> Why wouldn't it be the hipster's fault? You would be reasonable to think that, but it's pretty much up in the air who gets held to account. It depends on the

> Why wouldn't it be the hipster's fault? You would be reasonable to think that, but it's pretty much up in the air who gets held to account. It depends on the specifics of the situation, the lawyers of both sides and the stakes involved. This is a problem with abandoned heavy industrial facilities. The owners make themselves generationally rich from that business. And then, when it loses profitability, they close the facility and let it rot (perhaps changing the property ownership several times). A huge facility in a place where people live just rusting away to nothing, too expensive to demolish, unusable for other purposes, just sitting there as a sign of that community's economic implosion. This is the kind of stuff that conditions people's judgment of the property owners. There is a reasonable point of concern there and it can pop out when somebody gets hurt exploring that place.