5 ms·

Its "had" isnt it? Squatting was made illegal in 2010 if i recall correctly.

cies 8y ago
Municipalities can still kind of "allow" it on case by case basis. Nation wide legal basis (loop hole) is gone now indeed.
- cf141q5325 8y ago
  Thats likely with buildings owned by the municipalities? We have something similarly with a few decade old squats in Germany.
  - cies 8y ago
    Not exactly, but that's often the case.
mcv 8y ago
That's possible. I admit I haven't been keeping up, and my knowledge of squatting stems mostly from the 1990s, when I was a student. I still think it's a very pragmatic way to fight real estate speculation. But my impression is that Amsterdam doesn't have a big problem with buildings sitting empty, so if squatting is illegal again, I guess they've found a different way to prevent it? I have no idea what that is, though.
- emptyfile 8y ago
  Wow, so every word of your post is probably wrong. Do you not see the problem with the most upvoted and seemingly informative comment on the thread being, at the very least, 20-30 years out of date?
  - cf141q5325 8y ago
    Not wrong and not 30 years but 9 years out of date. I still think its noteworthy, that Amsterdam had such a rule for a long time until very recently. It shows that there are precedents for how to deal with empty buildings.
    - narcindin 8y ago
      I think its noteworthy, but in the opposite manner. Amsterdam tried such a rule and then got rid of it. What do the Dutch know about the costs of this rule that isn't in this conversation?
      - winterismute 8y ago
        Well, this is not always how it works: many factors can lead to a reverse of legislation, such as stonger lobbying, backfire from a government held together by strong opposite ideas, or simply the measure might have solved the problem and a different rule might have been adopted (btw, assuming you are from the US, I think the idea of undoing medicare is a good example). I have lived in the NL just when the change in squatting legislation was happening (2009-2015). My impression was that more and more parties that were ideologically against it got popular and this changed the agenda of policymakers, given also the pressure estate investors that were hunting for a treasure. But existing squats were definitely well integrated with the cities I lived in (Utrecht, Amsterdam), sign that this law somehow became part of the city identity.
        mcv 8y ago
        It was mostly the right-wing parties (CDA and VVD) that wanted to ban squatting. No idea why they didn't succeed in banning it during the 1980s. From what I read about the history, I can't find anything about a law that explicitly allowed it; it seems it was simply the high court that didn't consider it breaking and entering when it was in a building that wasn't being used, presumably considered a building unused when it hadn't been in use for a year, and anyone living in a house for some time got the same legal protection as a legal tenant. Conservative parties considered this a loophole in the law, progressive parties probably thought this worked quite well to prevent housing speculation. But it appears it may have originated from a legal accident rather than explicit legislation. Still, during the 1990s it was explicit policy at least in Amsterdam to tolerate squatting within these conditions.
  - throwaway-hn123 8y ago
    take your outrage and fuck yourself with it.
  - cptaj 8y ago
    Hah, I do see one heck of a problem. Specially how he describes squatting in such a positive light. You're fucking stealing. Its not positive. Housing policy can be fixed without normalizing stealing.
    - cf141q5325 8y ago
      Thats as helpful for a general discussion as a communist calling private property theft or a libertarian calling taxes theft. We currently have rules in quite a few countries that allow nationalisation as well as expropriation under certain conditions. Not using your plot of land could get you expropriated in the Netherlands, just as you can get expropriated if the government wants to build something important enough on your plot of land. You know, like a border wall. You might get some compensation, you might not. Depends on the country and the laws of that region as well as the circumstances.
clydethefrog 8y ago
There are manuals out there called "It's still possible" in the Dutch squatting community. Houses still get squated, but less often and the squatters have to leave much quicker. A quick translation of a Dutch article explaining how squatting is still possible: >Today, squatting is illegal. This means that if a building is squatted and the owner makes a declaration, a procedure is started by the Public Prosecution Service that can result in evacuation. The squatters must be informed in time, so that they have the opportunity to institute summary proceedings. That does not mean that the squatters can just be removed from a building once they live there. That is only possible if they seriously misbehave, break house peace, get in the way of the activities of a company, or are at risk because the building is in poor condition.

cies 8y ago

Municipalities can still kind of "allow" it on case by case basis. Nation wide legal basis (loop hole) is gone now indeed.

cf141q5325 8y ago
Thats likely with buildings owned by the municipalities? We have something similarly with a few decade old squats in Germany.
- cies 8y ago
  Not exactly, but that's often the case.

mcv 8y ago

That's possible. I admit I haven't been keeping up, and my knowledge of squatting stems mostly from the 1990s, when I was a student. I still think it's a very pragmatic way to fight real estate speculation. But my impression is that Amsterdam doesn't have a big problem with buildings sitting empty, so if squatting is illegal again, I guess they've found a different way to prevent it? I have no idea what that is, though.

emptyfile 8y ago
Wow, so every word of your post is probably wrong. Do you not see the problem with the most upvoted and seemingly informative comment on the thread being, at the very least, 20-30 years out of date?
- cf141q5325 8y ago
  Not wrong and not 30 years but 9 years out of date. I still think its noteworthy, that Amsterdam had such a rule for a long time until very recently. It shows that there are precedents for how to deal with empty buildings.
  - narcindin 8y ago
    I think its noteworthy, but in the opposite manner. Amsterdam tried such a rule and then got rid of it. What do the Dutch know about the costs of this rule that isn't in this conversation?
    - winterismute 8y ago
      Well, this is not always how it works: many factors can lead to a reverse of legislation, such as stonger lobbying, backfire from a government held together by strong opposite ideas, or simply the measure might have solved the problem and a different rule might have been adopted (btw, assuming you are from the US, I think the idea of undoing medicare is a good example). I have lived in the NL just when the change in squatting legislation was happening (2009-2015). My impression was that more and more parties that were ideologically against it got popular and this changed the agenda of policymakers, given also the pressure estate investors that were hunting for a treasure. But existing squats were definitely well integrated with the cities I lived in (Utrecht, Amsterdam), sign that this law somehow became part of the city identity.
      - mcv 8y ago
        It was mostly the right-wing parties (CDA and VVD) that wanted to ban squatting. No idea why they didn't succeed in banning it during the 1980s. From what I read about the history, I can't find anything about a law that explicitly allowed it; it seems it was simply the high court that didn't consider it breaking and entering when it was in a building that wasn't being used, presumably considered a building unused when it hadn't been in use for a year, and anyone living in a house for some time got the same legal protection as a legal tenant. Conservative parties considered this a loophole in the law, progressive parties probably thought this worked quite well to prevent housing speculation. But it appears it may have originated from a legal accident rather than explicit legislation. Still, during the 1990s it was explicit policy at least in Amsterdam to tolerate squatting within these conditions.
- throwaway-hn123 8y ago
  take your outrage and fuck yourself with it.
- cptaj 8y ago
  Hah, I do see one heck of a problem. Specially how he describes squatting in such a positive light. You're fucking stealing. Its not positive. Housing policy can be fixed without normalizing stealing.
  - cf141q5325 8y ago
    Thats as helpful for a general discussion as a communist calling private property theft or a libertarian calling taxes theft. We currently have rules in quite a few countries that allow nationalisation as well as expropriation under certain conditions. Not using your plot of land could get you expropriated in the Netherlands, just as you can get expropriated if the government wants to build something important enough on your plot of land. You know, like a border wall. You might get some compensation, you might not. Depends on the country and the laws of that region as well as the circumstances.

clydethefrog 8y ago

There are manuals out there called "It's still possible" in the Dutch squatting community. Houses still get squated, but less often and the squatters have to leave much quicker. A quick translation of a Dutch article explaining how squatting is still possible: >Today, squatting is illegal. This means that if a building is squatted and the owner makes a declaration, a procedure is started by the Public Prosecution Service that can result in evacuation. The squatters must be informed in time, so that they have the opportunity to institute summary proceedings. That does not mean that the squatters can just be removed from a building once they live there. That is only possible if they seriously misbehave, break house peace, get in the way of the activities of a company, or are at risk because the building is in poor condition.