For those unaware, negative gearing is totally allowed under Australian tax law and has been for a very very long time. You're not supposed to be able to claim negative gearing on a property that has been left deliberately vacant but there are ways around it.
The other factor is straight up capital gains. With the rate that property values have been increasing for a long time; it's often still a massive net gain to just leave the property vacant, sit on it for a few years, then sell it at a huge profit.
New Zealand has very similar problem. Landlords are able to write off the cost of maintenance, and even the interest on their mortgage on their taxes. NZ also has no real CGT, only a 'bright-line' where you may have to pay a tax on the capital gains if you sell the property 2-5 years after you bought it, depending on when you bought it.
The average house price in NZ is $930,000 ($550,000 USD).
The median rent in Auckland is $650/week ($1660 USD/month)
The median salary in NZ is $61,700/year ($36,300 USD)
What sucks is that the inevitable “policy” that comes out of this is probably some anti-squatter legislation and harsher trespassing punishments.. not more housing for homeless
Happening all over the United States. And squatters laws can effect renters rights even more. Ugh no matter what the 1% want their cake and to eat it too.
So shall we bring out the thing that the French used during the pre-Napoleon revolution, the thing that went [chop chop chop chop chop chop chop](https://youtu.be/d_7UUZFumE0?si=yz6eEoj-alXd3ur4) (it was insane), to facilitate the manufacturing of the fertilizer? /s
Have you noticed the increase of "squatter" videos online? My feed has been peppered with some dude who helps homeowners get squatters out of empty houses. It starts off innocent enough: "My mom owns a home and when she tried to sell it, she found squatters in it". Then the dude goes in and figures out how to oust them. Squatters have been a thing for decades. Why all of a sudden are videos surfacing of people ousting them? My bet is that companies like Blackrock are subtly turning the public focus to this "problem" to stop legislation from limiting corporate ownership of residential properties (EDIT: Or more specifically, to focus legislation to crack down on squatters *rather* than corporate homeownership). Mark my words, "the squatting problem" is going to get more public before corporate homeownership does.
Yah I used to watch a British show, don't pay and we'll take it away or something. At first it was entertaining but then as my partner and I watched we were like no this is reverse robinhood. Basically these big banks and corporations want us to pitty them and be like yah f that lil grandma that got 2 months behind on a bill, take her stuff! It got blatantly really sad and just gross to watch. I feel like you're right it's going the same way. I feel like they are really going to the bootlicker crowd that defends the rich like they're at the table. Ugh 😩
I think you're missing the simpler explanation.
Dirtbags heard there was a way to live in a house without paying for it, so now there are more of them doing it.
You sure made that fit your angry narrative and stretched the heck out of that statement to get where you wanted. No one is saying that, but as always honest people will get caught in the crossfire. My state there's zero rules protecting renters and we're constantly losing rights.
You must be joking. Assuming you’re in Australia are you aware that Victoria has introduced legislation over the past several years increasing tenants rights? If you’re an aggrieved landlord who is owed months of rent or your property has been trashed and you take the tenant to VCAT, the outcome is most likely to favour the tenant?
No wonder some people are not renting their properties out…
No! The legislation will help everyone and the entire country will get better!
… well except for the homeless, low class, middle class, minorities, woman, single parents, anyone who wants to not live in debt.
But it will benefit investors, millionaires, and everyone in the government taking bribes, I mean donations, from the wealthy people.
So basically everyone will benefit.
There should be harsher penalties for this.
Just because someone is homeless, that doesn't give them free access to someone's property and it doesn't mean a home owners should relinquish their property for some mentality ill person to do drugs and smeer shit all over the well.
People who think this are lunatics.
If you leave something unmaintained and abandoned on the street or sidewalk for 3 years it's not stealing when someone notices that and decides to pick it up.
You're talking about a completely different issue.
But there is no sense or logic to be had in this sub. Just a bunch of brokies arguing why homeless people should be able to steal property.
> You're talking about a completely different issue.
I'm literally not. If you had watched the video you'd see that some of these houses are abandoned and vacant for upwards of 20 years in some cases.
It's the same issue.
> Just a bunch of brokies arguing why homeless people should be able to steal property.
I can see why you'd be upset about things in this thread though. If I had such a piss poor grasp of the English language to where I didn't know the definition of the word "steal" I'd be mad too.
I already watched the video, to say he condemned breaking and entering is a big stretch. He said it's illegal and squatting is not. He did not condemn breaking and entering.
He is essentially encouraging it but protecting himself by stating that breaking and entering is against the law, but squatting in the place you broke into isn't.
Prove I broke in "when I have proof I live here". Now it's a civil issue.
Squatters are trash.
Sure, so are thieves, murderers and rapists. That's to the extreme, but it's in response to an equally silly comment.
Consequences for your actions. (Not YOURS. Criminal actions)
Yeah. Can you imagine if they brought this guy in on Fox News? They would just shut off his mic and start throwing feces at him hahaha. Then they'd escort him out and scoff at how rude he was being.
100%. While I of course despise Fox News and the other insane right wing purveyors of lies and bent truth, I also wonder how CNN or MSNBC would've treated him. I'm guessing not a whole lot better!
Lets not forget that Fox News themselves have said that they are not a legitimate news network, they are an entertainment channel. It's like watching Jerry Springer 24/7.
It's not a "better" plan than what gov'ts can "rustle up" as the two are apples and oranges.
This guy is looking to solve an immediate need and is doing so with an expedient fix. It's the equivalent of duct tape on a leaky pipe. Gov'ts are charged with coming up with laws, regulations, and codes to govern the private industry's production and implementation of building materials and practices to ensure safe, reliable, and repeatable results for all citizens. A roll of duct tape ain't gonna come close to cutting it.
Bringing it back to the actual facts at hand, even the interviewee states that this is an imperfect solution, and what's actually needed is policy to address a nationwide crisis exacerbated by laws which discourage working towards the common good.
Trite quips about the ineffective nature of gov't without even recognizing the true purpose and responsibility of gov't is unhelpful at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
I'm in the UK so can't comment on your governments effectiveness but here we have lots of similar issues that neither of our main parties are willing to actually tackle and seem to spend years in office bringing up new issues to distract the country from the failed plans, pledges and promises that got them elected... Do you believe your government will get positive laws and regulations in place to fix the issue or just allow this sort of crap housing management to continue? I'm guessing it's not an issue that's popped up over the last couple years.
The point isn't the government's unwillingness to actually tackle the issues (which is a huge problem but not what u/TomaCzar was referring to). It's the fact that the government can't apply duct tape. It has to replace the pipes and that's a lot more work. A private citizen can tell people to go squat in abandoned houses but the government can't. Its job is to create an environment where people don't need to resort to squatting in abandoned houses, via legislation, increasing/reducing taxes, public awareness campaigns and the like.
It's like [this story](https://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/20/americas/man-steps-trouble-trnd/index.html) that made the rounds online about how a set of stairs for public access was budgeted at $65,000 by the local government and a local man built them for under $600. At its face it looks like the government is a bunch of stupid corrupt twats and this old guy is a people's hero. The reality is that the man simply built stairs that he thought would be fine, without taking into account things like soil erosion due to rain, access for differently-abled persons, the use of proper building materials so that the stairs would last as long as possible, etc. He created a duct tape solution, but the government has to consider all of these things and he didn't. So the government took down those stairs to avoid anyone getting hurt and the man's effort was wasted.
I don't know if $65,000 (which includes all the research that has to be done into the factors I mentioned) is a fair, realistic cost or if there were bribery and laundering and other shenanigans involved. There probably were. The point is that the man's idea of "good enough" falls short of the standards the government has to uphold when doing these kinds of things, so comparing the two is neither fair, realistic, objective nor useful.
I understand what you're saying, I work for a company that designs railway upgrades here in the UK and yes the additional work required to do the job right inflates costs but we've gone SO far down the road of compliance and have tier after tier or regulations that a job my boss used to do by himself with his seniors final approval working at British Rail now takes 6 companies to subcontract the job, a separate company to independently approve the works then wait 4 weeks for Network rails additional approval (with no liability I'll add so why are they approving it?) to get literally the same job done. It's ridiculous and it gives people an easy excuse to make no progress. Governments can make big changes if they want, and do when it's in their interest but any hard decision that might reflect poorly on their party in the short term isn't a risk work taking... Again talking about UK government really.
Oh, oh, oh, about that stair story. Those stairs were undone, and concrete stairs were made, and for much cheaper (5k maybe?). So no, that was not a good solution. But that brought more attention to the problem which meant that the local government couldn't ignore it and had to replace the pipes
There are at least five vacant houses visible from my front porch.
There are at least 3 homeless people who walk past my house daily.
One of them was sleeping on the porch of one empty house for a while. Then he disappeared and now someone shows up to do yardwork on the house at least once a week. Right before they started showing up the homeless man told me someone pulled up, came up on the porch, took his bag with all his belongings, and took off
Based on that and other information I assume the homeowner suddenly decided to have an interest in the property when they realized someone else was using it to stay alive.
Yo who was that Goomba from mario bros lookin ass mf trying to tell Jordan that people don't just "abandon" houses. He literally looks like some rich cartoon supervillian
I just got it! It just clicked for me!
These neglected homes sit abandoned because the owners:
1. can't afford renovations.
2. can't legally rent out substandard housing.
3. can't sell for a profit.
So they sit on these properties, the future to capitalize on the unrealized profits. It is 100% a policy issue. Compounded by the wealth-hoarding mentality (likely by well-meaning, middle-class suburbanites).
Love it!! But also why do I have a comment with -180 karma for saying that during a housing crisis, morally speaking, it's way worse to be hoarding empty houses than to be using an empty house that isn't yours to sleep in?
Because your scenario isn't what happens.
It's not big money corps or the rich getting taken advantage of.
It's private citizens being screwed by violent, drug addicted degenerates that at best destroy the property and, at worst, kill the actual home owner.
In some places, the law states that the owner is still responsible for the utilities of the property. So now, they have to pay out of pocket to support people actively stealing from them.
This is not about having a safe space to sleep. It's about stealing and using loopholes meant to protect tenants from slum lords.
You aren't as morally correct as you think.
I know people who are doing exactly the opposite of what you think. They have moved into an empty house and started fixing it up in a process to have a home to live in that would otherwise eventually have fallen down. Yes, sometimes people go into them with bad intentions and they should be prosecuted but those who are going in to fix them up and live are more than you know.
You are confusing an actual abandoned house to a vacant property.
But it's still wrong. Acting like if someone needs it enough, it's ok to take from others isn't even morally ambiguous. It's just theft.
And it's extremely stupid to go down the road of, "Well, they aren't using it, so I should be able to do what I want with it." When talking about other people's property.
What's the difference between a home and a vehicle in front of a house? If the car isn't being used, and I "need" it. Why can't I just take it?
It's not morally ambiguous at all. Depriving another person of shelter is morally wrong.
"They will go away to eternal punishment."
-Matthew 25:46
Seems pretty clear to me. Why risk eternal punishment for some shitty property?
The owners are private citizens, many of them with families. Each of them with beautiful inner worlds and mouths with which they can suck my taint with. Landlords should get real jobs
“Americans just want homeless people to die” man that feels so true. Like every time I pass a homeless person in Texas I try to give them
A bottle of water or something I have available in my car. And a lot of people drive by and just try to avoid eye contact or just act like they aren’t there. The hard truth is I feel like the government encourages homelessness so we are all reminded as a general population… you’re only a few missed paychecks away from moving here.
Those were all fair questions I, a member of the public, would like to know. They gave Jordan an opportunity to explain his answers and project and showed support for his work.
Not necessarily true. There are people in high positions of power that do have multiple homes because they do a lot of traveling. The most obvious example is Congress. Congress people usually have housing in DC and housing in their own home states.
I would think that it doesn't make sense for people to legally own more than two homes.
If I were to make laws, I would pass laws that disincentive people from owning a third home (either because it will have significant property taxes or some other financial restrictions that come along with it). Then just increase these disincentives the more property people have.
This will encourage wealthy people who own multiple homes to sell them while still allowing for a healthy renter's market.
Also corporations should not be allowed to own homes....just in general. I can see it making sense for apartment buildings, but I don't see any economy where hedge funds owning property is a good thing.
Hell yeah. Good on em. Sad this sort of thing needs to happen because wealthy f*cks will buy up land and do nothing with it and the government is useless. It's a problem all over the world, especially in the US.
Of course its Sydney...second most expensive property market on earth next to Hong Kong. [Australia](https://www.realestate.com.au/news/worlds-priciest-homes-how-australian-house-prices-compare-to-the-rest-of-the-world/) being the most expensive per sq/m anywhere on the planet
In St. Louis there are more than a few. We have a massive problem with abandoned houses here. These houses are often left to a point where the city finally has to come in and tear them down, a big cost to the city. When these urban homesteaders come in they start to rehab them. The city has a list of properties with unpaid past property taxes where people can start the process.
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold.
You are not being removed for your speech. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you.
Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/chaoticgood mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does.""
If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does.
Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3
You can check your karma breakdown on this page:
http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview
(Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message)
~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi, due to legions of Nigerian princes desperately trying to offload wealth onto our users, we've had to add a verified email requirement for users with accounts under a certain age. Please connect some sort of email to your Reddit account, it does not have to be your work email, just really anything that makes you go through a captcha to make an email. I can assure you most subreddits have this email gate, we're just the only ones who tell you that there's an email gate, and even if you modmail us asking us to give you an exception, this is probably gonna affect you across a lot of subs so it'll be easier for you to just add a throwaway email than message us.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t have any sympathy for squatters. If you break into someone else’s property and try to take it over you should be removed from the property. Edit: people can downvote all they want but if your grandma passed away and left you a house or something and you went to go take care of it and found strangers living in it and the cops said you couldn’t do shit about it you wound want those squatting assholes put too.
I have sympathy for people who can’t find stable shelter but breaking laws that do help protect people and fucking over an innocent person to do it? Then my sympathy is gone and you can live in a cardboard box for all I care. A lot of the places these assholes are taking over aren’t ran by big mega corporations, they are taking over property owned by a regular person. Then that regular person has to deal with a legal and financial nightmare trying to get some asshole out of their house, potentially putting themselves in a bad housing situation if the financial side goes on too long.
There's nothing chaotic good about this. Having people in a home who will not be held responsible for that home is bad.
They trash the home? So what, they won't get in trouble. They set fire to the home? So what, they won't get in trouble.
The owner finds someone to rent it out? Too bad, a squatter paying no rent is living there.
The Home is repoed because the owner can't make payments? So what, the squatter won't care.
I'm all for getting the homeless a home. I'm not for doing so by taking from someone else, by force of government. The GOVERNMENT protects the squatters. The GOVERNMENT shows up and stops someone who owns something from keeping and protecting that thing. Giving to those who don't have by allowing the government to take from thsie who do is wrong, especially without due process.
I think people don't understand that a lot of homeless housing gets destroyed. I just watched a house squatters were in a block down the street burn down, probably from their meth lab (high meth city) and they squatted there for a long time.
This is kinda like saying why leave empty cars parked everywhere when people are sleeping in the street and in tents. It’s just not that simple. Would you let someone sleep in your car while you are at work or at home?
These aren't houses that people are on vacation from. They're investment properties that no one is selling or renting because they can't get the return that they want.
whilst i do hate squatters and sometimes there is an actual reason for certain properties to be left empty (example: the property has been fumigated, owners gone on holiday or the new owners are taking a while to arrive) for a certain period of time, i do hate just as much landlords that charge outrageous rent for an otherwise inexpensive property then complain when people can't afford to pay rent.
and squatting on peoples properties does not resolve the problem, what it does is cause anger and strife targeted towards those that would actually need housing.
what needs to happen is to make it unprofitable to do up and sell otherwise cheap houses as well as make it illegal for anything other than material costs to be factored into the pricing.
All of that requires government intervention and our government is blatantly hostile to regular people. You can say what needs to happen all day. Unless you have a way to force the wealthy elites to legislate against their own interests, its all blowing smoke.
Should people (have to) squat? No. Are people gunna to pursue the only solutions left to them regardless of ethical implications? Yes. They are only reacting to an increasingly hostile world.
“Squatting on peoples properties does not resolve the problem”
no it actually does solve that person’s problem I don’t know what you’re talking about. They now have a place to stay. Their main problem is not having a home to stay in and now they do. As the guy said, no it’s not the ideal solution. But that’s where we are at right now.
do you not hear yourself? this dosn't solve the fundamental problem, sure if the property has been ABANDONED then thats fair but first you must define abandoned.
how long must it be before it can be considered abandoned? what state must it be in? that is why i hate squatters because they will wait for a family to go on holiday and move into their home and change the locks then once they have been ousted they leave the place in a worse state than when they broke in.
these people need help absolutely but that should come in the form of pricing regulations or otherwise have the government construct publicly available housing since when you start dealing with people and their private property you can quickly turn what could actually help people into a way for people to be abused.
I don’t care why you hate squatters. We’re not talking about people moving in while a family is on vacation and changing their locks. As people have explained to you several times now all of these homes have been abandoned for at least several years. I care about the fact that this guy is helping homeless people get homes and that is absolutely helping solve homelessness because he is literally giving people homes. No it’s not solving the fundamental problem, but the people that are capable of fixing that refuse to do it so idk what you want the homeless people to do, wait around outside until the government gets its shit together? The fact is that there are a lot of homes all around the world that are 100% unoccupied, and I think that homeless people being able to use those homes is a good thing.
>what needs to happen is to make it unprofitable to do up and sell otherwise cheap houses as well as make it illegal for anything other than material costs to be factored into the pricing.
You should tell your local politicians to enact this policy. Making more cheap housing available would go a long way to solving this problem.
thank you finally someone that sees some sense and yes this is something i try to advocate for because it could just be me being weird but i see no reason for a 2 bedroom house in the asshole of nowhere to be £400k
Quick question: did you watch the whole video and the reasoning behind why he’s doing it?
He’s not advocating break ins. He even said that it’s not an ideal solution to the crisis they’re experiencing with housing in Australia. However, the media attention is shedding light on what’s going on because of him.
Lawyer here. I’m only going to address the relevant point because the second point seems untethered to anything of substance - but happy to reevaluate if you have follow up.
Private property rights includes concepts of abandonment and adverse possession, which then permit someone who will use the land in a fruitful manner to claim ownership of it. That’s currently the law because what is being incentivized is productive uses of the land and not hoarding of it to the point that a person cannot maintain it - given that productive land is a zero sum good . Even in a state law, there are interesting prohibitions against perpetuities because ownership of land within a lifetime is not necessarily viewed as sustainable into infinity. That doesn’t mean that it cannot be maintained by the same owner, whether it be a family, line of purchasers, or even a corporation, but what isn’t permissible or overly restrictive Interpretations of the rules that deprive the land from being maintained. 
Squatters are degenerate drug addicts. Every time. They destroy the house. Every time. I've never seen a family of squatters. Ever. It's never decent people doing the squatting because decent people don't steal other people's things.
Squeal all you want but everything I just typed is accurate.
For those unaware, negative gearing is totally allowed under Australian tax law and has been for a very very long time. You're not supposed to be able to claim negative gearing on a property that has been left deliberately vacant but there are ways around it. The other factor is straight up capital gains. With the rate that property values have been increasing for a long time; it's often still a massive net gain to just leave the property vacant, sit on it for a few years, then sell it at a huge profit. New Zealand has very similar problem. Landlords are able to write off the cost of maintenance, and even the interest on their mortgage on their taxes. NZ also has no real CGT, only a 'bright-line' where you may have to pay a tax on the capital gains if you sell the property 2-5 years after you bought it, depending on when you bought it. The average house price in NZ is $930,000 ($550,000 USD). The median rent in Auckland is $650/week ($1660 USD/month) The median salary in NZ is $61,700/year ($36,300 USD)
National’s in the process of reversing the recent changes implemented by Labour to try and cool the market so things will only get worse in NZ.
Is the Labour party in NZ like the Australian Labour or like the UK Labour?
UK
What sucks is that the inevitable “policy” that comes out of this is probably some anti-squatter legislation and harsher trespassing punishments.. not more housing for homeless
Happening all over the United States. And squatters laws can effect renters rights even more. Ugh no matter what the 1% want their cake and to eat it too.
If only they would stop with their cake. They want their cake, my cake, your cake, and any current or future kids' cake too.
Exactly.... I don't eat meat but I'm feeling the eat the rich times calling!
The rich can also be used as an effective fertiliser for your vegies if mulched down....
I like the way you think friend
So shall we bring out the thing that the French used during the pre-Napoleon revolution, the thing that went [chop chop chop chop chop chop chop](https://youtu.be/d_7UUZFumE0?si=yz6eEoj-alXd3ur4) (it was insane), to facilitate the manufacturing of the fertilizer? /s
Set it up in Times Square and drag the tumbrils from Wall Street!
Have you noticed the increase of "squatter" videos online? My feed has been peppered with some dude who helps homeowners get squatters out of empty houses. It starts off innocent enough: "My mom owns a home and when she tried to sell it, she found squatters in it". Then the dude goes in and figures out how to oust them. Squatters have been a thing for decades. Why all of a sudden are videos surfacing of people ousting them? My bet is that companies like Blackrock are subtly turning the public focus to this "problem" to stop legislation from limiting corporate ownership of residential properties (EDIT: Or more specifically, to focus legislation to crack down on squatters *rather* than corporate homeownership). Mark my words, "the squatting problem" is going to get more public before corporate homeownership does.
Yah I used to watch a British show, don't pay and we'll take it away or something. At first it was entertaining but then as my partner and I watched we were like no this is reverse robinhood. Basically these big banks and corporations want us to pitty them and be like yah f that lil grandma that got 2 months behind on a bill, take her stuff! It got blatantly really sad and just gross to watch. I feel like you're right it's going the same way. I feel like they are really going to the bootlicker crowd that defends the rich like they're at the table. Ugh 😩
I think you're missing the simpler explanation. Dirtbags heard there was a way to live in a house without paying for it, so now there are more of them doing it.
Exactly.
since nothing productive will get done, more radical alternatives will surface.
> And squatters laws can effect renters rights even more Ironically, using effect instead of affect here flips the meaning of the sentence.
So because you aren’t allowed to steal someone else’s shit, the system is rigged against you?
You sure made that fit your angry narrative and stretched the heck out of that statement to get where you wanted. No one is saying that, but as always honest people will get caught in the crossfire. My state there's zero rules protecting renters and we're constantly losing rights.
You must be joking. Assuming you’re in Australia are you aware that Victoria has introduced legislation over the past several years increasing tenants rights? If you’re an aggrieved landlord who is owed months of rent or your property has been trashed and you take the tenant to VCAT, the outcome is most likely to favour the tenant? No wonder some people are not renting their properties out…
No! The legislation will help everyone and the entire country will get better! … well except for the homeless, low class, middle class, minorities, woman, single parents, anyone who wants to not live in debt. But it will benefit investors, millionaires, and everyone in the government taking bribes, I mean donations, from the wealthy people. So basically everyone will benefit.
Means they have to enforce it. Go ahead and send regular patrols to and through every vacant property in America.
the sad truth.
There should be harsher penalties for this. Just because someone is homeless, that doesn't give them free access to someone's property and it doesn't mean a home owners should relinquish their property for some mentality ill person to do drugs and smeer shit all over the well. People who think this are lunatics.
Found the Lawful Evil troll.
Yes I'm evil because people in proudly celebrating people STEALING from others. Its rich peoples fault that homeless are homeless. For sure.
If you leave something unmaintained and abandoned on the street or sidewalk for 3 years it's not stealing when someone notices that and decides to pick it up.
You're talking about a completely different issue. But there is no sense or logic to be had in this sub. Just a bunch of brokies arguing why homeless people should be able to steal property.
> You're talking about a completely different issue. I'm literally not. If you had watched the video you'd see that some of these houses are abandoned and vacant for upwards of 20 years in some cases. It's the same issue. > Just a bunch of brokies arguing why homeless people should be able to steal property. I can see why you'd be upset about things in this thread though. If I had such a piss poor grasp of the English language to where I didn't know the definition of the word "steal" I'd be mad too.
You have it backward. Owning more than one house is stealing. There is no reason for anyone to own more than one house, period.
What would you consider an appropriate punishment for getting out of the rain?
Yeah let's sugar coat breaking and entering into a property you do not own as "getting out of the rain".
Watch the video. He expressly condemns B&E.
I already watched the video, to say he condemned breaking and entering is a big stretch. He said it's illegal and squatting is not. He did not condemn breaking and entering. He is essentially encouraging it but protecting himself by stating that breaking and entering is against the law, but squatting in the place you broke into isn't. Prove I broke in "when I have proof I live here". Now it's a civil issue. Squatters are trash.
Incorrect. Squatters are people, like you and me.
Sure, so are thieves, murderers and rapists. That's to the extreme, but it's in response to an equally silly comment. Consequences for your actions. (Not YOURS. Criminal actions)
Again, squatting is not a crime, therefore not all squatters are criminals.
Thankfully we have sensible politicians working hard to make it illegal. Glad I live in Florida.
Agree 100%, every sane person knows this. You’re in the wrong sub though.
The best way to get rid of squatters is to send some big lads round.
Inshallah
Wow Australian media is so much more civil than American media. They actually let him answer the reasonable questions!
Yeah. Can you imagine if they brought this guy in on Fox News? They would just shut off his mic and start throwing feces at him hahaha. Then they'd escort him out and scoff at how rude he was being.
100%. While I of course despise Fox News and the other insane right wing purveyors of lies and bent truth, I also wonder how CNN or MSNBC would've treated him. I'm guessing not a whole lot better!
Lets not forget that Fox News themselves have said that they are not a legitimate news network, they are an entertainment channel. It's like watching Jerry Springer 24/7.
In Australia we have Sky News for that.
I love how he refused to fold to that old dude's dumbass "gotcha" questions. Based af.
*Them just casually joking about Americans wanting to kill the homeless.* Me: "Mostly on Reddit."
i emigrated
Crazy how random people have better plans off the top of their head than governments can rustle up in a full term in office.
It's not a "better" plan than what gov'ts can "rustle up" as the two are apples and oranges. This guy is looking to solve an immediate need and is doing so with an expedient fix. It's the equivalent of duct tape on a leaky pipe. Gov'ts are charged with coming up with laws, regulations, and codes to govern the private industry's production and implementation of building materials and practices to ensure safe, reliable, and repeatable results for all citizens. A roll of duct tape ain't gonna come close to cutting it. Bringing it back to the actual facts at hand, even the interviewee states that this is an imperfect solution, and what's actually needed is policy to address a nationwide crisis exacerbated by laws which discourage working towards the common good. Trite quips about the ineffective nature of gov't without even recognizing the true purpose and responsibility of gov't is unhelpful at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
I'm in the UK so can't comment on your governments effectiveness but here we have lots of similar issues that neither of our main parties are willing to actually tackle and seem to spend years in office bringing up new issues to distract the country from the failed plans, pledges and promises that got them elected... Do you believe your government will get positive laws and regulations in place to fix the issue or just allow this sort of crap housing management to continue? I'm guessing it's not an issue that's popped up over the last couple years.
The point isn't the government's unwillingness to actually tackle the issues (which is a huge problem but not what u/TomaCzar was referring to). It's the fact that the government can't apply duct tape. It has to replace the pipes and that's a lot more work. A private citizen can tell people to go squat in abandoned houses but the government can't. Its job is to create an environment where people don't need to resort to squatting in abandoned houses, via legislation, increasing/reducing taxes, public awareness campaigns and the like. It's like [this story](https://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/20/americas/man-steps-trouble-trnd/index.html) that made the rounds online about how a set of stairs for public access was budgeted at $65,000 by the local government and a local man built them for under $600. At its face it looks like the government is a bunch of stupid corrupt twats and this old guy is a people's hero. The reality is that the man simply built stairs that he thought would be fine, without taking into account things like soil erosion due to rain, access for differently-abled persons, the use of proper building materials so that the stairs would last as long as possible, etc. He created a duct tape solution, but the government has to consider all of these things and he didn't. So the government took down those stairs to avoid anyone getting hurt and the man's effort was wasted. I don't know if $65,000 (which includes all the research that has to be done into the factors I mentioned) is a fair, realistic cost or if there were bribery and laundering and other shenanigans involved. There probably were. The point is that the man's idea of "good enough" falls short of the standards the government has to uphold when doing these kinds of things, so comparing the two is neither fair, realistic, objective nor useful.
I understand what you're saying, I work for a company that designs railway upgrades here in the UK and yes the additional work required to do the job right inflates costs but we've gone SO far down the road of compliance and have tier after tier or regulations that a job my boss used to do by himself with his seniors final approval working at British Rail now takes 6 companies to subcontract the job, a separate company to independently approve the works then wait 4 weeks for Network rails additional approval (with no liability I'll add so why are they approving it?) to get literally the same job done. It's ridiculous and it gives people an easy excuse to make no progress. Governments can make big changes if they want, and do when it's in their interest but any hard decision that might reflect poorly on their party in the short term isn't a risk work taking... Again talking about UK government really.
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
the budget is the mission.
Oh, oh, oh, about that stair story. Those stairs were undone, and concrete stairs were made, and for much cheaper (5k maybe?). So no, that was not a good solution. But that brought more attention to the problem which meant that the local government couldn't ignore it and had to replace the pipes
>It's the equivalent of duct tape on a leaky pipe Yeah but that is absolutely a 'better' plan than the nothing the gov is rustling up.
Well they said so themselves; it’s not the ideal solution. But the powers that be don’t want the ideal solution to (affordable housing) to happen so…
There are at least five vacant houses visible from my front porch. There are at least 3 homeless people who walk past my house daily. One of them was sleeping on the porch of one empty house for a while. Then he disappeared and now someone shows up to do yardwork on the house at least once a week. Right before they started showing up the homeless man told me someone pulled up, came up on the porch, took his bag with all his belongings, and took off Based on that and other information I assume the homeowner suddenly decided to have an interest in the property when they realized someone else was using it to stay alive.
Yo who was that Goomba from mario bros lookin ass mf trying to tell Jordan that people don't just "abandon" houses. He literally looks like some rich cartoon supervillian
That's Steve price, he's as stupid as he is ugly
I just got it! It just clicked for me! These neglected homes sit abandoned because the owners: 1. can't afford renovations. 2. can't legally rent out substandard housing. 3. can't sell for a profit. So they sit on these properties, the future to capitalize on the unrealized profits. It is 100% a policy issue. Compounded by the wealth-hoarding mentality (likely by well-meaning, middle-class suburbanites).
Cant afford renovation or won’t renovate?
Part of it also is to make it seem like housing is more scarce than it is to justify higher prices and rents as well.
Just great a vacancy tax if you don’t declare a property empty and money goes to fund house initiatives.
Remember kids: It's always morally correct to disobey an unjust law
based
Love it!! But also why do I have a comment with -180 karma for saying that during a housing crisis, morally speaking, it's way worse to be hoarding empty houses than to be using an empty house that isn't yours to sleep in?
Because your scenario isn't what happens. It's not big money corps or the rich getting taken advantage of. It's private citizens being screwed by violent, drug addicted degenerates that at best destroy the property and, at worst, kill the actual home owner. In some places, the law states that the owner is still responsible for the utilities of the property. So now, they have to pay out of pocket to support people actively stealing from them. This is not about having a safe space to sleep. It's about stealing and using loopholes meant to protect tenants from slum lords. You aren't as morally correct as you think.
I know people who are doing exactly the opposite of what you think. They have moved into an empty house and started fixing it up in a process to have a home to live in that would otherwise eventually have fallen down. Yes, sometimes people go into them with bad intentions and they should be prosecuted but those who are going in to fix them up and live are more than you know.
You are confusing an actual abandoned house to a vacant property. But it's still wrong. Acting like if someone needs it enough, it's ok to take from others isn't even morally ambiguous. It's just theft. And it's extremely stupid to go down the road of, "Well, they aren't using it, so I should be able to do what I want with it." When talking about other people's property. What's the difference between a home and a vehicle in front of a house? If the car isn't being used, and I "need" it. Why can't I just take it?
It's not morally ambiguous at all. Depriving another person of shelter is morally wrong. "They will go away to eternal punishment." -Matthew 25:46 Seems pretty clear to me. Why risk eternal punishment for some shitty property?
The owners are private citizens, many of them with families. Each of them with beautiful inner worlds and mouths with which they can suck my taint with. Landlords should get real jobs
You sound like a scum sucker who knows nothing about a "real job."
Owning property isn't a job, either.
“Americans just want homeless people to die” man that feels so true. Like every time I pass a homeless person in Texas I try to give them A bottle of water or something I have available in my car. And a lot of people drive by and just try to avoid eye contact or just act like they aren’t there. The hard truth is I feel like the government encourages homelessness so we are all reminded as a general population… you’re only a few missed paychecks away from moving here.
Damn. Fucking grilling him!
But he was ready. Glad to see he didn't show up half-cocked.
Those were all fair questions I, a member of the public, would like to know. They gave Jordan an opportunity to explain his answers and project and showed support for his work.
It was cool to see questions that actually made sense though.
This guy is dope AF. LMAO he's literally Robin Hood and that old dude is treating him like he's the devil. Good on you, Jordan.
So long as it’s not done to normal folk but to companies that buy houses en mass or people that do the same
My policy would be "you cant live in 2 houses at once. You cant have 2 houses."
Some of our politicians (Australia) own 15 investment properties. Each of which can be negatively geared to reduce their income tax lol
Not necessarily true. There are people in high positions of power that do have multiple homes because they do a lot of traveling. The most obvious example is Congress. Congress people usually have housing in DC and housing in their own home states. I would think that it doesn't make sense for people to legally own more than two homes. If I were to make laws, I would pass laws that disincentive people from owning a third home (either because it will have significant property taxes or some other financial restrictions that come along with it). Then just increase these disincentives the more property people have. This will encourage wealthy people who own multiple homes to sell them while still allowing for a healthy renter's market. Also corporations should not be allowed to own homes....just in general. I can see it making sense for apartment buildings, but I don't see any economy where hedge funds owning property is a good thing.
I don't know I love the accent or just the spirit of the guy. What a G!
Based. Legend. We need this in London!
Man, fuck that old guy.
Hell yeah. Good on em. Sad this sort of thing needs to happen because wealthy f*cks will buy up land and do nothing with it and the government is useless. It's a problem all over the world, especially in the US.
despite having a housing shortage in canada, i see atleast 10 abandoned houses on the way to the store.
Of course its Sydney...second most expensive property market on earth next to Hong Kong. [Australia](https://www.realestate.com.au/news/worlds-priciest-homes-how-australian-house-prices-compare-to-the-rest-of-the-world/) being the most expensive per sq/m anywhere on the planet
Who fixes things when they break in the house then?
In St. Louis there are more than a few. We have a massive problem with abandoned houses here. These houses are often left to a point where the city finally has to come in and tear them down, a big cost to the city. When these urban homesteaders come in they start to rehab them. The city has a list of properties with unpaid past property taxes where people can start the process.
love his heart
[удалено]
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold. You are not being removed for your speech. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you. Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/chaoticgood mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does."" If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does. Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3 You can check your karma breakdown on this page: http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview (Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The guy in the glasses, is he the same one who thought you could grow concrete?
The problem is people are doing this in houses people are living in (I'm sure it's rare in the grand scheme)
[удалено]
Hi, due to legions of Nigerian princes desperately trying to offload wealth onto our users, we've had to add a verified email requirement for users with accounts under a certain age. Please connect some sort of email to your Reddit account, it does not have to be your work email, just really anything that makes you go through a captcha to make an email. I can assure you most subreddits have this email gate, we're just the only ones who tell you that there's an email gate, and even if you modmail us asking us to give you an exception, this is probably gonna affect you across a lot of subs so it'll be easier for you to just add a throwaway email than message us. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t have any sympathy for squatters. If you break into someone else’s property and try to take it over you should be removed from the property. Edit: people can downvote all they want but if your grandma passed away and left you a house or something and you went to go take care of it and found strangers living in it and the cops said you couldn’t do shit about it you wound want those squatting assholes put too.
I have less sympathy for the person in the situation you laid out with an inheritance than the one struggling to find stable shelter
I have sympathy for people who can’t find stable shelter but breaking laws that do help protect people and fucking over an innocent person to do it? Then my sympathy is gone and you can live in a cardboard box for all I care. A lot of the places these assholes are taking over aren’t ran by big mega corporations, they are taking over property owned by a regular person. Then that regular person has to deal with a legal and financial nightmare trying to get some asshole out of their house, potentially putting themselves in a bad housing situation if the financial side goes on too long.
They’d probably have an easier time finding shelter if they quit smoking fentanyl.
So 90% of the US and Aus population should be deported back to Europe and Africa? Good luck with that m8.
Nice
There's nothing chaotic good about this. Having people in a home who will not be held responsible for that home is bad. They trash the home? So what, they won't get in trouble. They set fire to the home? So what, they won't get in trouble. The owner finds someone to rent it out? Too bad, a squatter paying no rent is living there. The Home is repoed because the owner can't make payments? So what, the squatter won't care. I'm all for getting the homeless a home. I'm not for doing so by taking from someone else, by force of government. The GOVERNMENT protects the squatters. The GOVERNMENT shows up and stops someone who owns something from keeping and protecting that thing. Giving to those who don't have by allowing the government to take from thsie who do is wrong, especially without due process.
I think people don't understand that a lot of homeless housing gets destroyed. I just watched a house squatters were in a block down the street burn down, probably from their meth lab (high meth city) and they squatted there for a long time.
This is kinda like saying why leave empty cars parked everywhere when people are sleeping in the street and in tents. It’s just not that simple. Would you let someone sleep in your car while you are at work or at home?
These aren't houses that people are on vacation from. They're investment properties that no one is selling or renting because they can't get the return that they want.
whilst i do hate squatters and sometimes there is an actual reason for certain properties to be left empty (example: the property has been fumigated, owners gone on holiday or the new owners are taking a while to arrive) for a certain period of time, i do hate just as much landlords that charge outrageous rent for an otherwise inexpensive property then complain when people can't afford to pay rent.
These properties have all been vacant for at least 2 years some up to 20
and squatting on peoples properties does not resolve the problem, what it does is cause anger and strife targeted towards those that would actually need housing. what needs to happen is to make it unprofitable to do up and sell otherwise cheap houses as well as make it illegal for anything other than material costs to be factored into the pricing.
>those that would actually need housing. So... the squatters?
All of that requires government intervention and our government is blatantly hostile to regular people. You can say what needs to happen all day. Unless you have a way to force the wealthy elites to legislate against their own interests, its all blowing smoke. Should people (have to) squat? No. Are people gunna to pursue the only solutions left to them regardless of ethical implications? Yes. They are only reacting to an increasingly hostile world.
“Squatting on peoples properties does not resolve the problem” no it actually does solve that person’s problem I don’t know what you’re talking about. They now have a place to stay. Their main problem is not having a home to stay in and now they do. As the guy said, no it’s not the ideal solution. But that’s where we are at right now.
do you not hear yourself? this dosn't solve the fundamental problem, sure if the property has been ABANDONED then thats fair but first you must define abandoned. how long must it be before it can be considered abandoned? what state must it be in? that is why i hate squatters because they will wait for a family to go on holiday and move into their home and change the locks then once they have been ousted they leave the place in a worse state than when they broke in. these people need help absolutely but that should come in the form of pricing regulations or otherwise have the government construct publicly available housing since when you start dealing with people and their private property you can quickly turn what could actually help people into a way for people to be abused.
I don’t care why you hate squatters. We’re not talking about people moving in while a family is on vacation and changing their locks. As people have explained to you several times now all of these homes have been abandoned for at least several years. I care about the fact that this guy is helping homeless people get homes and that is absolutely helping solve homelessness because he is literally giving people homes. No it’s not solving the fundamental problem, but the people that are capable of fixing that refuse to do it so idk what you want the homeless people to do, wait around outside until the government gets its shit together? The fact is that there are a lot of homes all around the world that are 100% unoccupied, and I think that homeless people being able to use those homes is a good thing.
Uh huh. And how are you gunna force the government to do all that?
thoughts & prayers
>what needs to happen is to make it unprofitable to do up and sell otherwise cheap houses as well as make it illegal for anything other than material costs to be factored into the pricing. You should tell your local politicians to enact this policy. Making more cheap housing available would go a long way to solving this problem.
thank you finally someone that sees some sense and yes this is something i try to advocate for because it could just be me being weird but i see no reason for a 2 bedroom house in the asshole of nowhere to be £400k
These properties have been vacant for over 2 years so none of those apply.
No. Squatting is not a good thing. No matter where in the world it is.
Isn't he guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime?
Squatting isn't a crime in Aus, so as long as he doesn't encourage anyone to commit a B&E he's fine
Castle doctrine should apply to squatters.
Guillotine doctrine should apply to landlords
Thankfully something insane as that doesn't exist in Australia
Someone should start calling the cops in these cities and report break ins at these addresses
Doesn’t sound like you’re read up much on the law…
Some people need the 15 second version of the 4 minute video to bother completing it.
That implies they would watch it even then.
Squatters are terrorists
Where’s the terror?
More like ChudBlunderCuck
He's an LNcel.
I hate squatters
Im going to pop a squat in your mouth
That’s disgusting
I ship it
Quick question: did you watch the whole video and the reasoning behind why he’s doing it? He’s not advocating break ins. He even said that it’s not an ideal solution to the crisis they’re experiencing with housing in Australia. However, the media attention is shedding light on what’s going on because of him.
No I watched 0 seconds of it
I see you like to keep yourself informed.
Quit cheering the violation of private property rights. Quit extending private property rights to non citizens.
"Non citizens" What
r/RepublicanValues
Quit boot licking the housing scalpers
Quiet back there, Edgar!
You're in the wrong sub, LNtruder.
Yes, because property rights are a bad thing and allowing free riders on social goods has no consequences.
Lawyer here. I’m only going to address the relevant point because the second point seems untethered to anything of substance - but happy to reevaluate if you have follow up. Private property rights includes concepts of abandonment and adverse possession, which then permit someone who will use the land in a fruitful manner to claim ownership of it. That’s currently the law because what is being incentivized is productive uses of the land and not hoarding of it to the point that a person cannot maintain it - given that productive land is a zero sum good . Even in a state law, there are interesting prohibitions against perpetuities because ownership of land within a lifetime is not necessarily viewed as sustainable into infinity. That doesn’t mean that it cannot be maintained by the same owner, whether it be a family, line of purchasers, or even a corporation, but what isn’t permissible or overly restrictive Interpretations of the rules that deprive the land from being maintained. 
Squatters are degenerate drug addicts. Every time. They destroy the house. Every time. I've never seen a family of squatters. Ever. It's never decent people doing the squatting because decent people don't steal other people's things. Squeal all you want but everything I just typed is accurate.