Homesteaders in the Hood (Thanks, Eduardo!)Squatting, or unlawfully occupying and making use of land that belongs to someone else, tends to emerge when poverty and homelessness intersect with absentee ownership. It was widespread on the frontier of the 19th-century West, where settlers who couldn't afford to purchase land at market prices often simply occupied land owned by Eastern speculators (as well as land owned by the federal government and by Native American tribes).
From the point of view of local officials, this was a win-win, of a sort. Far-away owners were more interested in free-riding on rising property values, and flipping their land, than in developing it productively. So they resisted paying property taxes or investing in infrastructure. As a result, governments in the West were happy to lend squatters a hand in their efforts to get property out of the speculators' hands. Local governments frequently made it easier for squatters to obtain title through the legal doctrine of adverse possession (sometimes colloquially called "squatters rights")—for example, by shortening the time period required for squatting to mature into ownership. Ultimately, even the federal government joined in. After years of using the Army to chase squatters off its lands, Congress decided to create a legal avenue for settlers without money to become landowners: the 1862 Homestead Act.
Upside of squatters
Leave a comment
More items
Hacked climate scientists' emails in context
A huge amount of email from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit was hacked and released onto the web, causing much rejoicing from the climate change denialists. They read through the corpus of email and found that the scientists working on climate change often have substantive disagreements with o... More.
Upside of squatters
Slate's got an article on the upside -- to a city -- of having squatters move into empty buildings. The beautiful, gigantic Victorian brick office-building next to my flat in east London was recently squatted by what seem like nice enough people (except for that one Sunday morning they got drunk, st... More.
New Disney princess movie sounds pretty good
I wasn't going to both going to see the new Disney cartoon, "The Princess on the Frog," first because Disney's campaign to turn princesses into pure little-girl-crack is tiresome-verging-on-offensive, and second because it looked like a trite and opportunistic way to bring in African-American viewer... More.
Makers audiobook - DRM free download
The audiobook of my latest novel, Makers has been published by Random House Audio, strictly in DRM-free formats over the net (this means that Apple won't carry it in the iTunes store, even though Audible was willing to carry it without DRM). The reading is by Bernadette Dunne, a very talented a... More.
TV vs Web: consumption characteristics
On cranky usability guy Jakob Neilsen's Alertbox, this wonderful chart on the relative "consumption" characteristics of TV vs the web. Velocity of Media Consumption: TV vs. the Web (via ResourceShelf) Previously:CNN ends a web news experiment - Boing Boing Boing Boing: Design critique of Jakob ... More.
RSS Feed
I can understand arsonists, but what's wrong with junkies? I mean, as long as they're not hurting anyone else, should it matter what their personal addiction is? What makes a junkie inherently worse than a drunk?
What's with the claim that squatting dates to the 19th Century?
Here's a story about George Washington's 18th century fight with squatters on his land
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10634-2004Jun2.html
But I find it hard to believe that squatting doesn't date back more or less to the first systems of land ownership that allowed for absentee owners. Anyone have any more concrete information on the history?
Why doesn't the absent owners hire caretakers to take care of their empty buildings? The caretakers could live there rent free, and draw no salary.
A law that says "if you've squatted for 5 years, the property is yours", is just encouraging owners to evict and keep the building empty. On the other hand, a law that says "empty buildings, unoccupied for more than a year, should be subjected to maintenance fees", will encourage owners to keep the buildings occupied.
The question is whether the city prefers to have empty, unoccupied buildings.
Sounds like you got the young hippie anarchist (principled) type of squatter, not the desperate junkie who will shit in the corner, and bring dealers around, or the crusty punk type squatter who will throw parties where people kick the walls in.
You got off lucky, for now.
Also, I'm not sure how these people are improving things for you, or the city. Themselves, maybe, in they have a place to live. They're not improving land, building things or growing crops like a homesteader might.
The banks should have just tried to keep the owners from defaulting by extending the loan or let them stay there and pay rent. Eviction is a disaster for both the occupants and the bank. But nobody would step outside their computer generated protocols to come up with a humane and financially responsible solution.
never hurts to squat if you've got nothing. Plenty of people who were slaves and chattels became humans when the Black Death swept through, and their squats became "landed estates" in one generation.
XNEVERMORE @1: Well the drunks I know can go a few days without alcohol with no terrible effects other than being more irritable than usual. And whenever they get a couple bucks together, then can head off to the bar.
Junkies, on the other hand, tend to have some pretty harsh side effects when they don't get a fix soon enough. Also, they need more than a few bucks to buy those drugs, so they're more likely to need to harm somebody to get them. Plus, they can't go down to the local heroin store, so they'll bring some even shadier characters around.
There's nothing inherently wrong with being a junkie compared to a drunk, but with the current illegality of most drugs, there are currently some unpleasant side effects to having them around.
I'm surprised that squatting is a surprise. Where ever there are poor people, and unused buildings, there is squatting, and probably has been since the dawn of humanity.
We've got a long history of squatting in San Francisco. Homes not Jails, an offshoot of Food not Bombs, used to take over empty houses and protest the fact that due to speculation housing stock sits dormant while people are freezing on the street, and going insane from lack of a place to live. Check out Anders Corr's book No Tresspassing: Squatting, Rent Strikes, and Land Struggles Worldwide. I've not read it, but remember when he was writing it.
The various punk rock and anarchist scenes have long associations with particular squats. In the mid 80's some punk rock significantly junkie squatters took over the vats at the late Hamm's brewery, sleeping in the round on the floor, and having notorius performances and parties.
And of course, how could we forget the German squatters of the squatters in Berlin who took over whole streets.
I myself have squatted in S.F. at different times. I rembember getting busted living in a earthquake damaged warehouse at 6th and Folsom, which had been taken over by artists who had left paintings, mannequins, drag, and art supplies. We had setup an exhibit of stuff we'd found. One cop told me that it was the nicest squat he'd ever busted, right before he kicked us out on a neigbor's complaint (seen us climbing up the billboard to get in through the skylight), but encouraged us to come back later.
And to answer XNeverMore, junkies suck formost because it's an expensive and compelling habit that's very stigmatized, so junkies tend to be thieves, and invariably liars. Also, most junkies tend to be smart, smarter than other types of drug users, anyway. Combined with the theiving liar part, and smarts ain't a virtue.
I find it hard to believe that squatting doesn't date back more or less to the first systems of land ownership that allowed for absentee owners. Anyone have any more concrete information on the history?
This is a deceptively simple question, something like asking a physicist whether everything has weight. Here's my best, quick attempt:
US property law is mostly based on the English common law. You would be surprised how late our modern idea of land ownership became reflected in law, although with hindsight it seems obvious that people were trying to get rid of the old system for centuries. Under feudal title (which preceded the systems we now use) all land was held by the king, who enfeoffed it to his tenants, who enfeoffed it to their tenants and so forth. Everybody other than the ultimate tenant was literally a landlord and they were typically more-or-less remote from the land of which they were the lord. I think that under this system there could be no legal squatting, because your immediate lord could always sort out a property dispute.
Eventually the idea of "estates" in land developed. An "estate" is a right or a bundle of rights over property - the right for your heir to inherit your tenancy is an estate, and it didn't matter that the land "really" belonged to the king via the lord whose tenant you were. You had a right to bequeath the land to your heir, and that right would be protected by a court.
I suspect that adverse possession evolved at this time: the court would simply refuse to examine a claimed estate that had been dormant for X number of years. Eventually title to estates in property grew to be vastly more significant than the feudal title which underlay them, and adverse possession would have become a significant issue. Before that time you could certainly squat - but the lord could come along and kick you out because you were not seised of the land. After that time the court might agree that you were not the actual tenant - but it wouldn't investigate whether or not your possession was based on some other agreement.
Anyway, I'm thinking that the shift would have come around the 1500s. Late, isn't it?
Australian advocate of the arts Marcus Westbury has recently developed a program in Newcastle for artists to legally occupy the many abandoned shopfronts in a city that's still developing its identity as a post-steel city.
http://www.renewnewcastle.org/
Seems a positive and modern conception of the squat :)
Followed the flickr link to a link to the Advisory Service for Squatters and was amazed again how many wonderful things exist under the surface of "normal" society. In a way this is really comforting: it seems to tell me that there are compassionate, good people, who take care of each other, and that even if I lose everything I know think of as essential, there'll be places to go. Not that I needed to be told that, but it's nice to be reminded.
Yay Newcastle.
Squatting is at the intersect of the worlds most unlikely Venn Diagram.
A direct head to head meeting between the have LOTS and the have fuck alls.
Through in the courts the police and the govt too. And not all sitting in their usual chairs or mouthing the expected dogmas either.
The poor are trying to build and make things, the rich are wanting to let things break down, which is what the two groups accuse each other of normally.
The courts are more often than not trying to stop the rich from doign what they please and the cops are frequently called into to protect the poor.
It's an upside down sort of world, but I like it.
I squatted in Hackney, London for a few years in the late 90's. We occupied a derelict and forgotten council house, made friends with the neighbors (who were happy that we were putting the house to good use).
As young people starting out in London it was a real leg-up and helped us all establish ourselves without enormous overheads. I would't trade those years for anything. Forward true social housing!
We were eventually evicted by Hackney council who simply auctioned the place.
I find that when articles like this are posted, and framed as violations of land rights as having "benefits," the core, unmentioned thrust is against property rights in general. Huge Bads such as corporations, wealthy speculators, and others deemed undesirable are used as a wedge to attack property rights in general. This article is no different. There's an obvious collectivist bent- that the "right" of the group to have land developed in the way that group deems to be productive trumps the right of the individual to own land and choose, within reason, what to do with it, including doing nothing with it.
@Anoxin: It's not about collectivism. It's about land use. Titles to land are granted with an expectation of use and a basic provision of security.
It's easy for a landowner to deal with squatters: secure the damn building, and have a caretaker report trespassers to the police on a semi-regular basis. If a landowner doesn't exercise their rights over the property, their rights are forfeit. This is true of land, automobiles and trademarks.
If you have land and do nothing with it for 5-7 years, and are completely unaware of persons making open and conspicuous use of your land, you obviously weren't exercising your rights over the property.
@5 Antinous:
Foreclosures are a necessary and regular part of doing business for banks. A bank that acted the way you suggested would suffer from adverse selection and find itself increasingly dealing with mortgage holders who were less likely to pay and more likely to rely on the bank's flexibility. It would also cause property values to remain artificially high, since even if you really can't afford a specific place, you in essence still get to stay there. A consequence is that lower income families are less able to buy a place at all. The bar stays unreasonably high.
Yes, I have squatted, and probably will again. The international networks of 'young hippie anarchist (principled) type of squatter' referenced above provide and demonstrate a different way to live, one that I fiercely support. If you squat abandoned space, and dumpster discarded food, and scavenge a bicycle out of cast-off parts, it is possible to live, in many cities, outside of the monetary system entirely- a creative cradle inside and outside of the rat-race. All of my contact with that world has been inspiring. It is where the healthy & brave can be free of the dictates of money, for a while, and live creatively and communally instead.
It's generally a pursuit for the young, I think (it takes a certain elasticity of character & strength of body to cope with the uncertainties & vagaries of squatting life), but no less worthwhile for that.
@Sirdook - The Diggers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers
and a related musical interlude...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stmiyeLsErw
glad to see all the squatters coming out of the woodwork here at boing boing!
In Amsterdam, where squatting is fairly legal, the squatters act pretty actively to prevent degentrification of neighborhoods (even if sometimes we wish we weren't providing this public service!). Basically, it's legal to squat property that goes unused for a year, which means that property owners are very strongly encouraged to make sure that they keep their property from ending up vacant. Keeps the economy strong, and diminishes homelessness. Further, the lack of illegalization means that squatters are less likely to behave anti-socially. Win win.
As for the ludicrous concept that property rights trump human rights, well, not going to be changing your mind any time soon, you're just going to have to recognize that in a world with limited resources, you're gonna have to share a bit. This isn't about communism, either.
Deviant,
You have perfectly articulated the problem and you even sound like an unyielding algorithm while doing it.
Squatting is not illegal (in the UK, at least).
Nor is it immoral, in some respects. To get title on a property the minimum you have to do is to be there for 12 years, and it's remarkably easy to get squatters evicted - so it's not as if you can take land title against the will of an even marginally conscientious owner.
I seem to have perpetrated more than a few inaccuracies on this site recently, but (I think) the Blair government rushed in a sneaky law about three years ago, prompted by headlines as usual, viz that squatters were ending up owning houses mostly in Brixton that were 'worth' 300 thousand pounds or so.
The catch now is that you have to find the owner and notify him at the end of the 12 year period. If he doesn't bother to kick you out then, you own the house. In other words; forget it.
I have no problem with squatters while they are squatting, I have a problem with their expectation that squatting is a right that somehow overrides the land owner's right.
When the rightful owner feels the need to do something with his property it should be his right to do so and any objection of the squatters who have enjoyed his property for free up to this point should be tossed out the window.
Considering the amount of time and effort spent on rights of privacy and speech I would expect property rights would be given more respect.
I'm sure native americans throughout America will agree with you, but I doubt if the inhabitants of long established monarchies like England would.
Anon @23: You're missing a fundamental point there. People spend effort on rights of privacy and free speech because they extend you protection against the single most powerful and dangerous actor in your society - your goverment. So it takes effort to defend them, because there are powerful interests that gain short-term benefits by eroding them.
Whether you have the right to prevent people using building that you own, but aren't using, isn't in that category. There are very few rich, powerful or governmental actors that gain by eroding property rights. So they don't get attacked nearly as much. Hence, less defence needed.
When the rightful owner feels the need to do something with his property it should be his right to do so and any objection of the squatters who have enjoyed his property for free up to this point should be tossed out the window.
That's exactly how it does work, here in the UK at least (and in most places, I assume).
Having codified squatters rights is intended to make sure they aren't tossed out the window when the owner doesn't feel the need to do something with his property. It's a mild but useful countermechanism against wealth concentration - and socially beneficial for exactly that reason.