What do you think if squatters?

If no one is using the building, them I'm all for it. No one should have to live on the street, everyone deserves shelter. Maybe I'm being naive and missing something very important, but as of now I think it's an acceptable thing to do. A lot of homeless people are desperate, it's understandable.

I see no problem with it, as long as they keep it clean and don't damage the property.
When the owners want to use the property, the squatters should be able to leave without any problems as well.

What would be a better, more long term solution would be if the government did more to directly help the homeless. Until then, if there are unoccupied homes the homeless should be allowed to use them.

A reason why some people dislike squatters is because, whether the house is lived in or not, in most cases somebody DOES own it. They might be using it as an investment and waiting for price to rise before they sell it on. They might be using it as a second home. Either way, the house would be being used by someone, for free, who will bring down the value of someone else's property. It wouldn't be unreasonable to take the line that this was inherently unfair.

Another reason is that squatters bring down the value of property in the area. There's a phrase that can be applied to many, many things: "Not in my backyard!". What it means is that they approve in general of something (for example, squatting) but if it happened near to them they would not want it. Essentially, it's just a hypocritical attitude.

Alternatively, the property might be empty because it's dangerous. If the roof was about to collapse or the was another reason the place was inhospitable, it might not be any safer than living on the streets.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, of course. I do support homeless squatters, but I do think a lot of people simplify the issue too far. There are legitimate reasons why some people don't support squatting. I could go on brainstorming reasons, but I've had enough and you're bored :P

I don't know people who squat in empty buildings, therefore, I can't judge them.

How can the streest be shelter?

I say let them live there as long as they don't live next door to me. My friends and I used to explore abandoned houses and I we knew which ones had squatters because of all the feces on the floor and walls. The stench was unbearable.

I am seriously confused. How did we get to the point where we pay to live on Earth?????It should be build your own, by default

I think they're easy to kill without police follow ups.

I guess some people just have no common sense. Or no heart..

If they aren't bothering anyone, then who cares? Why would you not let someone in need live in an empty building that no one is using??

I would have to know how the building was to be treated first. If they were just going to crap on the floor and piss on the walls, no. But if they just wanted a roof over their heads, why not?

In Britain, you have Squatters which is Nice. However, if they start to harass others then that's not good.

If it isnt a building I own, then I dont really give a shit what happens to it.

I'd say "let them be" since no one's using the building, as long as they behave like good neighbours and don't harrass people, ask for change or just make noise. We had a run down building where a bunch of punks were living. They were alright -sometimes they'd get loud, but as long as they didn't do drugs on the street noone cared.

If the buildings are empty let them stay there most of them look after them very well and it stops filthy pigeons from breeding ther