4 ms·

The biggest problem is that instead of taking over abandoned houses, some people are finding the nicest unoccupied houses and squatting in them. In other words,

by ilaksh 3y ago

The biggest problem is that instead of taking over abandoned houses, some people are finding the nicest unoccupied houses and squatting in them. In other words, houses that just haven't sold yet. Could be for only a few months. Then they use these laws and police indifference to effectively steal tens of thousands in rent. I imagine that these people think of it as a type of social justice or an efficient market. It's out of control criminality really. But part of the reason we get to this point is actually extreme inequality and extremely ineffective markets or rules. I think that when we have so many people unable to afford homes, there should be some type of system for highly discounted utilization of unoccupied ones, especially after a certain number of months. That's completely different from a free-for-all though.

IntelMiner 3y ago
"Stealing rent" is an...interesting position. If not just because it seems to imply that housing is not a human right
- ilaksh 3y ago
  If you read my comment carefully all the way through then you would have seen it was clear that I think housing is a human right. That doesn't mean that we should abandon laws and process.
- Plasmoid 3y ago
  What an odd response. Are there any other things that are ok to take because you feel it's a human right? Dine and dash isn't a crime because food is a human right?
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  This (relatively new) idea that by marking some things as "human rights", things that have a substantial cost to create, that they can then be stolen without regard to any rules tends to not end well for anyone in society. I honestly hate the idea of proclaiming things like food, health care, housing, education, etc. as "human rights", because they are very, very different from what has been historically thought of as human rights (things like freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association, etc.). Primarily, of course, is that these newer "rights" are really goods and services that you would like everyone to have access to. And that may be fine (I personally tend to agree), but I would still argue that they are not anything at all like the rights people should have just for existing. I can certainly believe there should be "guaranteed social services", but these aren't "human rights". The main difference, of course, is that somebody has to expend their own personal time and energy to acquire these goods. Houses don't just sprout up out of nowhere, and they certainly don't maintain themselves. It's fine to argue that society should do much more to provide housing options to all citizens, but that's very different from saying "I should be able to move into any house where people aren't currently living because I can break the lock."
- antupis 3y ago
  well if housing is human right it makes SF human right offender par with Saudi-Arabia, Iran and China.
opportune 3y ago
I’m a bit conflicted because while I think it’s horribly unfair to someone just trying to sell their house, I’m partial to the argument that there should maybe be a limit to how long you wait for a buyer - though IMO that should be solved by a vacancy tax or higher carrying costs rather than stochastic adverse possession.

by ilaksh 3y ago

IntelMiner 3y ago

"Stealing rent" is an...interesting position. If not just because it seems to imply that housing is not a human right

ilaksh 3y ago
If you read my comment carefully all the way through then you would have seen it was clear that I think housing is a human right. That doesn't mean that we should abandon laws and process.
Plasmoid 3y ago
What an odd response. Are there any other things that are ok to take because you feel it's a human right? Dine and dash isn't a crime because food is a human right?
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
This (relatively new) idea that by marking some things as "human rights", things that have a substantial cost to create, that they can then be stolen without regard to any rules tends to not end well for anyone in society. I honestly hate the idea of proclaiming things like food, health care, housing, education, etc. as "human rights", because they are very, very different from what has been historically thought of as human rights (things like freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association, etc.). Primarily, of course, is that these newer "rights" are really goods and services that you would like everyone to have access to. And that may be fine (I personally tend to agree), but I would still argue that they are not anything at all like the rights people should have just for existing. I can certainly believe there should be "guaranteed social services", but these aren't "human rights". The main difference, of course, is that somebody has to expend their own personal time and energy to acquire these goods. Houses don't just sprout up out of nowhere, and they certainly don't maintain themselves. It's fine to argue that society should do much more to provide housing options to all citizens, but that's very different from saying "I should be able to move into any house where people aren't currently living because I can break the lock."
antupis 3y ago
well if housing is human right it makes SF human right offender par with Saudi-Arabia, Iran and China.

opportune 3y ago

I’m a bit conflicted because while I think it’s horribly unfair to someone just trying to sell their house, I’m partial to the argument that there should maybe be a limit to how long you wait for a buyer - though IMO that should be solved by a vacancy tax or higher carrying costs rather than stochastic adverse possession.