercialism.

 

[Buzzetta]

I think my experiences with squatters are really different to what some people have said here. All the squatters I know only squat in buildings that they're sure aren't inhabited. They stay away from heavy drugs like crack and heroin, some smoke weed, but this isn't anything to do with being squatters. The most common thing to do is start a social centre, which is like an anarchist resource centre, with zines, places for bands to rehearse, groups to have meetings, sometimes a vegan cafe etc. A few people normally live there and look after it. These places normally stay open for about half a year, but the police always evict them eventually. The most successful one in London (RampART) been open 4 years.

Most of the poeple I know who squat do it by choice, but it's not because it's cool or faux-poverty or anything like that. It's about having an autonomous space free from ownership or commercialism.

Translated.... theft

 

[MunchyBrain]

Translated.... theft

If nobody owns it how is it theft?

 

[Buzzetta]

If nobody owns it how is it theft?

Someone owns the land. Even if the property has been classified as abandoned it falls under ownership to the municipality. When it is being utilized by squatters, fair market value is not being paid to the owners or if abandoned the municipality for usage of the property. At the very least taxes are not being paid for the usage. It is theft.

Your probable argument is that the squatters do not support their government therefore they should not pay taxes. Well unless they are capable of flight they should stay off the streets, hopefully never require emergency services such as fire, police or ambulatory, never cross a bridge or tunnel or other things of that nature since they are all funded or partially funded through government. (Tax dollars at work)

 

[MunchyBrain]

Someone owns the land. Even if the property has been classified as abandoned it falls under ownership to the municipality. When it is being utilized by squatters, fair market value is not being paid to the owners or if abandoned the municipality for usage of the property. At the very least taxes are not being paid for the usage. It is theft.

Your probable argument is that the squatters do not support their government therefore they should not pay taxes. Well unless they are capable of flight they should stay off the streets, hopefully never require emergency services such as fire, police or ambulatory, never cross a bridge or tunnel or other things of that nature since they are all funded or partially funded through government. (Tax dollars at work)

You realise that squatting isn't actually illegal under english law? If the building was broken into, then it's trespassing. If the squatter puts locks on the door, there are no broken windows, and they have sole access to the building, they are the legal occupier even if someone else owns it. After 12 years of living there continuously, they can get ownership of the property, but they rarely do because it's hard to prove how long you've been living there. Also, I know squatters who have full-time jobs and do pay taxes...

 

[Buzzetta]

I pay taxes also but if I sneak a snickers bar in my jacket pocket and leave the grocery store its called stealing.

 

[MunchyBrain]

I pay taxes also but if I sneak a snickers bar in my jacket pocket and leave the grocery store its called stealing.

That's not the same thing at all...Snickers bars are not one of your basic human rights.

 

[5am]

i am bettting its about squatters rights and such.

and sorry,but i have to say its kinda of shitty for people to do it,i do not care if no one is living in the property or not.it is owned by someone ,that may not be the way some would like it but that is the law,and i would think most people would be pretty pissed if you went away for a few weeks vacation and found people living in your house,i think it is the same thing.

What if it's owned by a housing corporation?

I don't know about other places but in Amsterdam most of the houses that are being squat belong to corporations. In some cases ther're houses that could stand empty for years. I think it's vile, considering the enormous shortage in living spaces- which I assume is a problem of most big cities. I'm glad some people get to live there.

 

[Buzzetta]

That's not the same thing at all...Snickers bars are not one of your basic human rights.

Neither is using something that belongs to someone else without due compensation. You can try to sidestep it all you want under the guise of your perceived rights and dues. However compensation is not being provided for use of said property. The owner of the property OR the guardian of the abandoned property (in the case of the municipality) is not compensated.

It's called theft. If you want to try to come up with reasons why you should be allowed to steal then you can try to rename anything you want. Its still theft. I know I know... simplistic American who are too unenlightened to understand your sets of rules does not "get it." Perhaps it is you who does not fully understand.

Let me make this simple for you...

I own it, you use it, you give me something for using it.

 

[Buzzetta]

What if it's owned by a housing corporation?

I don't know about other places but in Amsterdam most of the houses that are being squat belong to corporations. In some cases ther're houses that could stand empty for years. I think it's vile, considering the enormous shortage in living spaces- which I assume is a problem of most big cities. I'm glad some people get to live there.

You may think it is vile but that does not change the fact that it is owned by someone. This is the same concept that some shoplifters use. I am stealing from the company not the individual so its not really hurting people. That's bullshit that people tell one another so they can justify their own actions.

 

[MunchyBrain]

Neither is using something that belongs to someone else without due compensation. You can try to sidestep it all you want under the guise of your perceived rights and dues. However compensation is not being provided for use of said property. The owner of the property OR the guardian of the abandoned property (in the case of the municipality) is not compensated.

It's called theft. If you want to try to come up with reasons why you should be allowed to steal then you can try to rename anything you want. Its still theft. I know I know... simplistic American who are too unenlightened to understand your sets of rules does not "get it." Perhaps it is you who does not fully understand.

Let me make this simple for you...

I own it, you use it, you give me something for using it.

If you're not using it, what have you got to lose by letting someone else use it?

 

[5am]

You may think it is vile but that does not change the fact that it is owned by someone. This is the same concept that some shoplifters use. I am stealing from the company not the individual so its not really hurting people. That's bullshit that people tell one another so they can justify their own actions.

If the house would stand empty otherwise, than your supermarket analogy isn't correct. I guess that's why squatting is being tolerated to some extend by both the low and the police (no, there're not one and the same thing )

 

[lapislazuli]

For anybody even remotely interested in the subject/scene, I recommend reading The Good Terrorist by Doris Lessing:

"A hugely significant political novel for the late twentieth-century from one of the outstanding writers of the modern era. In a London squat a band of bourgeois revolutionaries are united by a loathing of the waste and cruelty they see around them. These maladjusted malcontents try desperately to become involved in terrorist activities far beyond their level of competence. Only Alice seems capable of organising anything. Motherly, practical and determined, she is also easily exploited by the group and ideal fodder for a more dangerous and potent cause. Eventually their naive radical fantasies turn into a chaos of real destruction, but the aftermath is not as exciting as they had hoped. Nonetheless, while they may not have changed the world, their lives will never be the same again."

And please don't get me wrong, I don't mean to equate squatting with "terrorism". It's just that this particular novel depicts the ins and outs of the radicalisation of a particular group of people.

 

[the judge]

once I squatted twice?

kudos.