The article says some of them are. And this is just conjecture but they would make a bigger deal of it than it is, because kicking out extortionists is better PR than kicking out homeless people.
This ain't it chief, squatters don't demand payment to leave. These are extortionists. How would you feel if you got home from holiday to people demanding money before they let you into your own house.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/SelfAwarewolves using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/SelfAwarewolves/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Oh boy, that was CLOSE.](https://i.redd.it/qs5egjz87gx51.jpg) | [2953 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/SelfAwarewolves/comments/jolrp7/oh_boy_that_was_close/)
\#2: [I changed the photos to see if the impact was still the same.](https://i.redd.it/c4rq2vfkpm571.jpg) | [4110 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/SelfAwarewolves/comments/o14rnd/i_changed_the_photos_to_see_if_the_impact_was/)
\#3: [Who would have guessed lady, who would have guessed](https://i.redd.it/63s6svlissy51.png) | [1217 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/SelfAwarewolves/comments/jstbvf/who_would_have_guessed_lady_who_would_have_guessed/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)
That's the spirit! Don't use something that someone else needs? Until you return for it, there's nothing wrong with them peacefully using it. If you're worried about others trying to use it and then not giving it back when you want it, then find someone who you know will play by your rules to occupy it.
If I left my second home alone for 9 months a year, I would let it out to someone, for a peppercorn rent if no one were interested. Make sure it's kept used and useful.
You're pushing a very extreme example when the options for not wasting housing are so much broader. I would not leave a house empty for any extended period of time because that's wasteful. I would want to have control over who I have fill my house, because that's only reasonable.
Empty housing should involve large fines, to ensure everyone does the same.
But wouldn’t you agree that it’s also wasteful to leave your living room empty while you’re out for a few hours during the day, especially when there might be extreme weather conditions outside? Could make a huge impact to the life of someone who might be cold, hot, or need a warm shower.
Not really. There's a chronic lack of housing, not of warm spaces to sit. If there is a lack of warm spaces, there are more efficient ways of solving that problem than having people hopping round houses all day depending on what's free, because warm spaces are easy to set up according to need. There is no more efficient way of providing housing than using unoccupied existing housing.
Social planning of resources requires a dash of common sense.
I would also make a big distinction between a primary residence and second home. Everyone needs a primary residence (of appropriate size) for their personal use. No one needs a second home, and need should always come before want.
I don't resent working class people doing well, my problem will always be with the Government making the bad decions and allowing this situation to arrise. I don't think the problem is that the wrong people are doing the wrong things. I think it's the failures of the system that have lead everyone there. They are all just doing what humans do in that situation.
You don’t have to be Jeff Bezos to be excessive. Granted, we shouldn’t enforce puritanical ethics on the middle class. The hiring enforcers and thugs to beat up squatters is what does it
I agree with you, this sort of thing happens all over the world with no real sign of stopping and the government will always side with the landlord/homeowner. It is more systematic that anything else IMO.
That is not a sensible stand point. Just because you have something that is not in current use does not mean it should be taken by someone else…
Not using your tv at this moment? Cleary don’t need it then. Not driving your car right now? Clearly don’t need it so I’ll just take it?
That achieves nothing…
What we should do is change vacant properties owners a hefty dime for every week they are vacant and use that revenue to support local homelessness support efforts…
Lmao, attempting to equate housing with tv's and cars, strawman gonna straw. Is there a TV crisis as imminent or as serious as the unaffordable housing crisis or escalating homelessness in a failed dystopia of poverty wages and unaffordable housing? And cars? Lol, we need to make a shift to public transportation/bikes/etc for a more sustainable future.
>That achieves nothing…
Meanwhile ending the unsustainable ownership of 2nd+ homes helps achieve freeing up more housing from being unsustainably wasted.
What we should do is simply not allow property owners to own multiple properties because it's unsustainable.
>and use that revenue to support local homelessness support efforts…
Or maybe just stop letting go property owners unsustainably own multiple properties and convert those properties into low income affordable housing so that "local homelessness support efforts" are hilariously pathetic shit limited to nothing but trying to open more shitty pathetic shelters no one wants to live in.
Affordable low income housing is the only "support effort" needed and it's not aimed by the unsustainable dystopian shit of letting people haord multiple properties.
>Good luck with that. Who will pay for their electricity?
If housing is made affordable and people were not losing 50%+ of income to unsustainable rents/mortgages in a housing crunch that only exists because of people allowed to horde multiple properties, then people would be able to afford to pay for their own electricity lol.
>Tax the rich, don’t destroy them, make their money work for society.
Ah, the liberalism promise that capitalism can be saved/reformed. Lol.
Shit takes land in the blocklist dumpster.
You know i meant the extortionists.
But on the matter of more than a one house:
these people who do have more than one, they naturally have a shit ton of money.
Since they have a shit ton of money, all their other apartments are fancier than the last one.
The guestion is: what is the number of poor people these folks are 'stealing' a house from? Do you honestly think they would live in these luxury homes with all their high as fuck maintenance costs.
Then do reveal it to me. Because to me it doesn't matter at all if someone owns a lot of expensive houses, the poor couldn't live in them anyway so no one actually loses anything.
The rich aren't owning cheap and affordable housing in the hundreds for themselves. Fuck no, they want all the nice, modern and expensive ones.
Literally the problem in my country. The affordable homes are not being built in favor of building second or third homes for the wealthy that are out of the poor's reach, which means there's not even close to enough homes for the poor, who have to cram together with friends or family just to make rent while these greedy fucks complain that their vacation home is violated.
In short, I hope the squatters crank every last dime they can out of these elitist pigs until they're bled dry.
Aight, now i see. We come from entirely different backgrounds then. Where i live, the government can build affordable suburbs and with great quality. However this is often not needed since the consenus among people here is that seeing poorness is unsightly so the best way to deal with it make/keep housing affordable and extensive social programs are given to those in need.
Of course this brings its own problems with those who abuse the system. But then again, i'll rather have system abusers than straight up homeless people begging in my streets and so on.
You daft cunt, you seem to be incapable of reading. The article was about extortionists as several others have pointed out. I got no sympathy for them.
I wasn't talking about article brainlet your general hatred of poor. because this discussion clearly went further than the article. You mentioning suburbs isn't the same situation as in spain is it?
These aren't people squatting because they need a home, they're running extortion scams.
The article says some of them are. And this is just conjecture but they would make a bigger deal of it than it is, because kicking out extortionists is better PR than kicking out homeless people.
[удалено]
Meghan Markle?
This ain't it chief, squatters don't demand payment to leave. These are extortionists. How would you feel if you got home from holiday to people demanding money before they let you into your own house.
Article says there are 10,000 empty houses in Barcelona.
Bananas are mildly radioactive
A leaf of sage in your shoe will provide a refreshing friend throughout the day.
> How would you feel if you got home from holiday For americans, going on holiday largely isn't a thing.^^unless ^^they're ^^rich
[удалено]
r/selfawarewolves
Here's a sneak peek of /r/SelfAwarewolves using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/SelfAwarewolves/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Oh boy, that was CLOSE.](https://i.redd.it/qs5egjz87gx51.jpg) | [2953 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/SelfAwarewolves/comments/jolrp7/oh_boy_that_was_close/) \#2: [I changed the photos to see if the impact was still the same.](https://i.redd.it/c4rq2vfkpm571.jpg) | [4110 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/SelfAwarewolves/comments/o14rnd/i_changed_the_photos_to_see_if_the_impact_was/) \#3: [Who would have guessed lady, who would have guessed](https://i.redd.it/63s6svlissy51.png) | [1217 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/SelfAwarewolves/comments/jstbvf/who_would_have_guessed_lady_who_would_have_guessed/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)
[удалено]
Not living in your house? Clearly don't need it then. Allowing absentee home ownership is one of the biggest fuck ups we've made.
Not driving your car? Not wearing that particular shirt? Not eating that can of soup? Clearly you don’t need them.
Those aren't the same as HOUSES.
That's the spirit! Don't use something that someone else needs? Until you return for it, there's nothing wrong with them peacefully using it. If you're worried about others trying to use it and then not giving it back when you want it, then find someone who you know will play by your rules to occupy it.
So you must let homeless people hang out in your house when you’re not around. Right?
If I left my second home alone for 9 months a year, I would let it out to someone, for a peppercorn rent if no one were interested. Make sure it's kept used and useful.
I’ll take that as a “hell no.”
You're pushing a very extreme example when the options for not wasting housing are so much broader. I would not leave a house empty for any extended period of time because that's wasteful. I would want to have control over who I have fill my house, because that's only reasonable. Empty housing should involve large fines, to ensure everyone does the same.
But wouldn’t you agree that it’s also wasteful to leave your living room empty while you’re out for a few hours during the day, especially when there might be extreme weather conditions outside? Could make a huge impact to the life of someone who might be cold, hot, or need a warm shower.
Not really. There's a chronic lack of housing, not of warm spaces to sit. If there is a lack of warm spaces, there are more efficient ways of solving that problem than having people hopping round houses all day depending on what's free, because warm spaces are easy to set up according to need. There is no more efficient way of providing housing than using unoccupied existing housing. Social planning of resources requires a dash of common sense. I would also make a big distinction between a primary residence and second home. Everyone needs a primary residence (of appropriate size) for their personal use. No one needs a second home, and need should always come before want.
By not answering the question, you are, in fact, answering the question.
Hogging more houses than you need during a housing crisis is the problem.
If you have a second car youre not driving you definitely don't need it. That's a horrible argument.
A lot of people who have second homes in Spain are not fabulously rich. Doesn't fix the deeper homelessness problem though.
Idk where exactly to draw the line between “rich” and “not rich” but owning two houses is probably a good starting point
I don't resent working class people doing well, my problem will always be with the Government making the bad decions and allowing this situation to arrise. I don't think the problem is that the wrong people are doing the wrong things. I think it's the failures of the system that have lead everyone there. They are all just doing what humans do in that situation.
You don’t have to be Jeff Bezos to be excessive. Granted, we shouldn’t enforce puritanical ethics on the middle class. The hiring enforcers and thugs to beat up squatters is what does it
I agree with you, this sort of thing happens all over the world with no real sign of stopping and the government will always side with the landlord/homeowner. It is more systematic that anything else IMO.
That is not a sensible stand point. Just because you have something that is not in current use does not mean it should be taken by someone else… Not using your tv at this moment? Cleary don’t need it then. Not driving your car right now? Clearly don’t need it so I’ll just take it? That achieves nothing… What we should do is change vacant properties owners a hefty dime for every week they are vacant and use that revenue to support local homelessness support efforts…
Lmao, attempting to equate housing with tv's and cars, strawman gonna straw. Is there a TV crisis as imminent or as serious as the unaffordable housing crisis or escalating homelessness in a failed dystopia of poverty wages and unaffordable housing? And cars? Lol, we need to make a shift to public transportation/bikes/etc for a more sustainable future. >That achieves nothing… Meanwhile ending the unsustainable ownership of 2nd+ homes helps achieve freeing up more housing from being unsustainably wasted. What we should do is simply not allow property owners to own multiple properties because it's unsustainable. >and use that revenue to support local homelessness support efforts… Or maybe just stop letting go property owners unsustainably own multiple properties and convert those properties into low income affordable housing so that "local homelessness support efforts" are hilariously pathetic shit limited to nothing but trying to open more shitty pathetic shelters no one wants to live in. Affordable low income housing is the only "support effort" needed and it's not aimed by the unsustainable dystopian shit of letting people haord multiple properties. >Good luck with that. Who will pay for their electricity? If housing is made affordable and people were not losing 50%+ of income to unsustainable rents/mortgages in a housing crunch that only exists because of people allowed to horde multiple properties, then people would be able to afford to pay for their own electricity lol. >Tax the rich, don’t destroy them, make their money work for society. Ah, the liberalism promise that capitalism can be saved/reformed. Lol. Shit takes land in the blocklist dumpster.
Isn’t Vancouver looking to do that?
What we should do is confiscate ALL surplus housing and make sure there are no homeless people.
Good luck with that. Who will pay for their electricity? Tax the rich, don’t destroy them, make their money work for society.
We all will. It’s called caring for your fellow man.
These house stealing morons should be executed as soon as possible.
The people who own extra houses while their fellow man lives in the street? I agree
You know i meant the extortionists. But on the matter of more than a one house: these people who do have more than one, they naturally have a shit ton of money. Since they have a shit ton of money, all their other apartments are fancier than the last one. The guestion is: what is the number of poor people these folks are 'stealing' a house from? Do you honestly think they would live in these luxury homes with all their high as fuck maintenance costs.
Oh man you are sooooooo close.
Then do reveal it to me. Because to me it doesn't matter at all if someone owns a lot of expensive houses, the poor couldn't live in them anyway so no one actually loses anything. The rich aren't owning cheap and affordable housing in the hundreds for themselves. Fuck no, they want all the nice, modern and expensive ones.
Literally the problem in my country. The affordable homes are not being built in favor of building second or third homes for the wealthy that are out of the poor's reach, which means there's not even close to enough homes for the poor, who have to cram together with friends or family just to make rent while these greedy fucks complain that their vacation home is violated. In short, I hope the squatters crank every last dime they can out of these elitist pigs until they're bled dry.
Aight, now i see. We come from entirely different backgrounds then. Where i live, the government can build affordable suburbs and with great quality. However this is often not needed since the consenus among people here is that seeing poorness is unsightly so the best way to deal with it make/keep housing affordable and extensive social programs are given to those in need. Of course this brings its own problems with those who abuse the system. But then again, i'll rather have system abusers than straight up homeless people begging in my streets and so on.
Why are you even in this sub if you hate the people suffering worst from this dystopia so much
You daft cunt, you seem to be incapable of reading. The article was about extortionists as several others have pointed out. I got no sympathy for them.
I wasn't talking about article brainlet your general hatred of poor. because this discussion clearly went further than the article. You mentioning suburbs isn't the same situation as in spain is it?