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 agree, it is a complex issue. And brainstorming reasons why people don't like it is not something I find boring, but it is only half the conversation needed. A poorly built structure can be hazardous, how do we bring it down and salvage the material? If it is a foreclosed home that sits empty because a bank owns it, how do we take it back from the bank?
what do you think if squatters?
← View full post
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
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I agree, it is a complex issue. And brainstorming reasons why people don't like it is not something I find boring, but it is only half the conversation needed. A poorly built structure can be hazardous, how do we bring it down and salvage the material? If it is a foreclosed home that sits empty because a bank owns it, how do we take it back from the bank?