4 ms·

So people should freeze on the streets so property owners can keep their buildings empty? Fuck that, squatting laws are to make sure property is being used and

by tfgg 13y ago

So people should freeze on the streets so property owners can keep their buildings empty? Fuck that, squatting laws are to make sure property is being used and not hoarded. Whether squatting is right is independent of any criminal activity that might happen during squats.

mseebach 13y ago
If squatters could be consistently relied on to leave when the building was going to be used, nobody would have a problem with them.
- misnome 13y ago
  And relied on not to trash the place.
- runarberg 13y ago
  Again, squatting is not the issue, but human decency. If the owner would give her/his consent, it would be really hard for a squatter (given that she/he has human decency) to oppose eviction, given a good reason for why she/he has to leave.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    But when consent wasn't given in the first place, the duty to leave when given a good reason vanishes? It's some pretty curious moral arithmetic you've got going on there.
    - runarberg 13y ago
      I don't know. Threre are numerous examples of a consent being given after squatters move in. In most cases the owner has nothing to loose, so a consent makes perfect sense if you want to keep good comunication with those who are using your property.
      - mseebach 13y ago
        And there are numerous examples of squatters who don't leave when given a good reason. Squatters who have the consent of the landlord aren't really squatters in any meaningful sense.
jackgavigan 13y ago
>..squatting laws are to make sure property is being used and not hoarded. That is simply not true but thank you for providing an example of the hot air about homelessness that I referred to. Squatters rely on section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which creates an offence of using or threatening unauthorised violence for the purpose of securing entry into any premises, while there is known to be a person inside opposing entry. As I said, this was originally implemented to prevent slum landlords from using violence to drive out tenants who benefited from statutory rent controls. No UK government has ever passed any law that legalises or permits squatting.
- tfgg 13y ago
  That doesn't mean it doesn't set up a good incentive, similar to the use of disused land going back to the Peasants Revolt and Diggers and concepts like adverse possession. While Parliament might not have explicitly legalised it, it also hasn't closed the loophole, perhaps in recognition of its social use and history. I'm not sure what you mean about "hot air about homelessness"? Do you think squatters have nice warm homes that they could actually go back to if they weren't being such frightful brutes?
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    >While Parliament might not have explicitly legalised it, it also hasn't closed the loophole Actually, it did in 2012.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
      FWIW, I think this is the law being referred to as "closing in 2012 the loophole that allows squatting" "Offence of Squatting in a Residential Building" https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220062/squatting-circular.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
    - jackgavigan 13y ago
      Only for residential properties, unfortunately. Still, it's a start and there are indications that the government is taking the problem seriously. Last year, MPs were asked to provide evidence of the scale and impact of squatting in commercial premises in their constituencies, which provided an opportunity for constituents to highlight the problems caused by squatters.
meddlepal 13y ago
A government shouldn't be in the business of telling people or corporations how to use their property.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Sure, as long as the government isn't in the business of protecting it either.
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    That is part of what a government's reason for existence is. That's what taxes are for. To protect people with livelihoods and property from those who would deprive them of such. That's what makes us live in a first world society and not the world of Mad Max.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      That is part of what a government's reason for existence is. I don't disagree, though I'm not so sure that the only possible alternative is Mad Max. That said, historically, setting rules for how property should be used is as much a part of the State's existence as protecting its owners.
    - ubernostrum 13y ago
      The modern patterns of land ownership in Britain are due, basically, to a Mad Max world of taking what you want and having "rights" only to what you can defend by force against all comers. Perhaps a compromise in which property is protected but the protection comes in exchange for some limitations on how you can use it... isn't actually the end of the world?
- Pxtl 13y ago
  There is a fixed amount of land available in a city, and a city is responsible for servicing it. If you've a property that's gobbling up some of the city's carefully-managed land and creating an eyesore that's a detriment to your neighbors, then it's perfectly reasonable for the city to take action. You are a part of civilization. Accept it.

by tfgg 13y ago

mseebach 13y ago

If squatters could be consistently relied on to leave when the building was going to be used, nobody would have a problem with them.

misnome 13y ago
And relied on not to trash the place.
runarberg 13y ago
Again, squatting is not the issue, but human decency. If the owner would give her/his consent, it would be really hard for a squatter (given that she/he has human decency) to oppose eviction, given a good reason for why she/he has to leave.
- mseebach 13y ago
  But when consent wasn't given in the first place, the duty to leave when given a good reason vanishes? It's some pretty curious moral arithmetic you've got going on there.
  - runarberg 13y ago
    I don't know. Threre are numerous examples of a consent being given after squatters move in. In most cases the owner has nothing to loose, so a consent makes perfect sense if you want to keep good comunication with those who are using your property.
    - mseebach 13y ago
      And there are numerous examples of squatters who don't leave when given a good reason. Squatters who have the consent of the landlord aren't really squatters in any meaningful sense.

jackgavigan 13y ago

>..squatting laws are to make sure property is being used and not hoarded. That is simply not true but thank you for providing an example of the hot air about homelessness that I referred to. Squatters rely on section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which creates an offence of using or threatening unauthorised violence for the purpose of securing entry into any premises, while there is known to be a person inside opposing entry. As I said, this was originally implemented to prevent slum landlords from using violence to drive out tenants who benefited from statutory rent controls. No UK government has ever passed any law that legalises or permits squatting.

tfgg 13y ago
That doesn't mean it doesn't set up a good incentive, similar to the use of disused land going back to the Peasants Revolt and Diggers and concepts like adverse possession. While Parliament might not have explicitly legalised it, it also hasn't closed the loophole, perhaps in recognition of its social use and history. I'm not sure what you mean about "hot air about homelessness"? Do you think squatters have nice warm homes that they could actually go back to if they weren't being such frightful brutes?
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  >While Parliament might not have explicitly legalised it, it also hasn't closed the loophole Actually, it did in 2012.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    FWIW, I think this is the law being referred to as "closing in 2012 the loophole that allows squatting" "Offence of Squatting in a Residential Building" https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220062/squatting-circular.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
  - jackgavigan 13y ago
    Only for residential properties, unfortunately. Still, it's a start and there are indications that the government is taking the problem seriously. Last year, MPs were asked to provide evidence of the scale and impact of squatting in commercial premises in their constituencies, which provided an opportunity for constituents to highlight the problems caused by squatters.

meddlepal 13y ago

A government shouldn't be in the business of telling people or corporations how to use their property.

icebraining 13y ago
Sure, as long as the government isn't in the business of protecting it either.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  That is part of what a government's reason for existence is. That's what taxes are for. To protect people with livelihoods and property from those who would deprive them of such. That's what makes us live in a first world society and not the world of Mad Max.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    That is part of what a government's reason for existence is. I don't disagree, though I'm not so sure that the only possible alternative is Mad Max. That said, historically, setting rules for how property should be used is as much a part of the State's existence as protecting its owners.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    The modern patterns of land ownership in Britain are due, basically, to a Mad Max world of taking what you want and having "rights" only to what you can defend by force against all comers. Perhaps a compromise in which property is protected but the protection comes in exchange for some limitations on how you can use it... isn't actually the end of the world?
Pxtl 13y ago
There is a fixed amount of land available in a city, and a city is responsible for servicing it. If you've a property that's gobbling up some of the city's carefully-managed land and creating an eyesore that's a detriment to your neighbors, then it's perfectly reasonable for the city to take action. You are a part of civilization. Accept it.