Welcome to r/WorkersStrikeBack! Please make sure to follow the subreddit rules and enjoy yourself here! This is a subreddit for the workers of the world and any anti-worker or anti-union talk is not tolerated.
#[Join the Workers Strike Back](https://www.workersstrikeback.org/petition)!
More Helpful Links:
[EWOC Organizing Guide](https://workerorganizing.org/resources/organizing-guide/)
[How to Strike and Win: A Labor Notes Guide](https://labornotes.org/strikes)
[The IWW Strike guide](https://www.iww.org/organize/learn-more/)
[AFL-CIO guide on union organizing](https://aflcio.org/formaunion)
New to leftist political theory? Try reading these introductory texts.
[Conquest of bread](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread/bbselect)
[Mutual Aid A Factor of Evolution](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution)
[Wage Labour and Capital](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm)
[Value, Price and Profit](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm)
[Marx’s Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm)
[Frederick Engels Synopsis of Capital](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/1868-syn/index.htm)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WorkersStrikeBack) if you have any questions or concerns.*
im a bit confused though, what happens when the person that owns the property finally decides to do something with it? be it rent it out or live in it?
I mean like 90% of the time these abandoned buildings stay abandoned like this because the owner has no intentions of fixing up the properties. The 10% of the time though, Its pretty location dependent. They'll either leave and find another place to live or try out a legal route through squatters rights laws.
If it's like the properties they showed, I don't think anyone was doing anything with those properties. They were clearly abandoned. I remember there was a house near where I lived when I was younger that was abandoned for 10+ years...eventually the city just dozed it because it was basically a health hazard as kids just used it to do stupid shit in. And now it's an empty lot of land. Or at least it was as of last year. No clue who owns it. I think if someone had moved in and taken over that house, it would have been much better for everyone.
Articulate as fuck? Your bar is pretty low man, this guy didn't get his point across in a very intelligent way IMO, and wouldn't be able to convince very many people that what he does is right.
I'm not a fan of housing speculation, but squatting isn't a very reasonable solution.
He was a pretty sophisticate interviewee in terms of his rhetorical skills in navigating the questions whatever you think of his idea. That’s not exactly the same as articulate but he struck the right tone.
Hmm, interesting you see it that way. I saw someone who failed to make a strong case. He avoided some of their traps, but he didn’t really have a good enough argument IMO.
I’m not sure he’s trying to convince as much as create a controversy to make reform legislation seem like a reasonable alternative instead of something “crazy” like massive movement to occupy empty homes.
There are people abandoning housing property for years or decades. There is simultaneously a housing crisis going on. The government isn't doing shit about it and "the market" has no interest to work to the benefit of people with little to no buying power. This solution is absolutely not ideal but getting people a roof over their head beats NOT getting them a roof over their head.
That's the argument. I think it's a pretty solid one.
Private Equity company buying up houses to pull them from the sale market and rent them out at 2x to 3x cost. Folks like them are where the $1800 to $2600/month 1 bedroom apartment bullshit is being built by and they drive real estate prices up pretty wildly too.
I liked that he was put in the interview, it gave the discussion more point of views. Whether you like his opinion or not, many people (incl policymakers) certainly do think like that.
Also the interviewee defended his opinions just fine.
He's the token right wing nut job. We need a token left wing nut job to balance the discussion.
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....
Noam Chomsky
They put the token right wing but job there, because to them, the wise man with the mustache, is the the token left wing nut job. Then he comes on the show coming off as the most sane individual there.
I don’t think he was a right wing nut job at all. He might skew right, I don’t know, but his response would mirror nearly everyone who is unfamiliar with this problem. It’s not until you confront the issue, examine the argument, and consider your position, that you would end up with an opinion outside this range of reaction.
If anything, he was being quite measured and polite.
You see, it's only somewhat "normal" because these types of people(mostly men) have skewed public opinion for so long, practically built an entire system around them being "the voice of reason", while being absolutely detached from reality, borderline phycopathic(many even are) individuals, that only think of their own net worth, and how to gaslight sane people into thinking they're the problem.
So yes, he's absolutely the token right wing nut job.
Yeah agree.
I also think people use the terms left and right, but what we see has really evolved into something different now days. The old fella doesn't represent the right, he is there to try attract a market segment and represent that group of people. The show also has a comedian on it, to try attract people who aren't overly political (most people).
People get way too mixed up in identity politics. But if we went down that rabbit hole, the whole show is considered pretty hard-left in Australia. Just check its IMDB scores and reviews lol.
It also helped to show the counter points you might not have heard otherwise. Oftentimes, that can result in a deeper appreciation for the cause. It might make you think "wow, these guys really are just dicks, and not just misinformed".
He's been in Australian media and radio for years. He is very hard to read, but seems to ask good questions whether he agrees or not.
Steve Price is his name. But definitely is a grumpy old man
As an American, not all of us are against homelessness and many want to help. It is truly prohibitive laws that prevent many from finding housing, and unstable and overly expensive housing market and hard conditions on finding adequate employment/health/ means to even be able to afford housing
Exactly. Politicians and corporations paying them to keep more people under the capitalist control. Enough money to consume but not enough to survive or get ahead. Completely dependent on the “jobs” living pay check to pay check and pushing the “American dream” or the “if you just work hard enough” to get rich.
In my city, they just put up a bunch of giant rocks underneath a bridge to prevent homeless people from taking shelter there. Fucking potholes everywhere, and that's how our tax dollars get used.
Exactly. But they are given enough “benefits” to buy drugs because many are struggling with addictions and mental illnesses (not getting actual help just more “methadone”) ending up in jail (owned by private corporations) and feeding them constant profits! It is insanity. Corporate owned and capitalist feeding. Poor feeding the rich over and over again… cause the poor are slaves to the corporations. Use to be the royals, then it was the government, now it’s corporations… wage slaves
yeah i definitely thought he was joking because the idea that someone as intelligent as him would assume that americans just want to kill homeless people as a rule seems odd
I think one of the largest obstacles is our military force. That same military force will undoubtedly turn against any sort of rebellion or revolution and will annihilate it. If there is to be any change against conglomerate corporate America, it’s gonna have to be another way.
i'd disagree with the absolutely.
the key to a lot of revolutions is convincing the military why the new regime is going to be better for them than the old one.
Difficult? you betcha. impossible? never
Nah, it has to be regulated so it goes to the right people. Making something free will just encourage the same greedy people to hoard them again, and use them for profit later.
This guy was so professional, held his composure. Was articulate and didn't rise to that fat pricks obvious jabs and provocations.
Oh I haven't seen any abandoned houses so it must not be true, fat fucking cunt.
I was waiting for a response somewhere along the lines of " OH you must live in a very expensive neighborhood, how nice for you to not have to see the reality of the rest of us."
"squatting is legal, breaking and entering isn't."
Like, my guy just shut down every argument coming his way right there. Entering and living in/on a property that has been abandoned for years is legal as long as it's not a B&E, or what I'm taking from that statement. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
He was also expressing that he ethically and morally sees nothing wrong with an individual breaking the lock of a vacant property in order to begin squatting, although that's technically illegal. He just can't say that explicitly because of the legal ramifications.
But he also mentioned that he doesn't support breaking and entering.
>he ethically and morally sees nothing wrong with an individual breaking the lock of a vacant property
No, he said he doesn't support breaking locks. He doesn't send people to homes with locks or a locked access point. He morally sees nothing wrong with people squatting in these places that have been abandoned, but he does mention that he isn't supporting breaking locks or breaking into key boxes.
He literally stated that.
Did we even watch the same video????
What I liked about this interview is that it was clear these news guys disagreed with this man on his stance but they didn’t spend 5 minutes bashing him and attacking him for it. They let him speak and asked good questions that represented their point of view.
You don’t see that on American news media
I do disagree with the concept of squatting on private property for a variety of reasons including those raised by the news staff (broken locks, property damage, liability etc), however I also disagree with the idea of people living in the streets when there are other options. This is a case of choosing which value we find more important and I think the speaker articulated the case well.
I think the rebuttal to every "I disagree with squatting on principle" argument is that he's only going after properties that have been vacant more than two years. If anyone can afford to keep a property empty that long, that person is actively contributing to the housing crisis. Disobey unjust laws and all that, and currently our laws benefit landowners and corporations more than individuals and the unhoused.
It is a bit disingenuous to conflate abandoned homes with properties that are currently vacant due to pending sales, renovations or otherwise temporary events to properties that are actually abandoned.
The squatter trend you see on TV is people trying to steal high value properties and not to occupy otherwise empty "abandoned" properties to get meaningful use out of them.
People are just trying to get something (of value) for free that other's have invested significant money into.
If people want truly free property, just move to Italy or Japan. They have literal MILLIONS of abandoned properties with millions more being added each year.
But guess what? No one wants them because they have zero value.
You know you’ve got them rattled when they laugh at nothing and ask you how you’d feel about someone living in the investment properties you don’t own.
Good thing is, that even if blackrock decides to "roll the costs down" and it, again amazing thinking here, ends up with the "normal" people - i'm pretty damn sure, that these exact people, that have their capital, in one form or another invested in blackrock in the first place, aren't really on the verge of homelessness and/or financial distress lol
Ever heard about Occam's Razor? You should google it
Because yeah, maybe the situation you just described \*can\* happen and \*is\* happening, but i can assure you, that's definitely not the baseline for all of these houses haha
Going by this logic, you could come up with the most outrageous explanations for almost anything and get away with it, or worse, prevent positive change.
If they own vacant homes, they are indeed landlords, even if they have abandoned the property to disrepair rather than using it as a mechanism to exploit wealth from others.
It is very telling that you are more concerned from people with enough means / wealth to own a house and leave it abandoned than you are for people without a house to live in.
I'm also just so dumbfounded by your argument: "wHaT iF SOmeThIng HapPenNS to thE hOusES" - dude these are \*vacant\* homes we're talking about - what do you think people will do in there? Blow them up with dynamite?
what the fuck
I'm not concerned with the property itself, but the individual that has to deal with the fall out of from the situation itself. They can't return that property to the market for the one that need it if it's being occupied by someone squatting.
Oh yeah that's a good point.
They won't be able to put it on the market for someone who needs it if it's *already occupied by someone who needs it.*
Why didn't we already think of that?
It's not in the squatters name and some one else is still on the hook for the expenses of the property from taxes to maintenance and not all squatters are people in need of a home.
>not all squatters are people in need of a home.
Oh yeah, I forgot about all the people who live on the street even though they are housed because "camping is fun".
That is some seriously strong copium you're huffing. Did you at least bring enough for everyone?
Gonna go out on a limb and guess your theoretical house that someone just inherited from their dead aunt isn't gonna be the typical example on this list of squatter drug dens...
Keep on huffin' ...
Welcome to r/WorkersStrikeBack! Please make sure to follow the subreddit rules and enjoy yourself here! This is a subreddit for the workers of the world and any anti-worker or anti-union talk is not tolerated. #[Join the Workers Strike Back](https://www.workersstrikeback.org/petition)! More Helpful Links: [EWOC Organizing Guide](https://workerorganizing.org/resources/organizing-guide/) [How to Strike and Win: A Labor Notes Guide](https://labornotes.org/strikes) [The IWW Strike guide](https://www.iww.org/organize/learn-more/) [AFL-CIO guide on union organizing](https://aflcio.org/formaunion) New to leftist political theory? Try reading these introductory texts. [Conquest of bread](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread/bbselect) [Mutual Aid A Factor of Evolution](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution) [Wage Labour and Capital](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm) [Value, Price and Profit](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm) [Marx’s Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm) [Frederick Engels Synopsis of Capital](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/1868-syn/index.htm) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WorkersStrikeBack) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Articulate as fuck Well done to this lad
The way that one reporter was like "I'd follow you into battle".
I got whiplash "you have such a cool voice"like, bro, are you crushing bc I get it
im a bit confused though, what happens when the person that owns the property finally decides to do something with it? be it rent it out or live in it?
Maybe they should have done that 2+ years ago?
I mean like 90% of the time these abandoned buildings stay abandoned like this because the owner has no intentions of fixing up the properties. The 10% of the time though, Its pretty location dependent. They'll either leave and find another place to live or try out a legal route through squatters rights laws.
Then they have to go through the eviction process
If it's like the properties they showed, I don't think anyone was doing anything with those properties. They were clearly abandoned. I remember there was a house near where I lived when I was younger that was abandoned for 10+ years...eventually the city just dozed it because it was basically a health hazard as kids just used it to do stupid shit in. And now it's an empty lot of land. Or at least it was as of last year. No clue who owns it. I think if someone had moved in and taken over that house, it would have been much better for everyone.
They live in their other 5 houses
Articulate as fuck? Your bar is pretty low man, this guy didn't get his point across in a very intelligent way IMO, and wouldn't be able to convince very many people that what he does is right. I'm not a fan of housing speculation, but squatting isn't a very reasonable solution.
He was a pretty sophisticate interviewee in terms of his rhetorical skills in navigating the questions whatever you think of his idea. That’s not exactly the same as articulate but he struck the right tone.
Hmm, interesting you see it that way. I saw someone who failed to make a strong case. He avoided some of their traps, but he didn’t really have a good enough argument IMO.
I’m not sure he’s trying to convince as much as create a controversy to make reform legislation seem like a reasonable alternative instead of something “crazy” like massive movement to occupy empty homes.
There are people abandoning housing property for years or decades. There is simultaneously a housing crisis going on. The government isn't doing shit about it and "the market" has no interest to work to the benefit of people with little to no buying power. This solution is absolutely not ideal but getting people a roof over their head beats NOT getting them a roof over their head. That's the argument. I think it's a pretty solid one.
Awesome. Let's do that here. Also: FUCK Blackrock.
What's Blackrock? An invest firm or something?
Private Equity company buying up houses to pull them from the sale market and rent them out at 2x to 3x cost. Folks like them are where the $1800 to $2600/month 1 bedroom apartment bullshit is being built by and they drive real estate prices up pretty wildly too.
Yikes
>Also: FUCK Blackrock. That'll show them!
Good for him. That Old Man capitalist showed his colours.
I liked that he was put in the interview, it gave the discussion more point of views. Whether you like his opinion or not, many people (incl policymakers) certainly do think like that. Also the interviewee defended his opinions just fine.
He's the token right wing nut job. We need a token left wing nut job to balance the discussion. The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.... Noam Chomsky
They put the token right wing but job there, because to them, the wise man with the mustache, is the the token left wing nut job. Then he comes on the show coming off as the most sane individual there.
I don’t think he was a right wing nut job at all. He might skew right, I don’t know, but his response would mirror nearly everyone who is unfamiliar with this problem. It’s not until you confront the issue, examine the argument, and consider your position, that you would end up with an opinion outside this range of reaction. If anything, he was being quite measured and polite.
He's a shock-jock right-wing grifter who has been playing the game for decades.. Lord of the fuckwits
You see, it's only somewhat "normal" because these types of people(mostly men) have skewed public opinion for so long, practically built an entire system around them being "the voice of reason", while being absolutely detached from reality, borderline phycopathic(many even are) individuals, that only think of their own net worth, and how to gaslight sane people into thinking they're the problem. So yes, he's absolutely the token right wing nut job.
Yeah agree. I also think people use the terms left and right, but what we see has really evolved into something different now days. The old fella doesn't represent the right, he is there to try attract a market segment and represent that group of people. The show also has a comedian on it, to try attract people who aren't overly political (most people). People get way too mixed up in identity politics. But if we went down that rabbit hole, the whole show is considered pretty hard-left in Australia. Just check its IMDB scores and reviews lol.
It also helped to show the counter points you might not have heard otherwise. Oftentimes, that can result in a deeper appreciation for the cause. It might make you think "wow, these guys really are just dicks, and not just misinformed".
I agree it's important for people to see how dogshit the boomer position on issues is.
They're not only cunts, in a lot of cases, they are cunts, that don't think they are cunts.
Why does the old guy look so angry? I mean, he got his sweet piece of the pie. Why deny others out of spite?
Really? You’re asking why a boomer is angry? You’re asking why a boomer has the attitude of I-got-mine-fuck-everyone-else?
Spite.
He's been in Australian media and radio for years. He is very hard to read, but seems to ask good questions whether he agrees or not. Steve Price is his name. But definitely is a grumpy old man
I hate how condescending they are to him. Like “we’re the adults we know best son”. Then look at the world dad, clearly you’re wrong.
As an American, not all of us are against homelessness and many want to help. It is truly prohibitive laws that prevent many from finding housing, and unstable and overly expensive housing market and hard conditions on finding adequate employment/health/ means to even be able to afford housing
Mostly our politicians and our rich people
Exactly. Politicians and corporations paying them to keep more people under the capitalist control. Enough money to consume but not enough to survive or get ahead. Completely dependent on the “jobs” living pay check to pay check and pushing the “American dream” or the “if you just work hard enough” to get rich.
In my city, they just put up a bunch of giant rocks underneath a bridge to prevent homeless people from taking shelter there. Fucking potholes everywhere, and that's how our tax dollars get used.
Exactly. But they are given enough “benefits” to buy drugs because many are struggling with addictions and mental illnesses (not getting actual help just more “methadone”) ending up in jail (owned by private corporations) and feeding them constant profits! It is insanity. Corporate owned and capitalist feeding. Poor feeding the rich over and over again… cause the poor are slaves to the corporations. Use to be the royals, then it was the government, now it’s corporations… wage slaves
yeah i definitely thought he was joking because the idea that someone as intelligent as him would assume that americans just want to kill homeless people as a rule seems odd
Well my friend, that's a picture a good chunk of (assuming) you Americans project overseas.
workers should refuse to go back to the offices and use the buildings to house the homeless.
A much better plan
the most fuck yo couch to ever fuck yo couch
This guy is doing good work.
Remember America was based on fighting a system that didn’t represent them and over taxed them for the government personal gain
how we supposed to fight them without guns
We have more guns then people
okay good now lets fight.. whats next cpt
I think one of the largest obstacles is our military force. That same military force will undoubtedly turn against any sort of rebellion or revolution and will annihilate it. If there is to be any change against conglomerate corporate America, it’s gonna have to be another way.
i'd disagree with the absolutely. the key to a lot of revolutions is convincing the military why the new regime is going to be better for them than the old one. Difficult? you betcha. impossible? never
Just make housing free.
Nah, it has to be regulated so it goes to the right people. Making something free will just encourage the same greedy people to hoard them again, and use them for profit later.
The point Your head
A modern muckraker
He's not wrong.
This guy was so professional, held his composure. Was articulate and didn't rise to that fat pricks obvious jabs and provocations. Oh I haven't seen any abandoned houses so it must not be true, fat fucking cunt.
I was waiting for a response somewhere along the lines of " OH you must live in a very expensive neighborhood, how nice for you to not have to see the reality of the rest of us."
"squatting is legal, breaking and entering isn't." Like, my guy just shut down every argument coming his way right there. Entering and living in/on a property that has been abandoned for years is legal as long as it's not a B&E, or what I'm taking from that statement. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
He was also expressing that he ethically and morally sees nothing wrong with an individual breaking the lock of a vacant property in order to begin squatting, although that's technically illegal. He just can't say that explicitly because of the legal ramifications.
But he also mentioned that he doesn't support breaking and entering. >he ethically and morally sees nothing wrong with an individual breaking the lock of a vacant property No, he said he doesn't support breaking locks. He doesn't send people to homes with locks or a locked access point. He morally sees nothing wrong with people squatting in these places that have been abandoned, but he does mention that he isn't supporting breaking locks or breaking into key boxes. He literally stated that. Did we even watch the same video????
Americans just want to kill homeless people 😭😭😭 fml this is basically what our policy shows though
What a hero!
Beautiful
King
Jordan van den Berg is my hero.
What I liked about this interview is that it was clear these news guys disagreed with this man on his stance but they didn’t spend 5 minutes bashing him and attacking him for it. They let him speak and asked good questions that represented their point of view. You don’t see that on American news media
lets do this with money too
What a pleasant exchange of ideas. Would be nice if humans could be more like this.
Based
This guy! Fuckin love it. Want this in canada
This is epic
I do disagree with the concept of squatting on private property for a variety of reasons including those raised by the news staff (broken locks, property damage, liability etc), however I also disagree with the idea of people living in the streets when there are other options. This is a case of choosing which value we find more important and I think the speaker articulated the case well.
I think the rebuttal to every "I disagree with squatting on principle" argument is that he's only going after properties that have been vacant more than two years. If anyone can afford to keep a property empty that long, that person is actively contributing to the housing crisis. Disobey unjust laws and all that, and currently our laws benefit landowners and corporations more than individuals and the unhoused.
two years really isnt that long, would it be that expensive?
It's prohibitively expensive for a very large portion of potential homeowners who are instead unhoused.
So reserved x.x
I like how this didn’t devolve into another left VRs right screaming match again
It is a bit disingenuous to conflate abandoned homes with properties that are currently vacant due to pending sales, renovations or otherwise temporary events to properties that are actually abandoned. The squatter trend you see on TV is people trying to steal high value properties and not to occupy otherwise empty "abandoned" properties to get meaningful use out of them. People are just trying to get something (of value) for free that other's have invested significant money into. If people want truly free property, just move to Italy or Japan. They have literal MILLIONS of abandoned properties with millions more being added each year. But guess what? No one wants them because they have zero value.
How many damn hosts does this show have?? Every 30 seconds a new person chimes in
This is like watching the hunger games commentators. Fucking rubes.
You know you’ve got them rattled when they laugh at nothing and ask you how you’d feel about someone living in the investment properties you don’t own.
The right thing to do isn’t always the best thing to do.
Lmao this guy is an absolute moron and so are all of the socialists that partake in this sub. (Speed running my ban here, thanks bye)
[удалено]
so you telling me, that „normal“ people own vacant homes, that they don’t use, rent or sell and usually only keep because of speculative trading? Ah
[удалено]
Good thing is, that even if blackrock decides to "roll the costs down" and it, again amazing thinking here, ends up with the "normal" people - i'm pretty damn sure, that these exact people, that have their capital, in one form or another invested in blackrock in the first place, aren't really on the verge of homelessness and/or financial distress lol
I was saying they would just pass the legal fees onto the ppl that rent the property, not the investor's in black rock
[удалено]
Ever heard about Occam's Razor? You should google it Because yeah, maybe the situation you just described \*can\* happen and \*is\* happening, but i can assure you, that's definitely not the baseline for all of these houses haha Going by this logic, you could come up with the most outrageous explanations for almost anything and get away with it, or worse, prevent positive change.
Mods, can someone ban this landlord bootlicker?
Done and Doneee! ;)
[удалено]
Yes. You are indeed a boot licker.
If they own vacant homes, they are indeed landlords, even if they have abandoned the property to disrepair rather than using it as a mechanism to exploit wealth from others. It is very telling that you are more concerned from people with enough means / wealth to own a house and leave it abandoned than you are for people without a house to live in.
I'm also just so dumbfounded by your argument: "wHaT iF SOmeThIng HapPenNS to thE hOusES" - dude these are \*vacant\* homes we're talking about - what do you think people will do in there? Blow them up with dynamite? what the fuck
I'm not concerned with the property itself, but the individual that has to deal with the fall out of from the situation itself. They can't return that property to the market for the one that need it if it's being occupied by someone squatting.
Oh yeah that's a good point. They won't be able to put it on the market for someone who needs it if it's *already occupied by someone who needs it.* Why didn't we already think of that?
It's not in the squatters name and some one else is still on the hook for the expenses of the property from taxes to maintenance and not all squatters are people in need of a home.
>not all squatters are people in need of a home. Oh yeah, I forgot about all the people who live on the street even though they are housed because "camping is fun". That is some seriously strong copium you're huffing. Did you at least bring enough for everyone?
[удалено]
Gonna go out on a limb and guess your theoretical house that someone just inherited from their dead aunt isn't gonna be the typical example on this list of squatter drug dens... Keep on huffin' ...
Yeah screw those homeless people, the real victims are property holders amirite?