4 ms·

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 th

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.
  - winterismute 8y ago
    > But it appears it may have originated from a legal accident rather than explicit legislation. See, this is something I never fully understood: people told me the same, but I mean, when somebody is allowed to go to the gemeente (town hall, kind of) and say "hello, I want to register as a legal resident of this address, I don't have a contract or anything and in fact I am squatting the building. Can I?" and the answer is "ok", I consider this somehow "explicit legislation", at least in practice, no?
    - mcv 8y ago
      There's a difference between legislation and policy. Legislation means there's a law saying so, policy means it's what the executive branch of the government does. Though I'm sure there are big fuzzy areas between the two.
cf141q5325 8y ago
It wasnt a cost benefit analysis. It was a moral opposition to the idea of squatting after a rise of the far right into parliament and reporting that put squatters in the corner of left wing terrorists. We can learn that certain people oppose the idea of squatters on a moral level. I dont think thats a surprising new finding.

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.
- winterismute 8y ago
  > But it appears it may have originated from a legal accident rather than explicit legislation. See, this is something I never fully understood: people told me the same, but I mean, when somebody is allowed to go to the gemeente (town hall, kind of) and say "hello, I want to register as a legal resident of this address, I don't have a contract or anything and in fact I am squatting the building. Can I?" and the answer is "ok", I consider this somehow "explicit legislation", at least in practice, no?
  - mcv 8y ago
    There's a difference between legislation and policy. Legislation means there's a law saying so, policy means it's what the executive branch of the government does. Though I'm sure there are big fuzzy areas between the two.

cf141q5325 8y ago

It wasnt a cost benefit analysis. It was a moral opposition to the idea of squatting after a rise of the far right into parliament and reporting that put squatters in the corner of left wing terrorists. We can learn that certain people oppose the idea of squatters on a moral level. I dont think thats a surprising new finding.