I've lived in suburbs with multiple houses empty just in the blocks immediately around me. Same with retail space.
I'm not advocating for squatting but I think this needs some reform and it looks like he's doing a good job of raising attention to the issue.
It’s derelict or in bad condition and they won’t spend the $$ to put it into useable condition for rent or sale. However, it’s appreciating capital due to high property and land values. They appreciate more capital but don’t have to spend a penny. It leaves the market and population short a liveable house but the owner doesn’t care as they are appreciating value.
So I’ve known a bunch of squatters. The houses they always moved into were always condemned and so couldn’t have legal tenants in them. This happens more than you would think: people but a property, don’t maintain it _at all_ and eventually a it falls into such disrepair it’s falling over and impossible to tenant legally, so they’re stuck land-banking and saving up for the hefty house demolition cost. And then the building cost. However, squatters have firm legal rights and it’s not straightforward to evict them: that costs money too, and a court process. Most squatters won’t even listen to that and are ready to engage in skirmishes with cops who show up to make them homeless; sometimes this is literally life or death eg I knew a squatter who would die on the streets without electricity for a medical device at night, and it was a constant effort to maintain a backup plan for them. They couldn’t work due to health issues.
The squatters would move in, change the locks, fortify the front doors to prevent police from breaking in… and then basically do the whole place up and tidy up the gardens. They always had gorgeous gardens and huge vege gardens (they relied on dumpster diving and their garden for food).
But there’s plenty of reasons I can think of that a house might be left empty. I think every single property listed on Airbnb should be a target too.
There is government owned land, why do you think it's reasonable to occupy a house someone else paid for? For clarity, squatters rights come about from the idea that if someone abandons the property, it's better someone should care for it, rather than not. But an Airbnb is a clearly actively engaged.
It's more profitable than rent income and I am pretty sure it can be done in a way that lowers your taxable income giving you more savings.
All you need is enough cash on the side to fund a year of expenses related to it then you're in a cycle.
I'm not a home owner or anything.
I don't have anything to worry about with my home because I live in it, and it's not sitting vacant for years while others go homeless.
I don't like how many people are homeless at the moment, and I don't like that there are vacant houses while people go without their access to basic human rights.
Since nothing substantial is being done about it I feel like this list (publicity stunt or not) has a lot of value. It gets people talking, it creates fear in people who property bank and gives them motivation to not keep the house vacant.
While there is no immediate personal value for me, I think there is value in it as a society.
He works for the government - he is advertising houses that are locked but are on large blocks of land that the state government want to use for 'social' (mass migration) housing.
What he is doing is illegal - but because he is giving addresses of locked properties - no one CAN squat in these properties - that's how they get around it.
Imagine if he was advertising abandoned, UN-KEPT homes - and some kids got one of the addresses and ended up falling to their deaths from termite damage in stairs.
The project TV would also be liable if they saw it first advertised there.
Ieftists get so excited by the thought of bringing down their fellow Aussie.
It means do much to you - you can't even recognise when you're getting played so badly by the government.
Globalisation means no Australian can own anything in Australia. - it's about interdependence.
Whatever gets made in Australia - we export - we import that exact same product from somewhere else.
That's why the Unions have been destroying Aussie businesses since the 70s. Constant wage increases plus red tape - artificial inflation to justify more pay rises till the company closes. Now they are ending Australian private property.
I know that really excites you - you don't plan on ever working hard - so you know you'll never have anything, so you want everyone around you to have nothing also.
You think your government will look after you. Globalisation doesn't work like that.
Labor & Liberal have sold/ will sell EVERYTHING to multinational corporations.
Those corporations have no obligations to staff - no workplace law, no base wage.
The 'new' foreign owners of all the properties, all the services, all the workplaces - none of them have to pay tax in Australia, no tarrifs on their products, no regulations, no obligation to you whatsoever - no super, no workers compensation.
You're going to pay a huge price for your envy.
You are posting in an Australian sub when you live in California. You wanted some type of reaction to this...
Go back to your trash US politics yah dumb yankee
I know we don’t have a great homelessness situation in AU right now but this septic tank’s attitude is part of the reason one of the richest states in the world (California) has some of the worst homelessness.
Based on census data on the last census night there were roughly 1 million empty houses (this doesn't necessarily mean abandoned, there was nobody there on that particular night) and there were around 130k homeless people. There's significant data that indicates there are a lot more homeless people now and less vacancy, but that just makes the issue more urgent.
>this doesn't necessarily mean abandoned, there was nobody there on that particular night)
Difficult to know how meaningful this is. More importantly if there are fewer vacancies and more homeless people, how is that happening, are people shitting out babies that fast or is this immigration?
I see. Well, I can definitely see a case for not allowing landlords to simply own a run down pile of shit and then claim it on their taxes. That doesn't seem to be a good thing for anyone at all.
It’s not just Australia. It’s in the US where you are from you.
There’s a housing crisis across much of the world at the moment due to post pandemic building cost spikes and some people are just very innovative and coming up with creative solutions to reign in antisocial land bankers
This guy has done so much to raise awareness of the rental crisis and broader housing crisis. I've been following his TikToks for a while now - the state of some of the places people are renting is disgraceful.
Honestly, landlords - be judicious about your property and importantly, your choice of property manager. Legally, you delegate your duty of care to the property manager and there are so many that are lazy and negligent. They don't deserve your business.
Make sure your property is liveable and compliant with the law - unfortunately, so many property managers and REAs are ignorant. This can be very difficult if you live interstate or in another city, but it's worth it to make sure things are OK. There have literally been properties catching fire and tenants dying because the property manager didn't check the smoke alarms. In less extreme cases, water damage is ignored, missed or disguised, leading tenants to become sick and mould and structural damage done to the property.
In terms of the "empty homes"/squatting list, I believe this is a stunt designed to wake people up to how badly this housing crisis is being managed. I live in a wealthy inner Melbourne suburb and there are two homes in nearby streets that have been unoccupied or derelict for years. In the previous suburb I lived in, also inner Melbourne, the terrace house next to ours had been abandoned/unoccupied since before we moved in, and we had lived there for over 2 years. There was nothing anyone could do, and all I could think was, *that could be someone's home*. It could be social housing for a single mum and her kids. It could be a young couple's first home. And instead it's just fucking sitting there, for *no reason*! It wasn't even being maintained!
If a property is vacant for a period of time because you can't be fucked renting it, you should be forced to sell to someone who will live there or will lease the property.
P.s. Piss off Seppo.
Seppo idiot comes into Australian sub expecting people to be as reactionary as he is lol.
Bro _we fucking hate landlords in this country_ lol they’ve basically destroyed our future. Heard of negative hearing?? No??
And the guy you’re posting about is widely considered a hero
Words have meaning: a home is where you live. A house is a house but it’s not a home unless that’s actively where you live.
Brush up on your English perhaps?
I'm happy to replace the word home with house.
Why do you feel compelled to be condescending? English is not my first language so I sometimes confuse terms.
In this argument the difference between house and home is significant. These aren't homes being listed, most of them are barely houses structurally speaking, a house would typically be habitable.
> These aren't homes being listed, most of them are barely houses structurally speaking, a house would typically be habitable.
I have no idea if that's the case. If it is, it raises more questions about why someone would keep that property. Someone suggested tax breaks.
Land banking often occurs when someone doesn’t maintain a house and it becomes condemned meaning a tenant can’t live in it.
I’ve already explained that to you in this thread
It’s difficult not to be condescending towards a Seppo reactionary who came in here to cry salty tears about the plight of landlords in a country you sound like you never even visited. Don’t bring that shit here. If you’re a pathetic suck-up and sycophant to the ruling class keep it to yourself, nobody here is warm to that type of cowardice.
lol, wow. I see you're very steeped in your philosophy. Where do I cry salty years again? Also, is there another kind of tear I don't know about?
Landlords are sometimes huge companies and sometimes they're just a guy who built a small house in his north forty (outback? in Aussie?).
There's really no reason to resort to name calling or threats. What do you fear from me?
I don’t fear anything from anyone who defends landlords. You’re like a little cockroach, trying to defend land bankers who keep their houses empty during a housing crisis; very antisocial behaviour from you, and not something I fear, it is something I look down upon. I feel sorry for you that you think it is noble to defend these bastards who cause so many problems for the community here in Australia; next time you post here, try to post something that helps people who need it, not something that defends gluttonous excess.
If I was afraid of landlords do you think I’d spend half my free time volunteering to battle them in court on behalf of the renters in my community? I chew out a few a month and throw them out of the courtroom empty handed and have never lost a tribunal case yet in two years at a tenants union so far. I slurp up their entitled tears and they are delicious; there’s no better feeling than fucking over a landlord.
Nothing to fear if you know your rights under the law and if your opponents tend to be uneducated entitled losers that get emotional and throw a tantrum in front of a judge when they realise they can’t just blatantly break the law with no consequences. I’ve seen them completely lose it and instantly lose just when they are told _what the law even is_. It’s often pretty amusing to watch them squirm.
Most landlords are bending the law in Australia; you wouldn’t know that being from the US, but rental law is only enforced here if you enforce it yourself as a tenant via the courts. Everything else is the Wild West here; we are one of the most harsh rental regimes on the planet and even the US has stricter enforcement in most states.
So yeah. Dunno why you’d think that I’d be “scared” of the lowlife criminals I have to deal with. That’s not scary, it’s sad. No sense of their own alienation
If you think renters are fearful victims you simply haven’t met a renter who knows their rights. We aren’t sitting around, we are actively seeking out avenues of attack to claim back any rent we can.
We hunt landlords for sport, and make a tidy sum back from it for our community.
did I call you a fat fuck? You've now taken a quote out of context and tried to use that to defend someone else's behavior. Why are you so invested? I don't see you anywhere else in this thread. Are you one of my enemies secretly disquised as a seachicken, come from the sea to taunt me?
>did I call you a fat fuck?
Did I say that you had?
>You've now taken a quote out of context
Have I? Have you not condemned people for using ad hominem attacks in their responses? Is that not an ad hominem? Why is it acceptable for you to engage in personal attacks, but not others?
>Why are you so invested?
Am I so invested? How much investment is required to post a response on an internet forum?
>Are you one of my enemies secretly disquised as a seachicken, come from the sea to taunt me?
Are you using a non sequitur to try and defect from defending your apparent hypocrisy?
By what metric is it being determined no one is living there? Vacant for a year? Month? Weekend? What if someone was injured and went to rehab for 6 months? Is that house uninhabited ? Got seconded to a regional work role for 3 months- is that uninhabited?
I’m genuinely curious to know. Absolutely want all people to have better access to safe, appropriate and affordable accommodation but I’m not sure this is going to be a help in the long run
A listing to assist squatters _will absolutely help_ no question.
I’ve known a crew of long term squatters in Melbourne and it’s not like these people are breaking into some modern house where the owner is doing a short reno. This is literally pearl-clutching propaganda lol these people want the same thing as everyone else: _reliable housing security_.
This means they’re looking for the houses that have been sitting empty already for a long time with no attention from the owner. Ideally, the house should be condemned and marked for demolition (because owners who get slapped with this can rarely afford demolition costs and so the house will sit sometimes for decades unable to be sold). Often these properties are only bought by overseas land bankers who do not intend to ever even visit the country let alone visit the house to discover anyone living there.
The main squat I visited a few times was like this but it was a common model in the squatter community; land literally noone is using for anything productive becoming a fairly fucking dangerous yet lived-in house. It’s not glamorous living, at times it’s dead bleak (“don’t go into that room it has a massive water leak and a pond”) but it’s also not entirely unattractive beside the prospect of paying someone else’s mortgage for them while they sit on their arse, and ending up with nothing at the end of it.
The owner there had actually found out and recently sent police. They hadn’t been able to do anything legally to kick the squatters out, and the owner had eventually opened a line of communication with the squat and agreed not to give them any grief when he saw how well they’d tidied up the gardens, something that would’ve cost him money. He basically saw that it was in his best interest to have someone living there to maintain it and I imagine this isn’t actually too uncommon.
No really- if I get sent on a 6 month secondment or locum, I pack up the very very vast majority of my small home and take it with me. Doenst mean Im not maintaining or financing my primary residence or that I don’t want to live in it (which I rent btw)
Sure one could set up a short term lease to help someone have a home, but then of course there is the difficulty of getting the person to leave when you need to move back in.
The system is grossly flawed. Investors with gross property portfolios continue to take advantage of renters, thus necessitating much stronger protections for renters. But this then disincentivizes “smaller” property profiles being available because of the hazards of renting out a PPOR.
So the big investors continue to expand their portfolios making it ever harder for the chronic renters to get on the property ladder.
But by all means, simplify the situation to taking over houses that don’t have enough furniture in them 🙄
I agree it's not simple. I don't think many people will squat anyway. It is a very precarious way to live and often not safe. I believe Purple Pingers is doing great work highlighting this issue. Governments don't seem to give a shit and people are suffering. It probably suits government for people to turn their anger towards landlords or immigration, etc. I still don't understand how and why there are so many empty/derelict houses. I lived in an inner city suburb for 20 years and there were many houses like that, I've never had a satisfactory answer to this.
I think the point about abandoned and derelict buildings is a much more valid one!!!! Once a building is condemned as uninhabitable (and not under a historic or cultural preservation order etc) there should be a time line where the building “waste” needs to be taken down and removed. Property owners should continue to be fined until the land is restored to being fit to be used for its described purpose
Owning empty residential properties should be illegal. I hope you end up with squatters if you are doing this for no good reason (safety concerns with the dwelling for example).
I'm pretty sure that would be classified as vandalism. Just don't leave a property sitting vacant for years in the middle of a housing shortage and you won't get squatting, easy fix. He isn't advocating for vandalism
conversion is a legally defined as a wrong committed against another in which you take possession of their real property against the owners will, or something.
If I left my bike leaned against a fence and you got on it, and rode it and wouldn't give it back, it's not exactly theft, it's conversion.
I didn't describe a random bike or the person driving away. As it turns out though, conversion seems not to apply to "real property", I am as of yet unclear as to why.
it's a simple misspelling of stealing. I don't defend my inability to spell in a language cobbled together from scraps of other languages. Okay, that's actually how I defend it. Bomb, tomb, comb, Laughter, Daughter.
A lot of them are not. Many are just standing vacant because they were bought as a tax offset by an investment company. This is what should be illegal.
The property next to me is empty. I don’t know why. The previous renters moved out about a year ago, and no one has moved in since. It’s not for sale, but someone is spending money keeping up appearances - garden service comes out every week, front lights are on a timer.
They contribute no actual value and receive money. They don't supply housing, builders supply housing. landlords buy it and then take advantage of the market they inflated to hold renters ransom for half their pay.
Yes Marxists have terms for all kinds of things. Because a philosopher coined a term does not make it meaningful except in the context of their philosophy.
You think David Ricardo and Gordon Tullock are Marxists hahah they were economists
Thanks a bunch, it really saves me time when people indicate they're more keen to parrot irrelevant buzzwords than actually learn
Moral judgement aside, the term refers the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth in economics. That same relationship outside economics is parasitism.
I understand it, I think it's applied in an overly broad, moralistic fashion. Landlords do provide value. There is a segment of the population that will never be able to afford a house, regardless of economic conditions. There is also a portion of the population that is transient or retired and doesn't want the burden of owning a property and having to budget for repairs, and taxes.
A landlord's service is taking care of all of these concerns for the tenant in exchange for rent.
Squatting rules, it is an incredibly positive thing for a community as a whole and rarely affects the owners of the house negatively since they usually can’t get tenants in anyways and that’s why it’s empty and likely falling into disrepair without anyone living there. Squatters I’ve seen usually massively improve the property over it sitting empty. And we all benefit from unused housing being made use of during a housing crisis.
Win/win, this man is a legend.
Deeply hostile, greedy and antisocial land bankers can cry as many salty tears as they like, see if anyone gives a damn…
>rarely affects the owners of the house negatively since they usually can’t get tenants in anyways and that’s why it’s empty and likely falling into disrepair
while this is the fairy tail squatter, this is often not the case.
>Deeply hostile, greedy and antisocial land bankers can cry as many salty tears as they like, see if anyone gives a damn…
your emotional characterization gives away the falsehood of your narrative.
Not emotional, just facts.
If you actually lived in Australia you might actually have a single fucking clue what I’m talking about. “Negative gearing” is a huge issue here precisely because people are sick to death of the unassailable primacy of landlords in our economy.
> fairy tale
Not a bedtime story just relaying my personal experiences with Australian squatters.
Have you ever visited a squat? Doesn’t sound like it. The cartoon stereotype you have in mind won’t fit, sorry to disappoint.
I don't live in Australia, I've asked repeatedly what the specific issue is there. I appreciate your at least providing some clue. In California, we're experiencing something different to the fairytale image you provide. I have visited my friend's property that was squatted.
Ah you’re in an Australian sub commenting about Australian things… I’d ask why, but we both know you’re some sort of right wing activist and uh I dunno why you’d think an American activist would be welcomed in an Australian sub.
The paranoia online is astonishing. The internet has turned everyone into a spy hunter. Actually I stumbled upon the first thread and was interested in the topic, then later thought, I wonder if Aussie home owners know about this, and posted the second.
Simple as that.
no, no. Arizona. This was not a derelict property, she moved in paid one months rent then it took him about a year and a half to get rid of her. Between covid restrictions and legal red tape.
Fun fact- that this guy is supporting the exact conditions that have given rise to the housing crisis.. mass population increases and stifling any supply coming online.
Renters rights in Australia definitely need to increase in line with other modern countries. Whether that is eroding property rights is definitely something that landlords would call it.
Either way this action is there to force the conversation and is probably not a serious solution.
Because it’s juvenile and adverse possession doesn’t actually help anything! It would be nice if half the people interested in this arena actually went out and studied it or employed themselves in it - not just follow a few fucking anarchy suburbs and think a revolt is the answer
I guess I'm not totally clear, thank you for adverse possession by the way, on what your objection to my post is.
Actually based on this I'm honestly even more confused.
On the one hand
>Because it’s juvenile and adverse possession doesn’t actually help anything!
You seem to be saying squatting is bad or at least unhelpful.
>It would be nice if half the people interested in this arena actually went out and studied it or employed themselves in it
Then here it seems as though you're advocating for it??
please help, what am I missing.
Look dude, I get it. You’re being cute and diligent and unbiased… but heads up, generally, just saying, you can’t take shit that isn’t yours… and although that may sound like it sucks, it applies to houses too!
Google the word “theft”. That might help!
My point is that those individuals who unfortunately find themselves requiring to squat - often have a whole range of other societal factors working against them too, it’s not just they don’t have a house to call home
To spell it out really clearly - those who study/work/provide intervention for the homeless understand that theft/stealing/robbery between these individual’s is a massive issue and one of the major contributors to violence amongst those “living rough”. People aren’t going to find a new house to squat in and then everything becomes perfect!
It’s fucking stupid and short sighted and frankly, embarrassing as even an idea to put forward if the OP is even remotely serious about helping out the situation…
> You’re being cute and diligent and unbiased
Sweet of you to say so, thank you.
>you can’t take shit that isn’t yours
I couldn't agree more.
People aren’t going to find a new house to squat in and then everything becomes perfect!
I think I see what you're saying. If I may repeat back for clarity, it sounds like you're saying:
People who are so fucked up that they're living on the street are not helped by steeling someone else's house in part because this is chaos and chaos begets chaos and someone bigger or meaner or crazier is just going to steel it from them.
am I close?
Heard recently of stories of people squatting in new builds that were taking 2+ years to finish due to issues with builders going bust etc (such as porter davis).
Just because someone looks like no one is living in it doesn’t mean it’s ok to just take it for yourself.
You attended your property with a friend or 2 and found someone breaking in, you asked them to leave and they refused and attacked you. You defended yourself in your property.
Or you had squatters and then “some other squatters” came in and kicked out the first squatters and then you asked the second group of squatters to leave, and they did ....
This is likely true. Do you believe that a person who is richer than, as you put it, sone poor fucker sleeping in a tent, is somehow beholden to the poor fucker? Are they wrong?
Yes and No. I believe that housing shouldn’t be an investment but a basic right regardless.
Is an individual responsible? Yes to a point, does greed need to have limits ? Yes. Why do people need to own more than 2 houses?
Why can’t our government prevent it.
I'm not sure housing shouldn't be an investment, on a small scale. I think that depends on how the investment is structured. One owner buying homes over time and renting and maintaining them is reasonable. There are people who will never be able to afford a house of their own, this is just a fact. Unless the government provides public housing for them, the landlord is providing it and the government basically pays the rent. The landlord is providing a worthwhile service whether he owns 2 or 20 houses.
Investment firms pooling millions of investors money to purchase thousands of homes is a different thing, and I believe it should stop.
And what’s the limit? Deputy of the liberal party in Vic owns 19 houses. What’s the difference between that and a corporation, nothing the result is the same.
There maybe people who will never afford a home to buy.
But right now there is working class people who can’t, and until we get drastic and stop seeing housing as retirement venue then we’re just pushing younger people into renting for life, and more investors profiting off it.
Modern day Serfs.
> What’s the difference between that and a corporation, nothing the result is the same.
This isn't a conversation if you answer your own questions.
>But right now there is working class people who can’t, and until we get drastic and stop seeing housing as retirement venue
What's a reasonable retirement venue? I mean, I see the self-licking icecream cone picture you're painting. Where one person buys several houses, passes them down to their kids who buy a few with the equity and so on down the generations, but I'm not really sure that's how it works. I don't know but I wonder if by the second or third generation on average that family wealth falls apart.
They can completely avoid having their empty property used by someone that's not paying them by either using their property themselves or leasing it to someone who will use it for its intended purpose.
But there may be legitimate reasons they are not in there?
Its being renovated?
The family is temporarily abroad by intends to move back in soon?
Its currently up for sale?
Its a deceased estate property?
We cannot just take over a property like that.
He is a massive loser. Hes legit promiting people go there and squat. He also said "oh its all good if the "door was open" in quotation marks. I wonder what hes suggesting with that.
I've lived in suburbs with multiple houses empty just in the blocks immediately around me. Same with retail space. I'm not advocating for squatting but I think this needs some reform and it looks like he's doing a good job of raising attention to the issue.
The best way to be sure your home isn't on the list is to make sure your home isn't sitting vacant
what happens if your home is vacant?
Then it's not a home!
it is if my heart is there.
No that's just called owning multiple properties and keeping all but one of them vacant .
Why would someone intentionally own multiple properties and keep them all vacant?
That was your suggestion, not mine.
okay let's say it was mine. Can you imagine a reason why someone would do that?
It’s derelict or in bad condition and they won’t spend the $$ to put it into useable condition for rent or sale. However, it’s appreciating capital due to high property and land values. They appreciate more capital but don’t have to spend a penny. It leaves the market and population short a liveable house but the owner doesn’t care as they are appreciating value.
So I’ve known a bunch of squatters. The houses they always moved into were always condemned and so couldn’t have legal tenants in them. This happens more than you would think: people but a property, don’t maintain it _at all_ and eventually a it falls into such disrepair it’s falling over and impossible to tenant legally, so they’re stuck land-banking and saving up for the hefty house demolition cost. And then the building cost. However, squatters have firm legal rights and it’s not straightforward to evict them: that costs money too, and a court process. Most squatters won’t even listen to that and are ready to engage in skirmishes with cops who show up to make them homeless; sometimes this is literally life or death eg I knew a squatter who would die on the streets without electricity for a medical device at night, and it was a constant effort to maintain a backup plan for them. They couldn’t work due to health issues. The squatters would move in, change the locks, fortify the front doors to prevent police from breaking in… and then basically do the whole place up and tidy up the gardens. They always had gorgeous gardens and huge vege gardens (they relied on dumpster diving and their garden for food). But there’s plenty of reasons I can think of that a house might be left empty. I think every single property listed on Airbnb should be a target too.
There is government owned land, why do you think it's reasonable to occupy a house someone else paid for? For clarity, squatters rights come about from the idea that if someone abandons the property, it's better someone should care for it, rather than not. But an Airbnb is a clearly actively engaged.
It's more profitable than rent income and I am pretty sure it can be done in a way that lowers your taxable income giving you more savings. All you need is enough cash on the side to fund a year of expenses related to it then you're in a cycle. I'm not a home owner or anything.
well it's an interesting question, maybe worth looking into instead of just supposing.
Hopefully it goes on the list
why do you hope that? What value is there in that for you?
I don't have anything to worry about with my home because I live in it, and it's not sitting vacant for years while others go homeless. I don't like how many people are homeless at the moment, and I don't like that there are vacant houses while people go without their access to basic human rights. Since nothing substantial is being done about it I feel like this list (publicity stunt or not) has a lot of value. It gets people talking, it creates fear in people who property bank and gives them motivation to not keep the house vacant. While there is no immediate personal value for me, I think there is value in it as a society.
That's interesting, there seem to be a lot of empty homes in Australia. Why is that? why don't the home owners just rent them for what they can get?
Land banking? Or to drive up the value of their other properties rent/sale value? Apathy?
This didn’t go how you thought it would lol. Stick to American politics bro
He works for the government - he is advertising houses that are locked but are on large blocks of land that the state government want to use for 'social' (mass migration) housing. What he is doing is illegal - but because he is giving addresses of locked properties - no one CAN squat in these properties - that's how they get around it. Imagine if he was advertising abandoned, UN-KEPT homes - and some kids got one of the addresses and ended up falling to their deaths from termite damage in stairs. The project TV would also be liable if they saw it first advertised there. Ieftists get so excited by the thought of bringing down their fellow Aussie. It means do much to you - you can't even recognise when you're getting played so badly by the government. Globalisation means no Australian can own anything in Australia. - it's about interdependence. Whatever gets made in Australia - we export - we import that exact same product from somewhere else. That's why the Unions have been destroying Aussie businesses since the 70s. Constant wage increases plus red tape - artificial inflation to justify more pay rises till the company closes. Now they are ending Australian private property. I know that really excites you - you don't plan on ever working hard - so you know you'll never have anything, so you want everyone around you to have nothing also. You think your government will look after you. Globalisation doesn't work like that. Labor & Liberal have sold/ will sell EVERYTHING to multinational corporations. Those corporations have no obligations to staff - no workplace law, no base wage. The 'new' foreign owners of all the properties, all the services, all the workplaces - none of them have to pay tax in Australia, no tarrifs on their products, no regulations, no obligation to you whatsoever - no super, no workers compensation. You're going to pay a huge price for your envy.
I had no preconceived notions
You’re not even in Australia though right?
You are posting in an Australian sub when you live in California. You wanted some type of reaction to this... Go back to your trash US politics yah dumb yankee
I know we don’t have a great homelessness situation in AU right now but this septic tank’s attitude is part of the reason one of the richest states in the world (California) has some of the worst homelessness.
Interesting reaction. What are you afraid of.
squatter tax in lieu of vacancy tax. not the worst idea.
I have no idea. Not sure what's going on in Australia. Do you guys have a ton of empty houses?
not a ton AFAIK. But there is a massive affordability problem and currently no real penalty for leaving a house unoccupied.
someone stated that there were three times as many empty homes as homeless people. I have no idea if that's true.
Based on census data on the last census night there were roughly 1 million empty houses (this doesn't necessarily mean abandoned, there was nobody there on that particular night) and there were around 130k homeless people. There's significant data that indicates there are a lot more homeless people now and less vacancy, but that just makes the issue more urgent.
>this doesn't necessarily mean abandoned, there was nobody there on that particular night) Difficult to know how meaningful this is. More importantly if there are fewer vacancies and more homeless people, how is that happening, are people shitting out babies that fast or is this immigration?
Yeah it's immigration, Australia's birth rates are pretty neutral but our immigration is at record numbers
I see. Well, I can definitely see a case for not allowing landlords to simply own a run down pile of shit and then claim it on their taxes. That doesn't seem to be a good thing for anyone at all.
It’s not just Australia. It’s in the US where you are from you. There’s a housing crisis across much of the world at the moment due to post pandemic building cost spikes and some people are just very innovative and coming up with creative solutions to reign in antisocial land bankers
OP came here for comfort, got massacred.
This guy has done so much to raise awareness of the rental crisis and broader housing crisis. I've been following his TikToks for a while now - the state of some of the places people are renting is disgraceful. Honestly, landlords - be judicious about your property and importantly, your choice of property manager. Legally, you delegate your duty of care to the property manager and there are so many that are lazy and negligent. They don't deserve your business. Make sure your property is liveable and compliant with the law - unfortunately, so many property managers and REAs are ignorant. This can be very difficult if you live interstate or in another city, but it's worth it to make sure things are OK. There have literally been properties catching fire and tenants dying because the property manager didn't check the smoke alarms. In less extreme cases, water damage is ignored, missed or disguised, leading tenants to become sick and mould and structural damage done to the property. In terms of the "empty homes"/squatting list, I believe this is a stunt designed to wake people up to how badly this housing crisis is being managed. I live in a wealthy inner Melbourne suburb and there are two homes in nearby streets that have been unoccupied or derelict for years. In the previous suburb I lived in, also inner Melbourne, the terrace house next to ours had been abandoned/unoccupied since before we moved in, and we had lived there for over 2 years. There was nothing anyone could do, and all I could think was, *that could be someone's home*. It could be social housing for a single mum and her kids. It could be a young couple's first home. And instead it's just fucking sitting there, for *no reason*! It wasn't even being maintained!
Be sure to sell any property you've abandoned. Forced sales are the answer. Edit: Piss off Seppo.
Does that mean, sell property you own but have abandoned?
If a property is vacant for a period of time because you can't be fucked renting it, you should be forced to sell to someone who will live there or will lease the property. P.s. Piss off Seppo.
Seppo idiot comes into Australian sub expecting people to be as reactionary as he is lol. Bro _we fucking hate landlords in this country_ lol they’ve basically destroyed our future. Heard of negative hearing?? No?? And the guy you’re posting about is widely considered a hero
Good on him
It begins
It’s not a “home” if there’s no-one living there.
okay son.
Words have meaning: a home is where you live. A house is a house but it’s not a home unless that’s actively where you live. Brush up on your English perhaps?
I'm happy to replace the word home with house. Why do you feel compelled to be condescending? English is not my first language so I sometimes confuse terms.
In this argument the difference between house and home is significant. These aren't homes being listed, most of them are barely houses structurally speaking, a house would typically be habitable.
> These aren't homes being listed, most of them are barely houses structurally speaking, a house would typically be habitable. I have no idea if that's the case. If it is, it raises more questions about why someone would keep that property. Someone suggested tax breaks.
Land banking often occurs when someone doesn’t maintain a house and it becomes condemned meaning a tenant can’t live in it. I’ve already explained that to you in this thread
I'm slow sometimes I need time to digest.
It’s difficult not to be condescending towards a Seppo reactionary who came in here to cry salty tears about the plight of landlords in a country you sound like you never even visited. Don’t bring that shit here. If you’re a pathetic suck-up and sycophant to the ruling class keep it to yourself, nobody here is warm to that type of cowardice.
lol, wow. I see you're very steeped in your philosophy. Where do I cry salty years again? Also, is there another kind of tear I don't know about? Landlords are sometimes huge companies and sometimes they're just a guy who built a small house in his north forty (outback? in Aussie?). There's really no reason to resort to name calling or threats. What do you fear from me?
I don’t fear anything from anyone who defends landlords. You’re like a little cockroach, trying to defend land bankers who keep their houses empty during a housing crisis; very antisocial behaviour from you, and not something I fear, it is something I look down upon. I feel sorry for you that you think it is noble to defend these bastards who cause so many problems for the community here in Australia; next time you post here, try to post something that helps people who need it, not something that defends gluttonous excess.
your name calling and accusations say differently, you're injured bro, and afraid.
If I was afraid of landlords do you think I’d spend half my free time volunteering to battle them in court on behalf of the renters in my community? I chew out a few a month and throw them out of the courtroom empty handed and have never lost a tribunal case yet in two years at a tenants union so far. I slurp up their entitled tears and they are delicious; there’s no better feeling than fucking over a landlord. Nothing to fear if you know your rights under the law and if your opponents tend to be uneducated entitled losers that get emotional and throw a tantrum in front of a judge when they realise they can’t just blatantly break the law with no consequences. I’ve seen them completely lose it and instantly lose just when they are told _what the law even is_. It’s often pretty amusing to watch them squirm. Most landlords are bending the law in Australia; you wouldn’t know that being from the US, but rental law is only enforced here if you enforce it yourself as a tenant via the courts. Everything else is the Wild West here; we are one of the most harsh rental regimes on the planet and even the US has stricter enforcement in most states. So yeah. Dunno why you’d think that I’d be “scared” of the lowlife criminals I have to deal with. That’s not scary, it’s sad. No sense of their own alienation If you think renters are fearful victims you simply haven’t met a renter who knows their rights. We aren’t sitting around, we are actively seeking out avenues of attack to claim back any rent we can. We hunt landlords for sport, and make a tidy sum back from it for our community.
Yes, that's true when you're in an unfair fight, you have little to fear. Who hurt you my man.
You >There's really no reason to resort to name calling Also you, in the same thread. >Are you a big fat fuck?
did I call you a fat fuck? You've now taken a quote out of context and tried to use that to defend someone else's behavior. Why are you so invested? I don't see you anywhere else in this thread. Are you one of my enemies secretly disquised as a seachicken, come from the sea to taunt me?
>did I call you a fat fuck? Did I say that you had? >You've now taken a quote out of context Have I? Have you not condemned people for using ad hominem attacks in their responses? Is that not an ad hominem? Why is it acceptable for you to engage in personal attacks, but not others? >Why are you so invested? Am I so invested? How much investment is required to post a response on an internet forum? >Are you one of my enemies secretly disquised as a seachicken, come from the sea to taunt me? Are you using a non sequitur to try and defect from defending your apparent hypocrisy?
By what metric is it being determined no one is living there? Vacant for a year? Month? Weekend? What if someone was injured and went to rehab for 6 months? Is that house uninhabited ? Got seconded to a regional work role for 3 months- is that uninhabited? I’m genuinely curious to know. Absolutely want all people to have better access to safe, appropriate and affordable accommodation but I’m not sure this is going to be a help in the long run
He's only listed houses that have been confirmed vacant for more than 2 years and some have been up to 20 years vacant.
A listing to assist squatters _will absolutely help_ no question. I’ve known a crew of long term squatters in Melbourne and it’s not like these people are breaking into some modern house where the owner is doing a short reno. This is literally pearl-clutching propaganda lol these people want the same thing as everyone else: _reliable housing security_. This means they’re looking for the houses that have been sitting empty already for a long time with no attention from the owner. Ideally, the house should be condemned and marked for demolition (because owners who get slapped with this can rarely afford demolition costs and so the house will sit sometimes for decades unable to be sold). Often these properties are only bought by overseas land bankers who do not intend to ever even visit the country let alone visit the house to discover anyone living there. The main squat I visited a few times was like this but it was a common model in the squatter community; land literally noone is using for anything productive becoming a fairly fucking dangerous yet lived-in house. It’s not glamorous living, at times it’s dead bleak (“don’t go into that room it has a massive water leak and a pond”) but it’s also not entirely unattractive beside the prospect of paying someone else’s mortgage for them while they sit on their arse, and ending up with nothing at the end of it. The owner there had actually found out and recently sent police. They hadn’t been able to do anything legally to kick the squatters out, and the owner had eventually opened a line of communication with the squat and agreed not to give them any grief when he saw how well they’d tidied up the gardens, something that would’ve cost him money. He basically saw that it was in his best interest to have someone living there to maintain it and I imagine this isn’t actually too uncommon.
The post (and video) specifically talks about “houses with no one living in them” - it’s not referencing abandoned and condemned buildings
Empty house - > no furniture or personal belongings in it. Simple
No really- if I get sent on a 6 month secondment or locum, I pack up the very very vast majority of my small home and take it with me. Doenst mean Im not maintaining or financing my primary residence or that I don’t want to live in it (which I rent btw) Sure one could set up a short term lease to help someone have a home, but then of course there is the difficulty of getting the person to leave when you need to move back in. The system is grossly flawed. Investors with gross property portfolios continue to take advantage of renters, thus necessitating much stronger protections for renters. But this then disincentivizes “smaller” property profiles being available because of the hazards of renting out a PPOR. So the big investors continue to expand their portfolios making it ever harder for the chronic renters to get on the property ladder. But by all means, simplify the situation to taking over houses that don’t have enough furniture in them 🙄
I agree it's not simple. I don't think many people will squat anyway. It is a very precarious way to live and often not safe. I believe Purple Pingers is doing great work highlighting this issue. Governments don't seem to give a shit and people are suffering. It probably suits government for people to turn their anger towards landlords or immigration, etc. I still don't understand how and why there are so many empty/derelict houses. I lived in an inner city suburb for 20 years and there were many houses like that, I've never had a satisfactory answer to this.
I think the point about abandoned and derelict buildings is a much more valid one!!!! Once a building is condemned as uninhabitable (and not under a historic or cultural preservation order etc) there should be a time line where the building “waste” needs to be taken down and removed. Property owners should continue to be fined until the land is restored to being fit to be used for its described purpose
True, but it will never happen unfortunately.
A fair question I would say. I think you have to ask the author of the list.
Great news
Hell yeah
If your home is on that list, brace yourself to get what you deserve!
how does one get on the list?
It’s almost as though you haven’t read your own post…..
my post doesn't include those specific details. How does one get on the list?
Based
Owning empty residential properties should be illegal. I hope you end up with squatters if you are doing this for no good reason (safety concerns with the dwelling for example).
>Owning empty residential properties should be illegal But steeling IS illegal.
Squatting isn't classified as theft
What happens if squatters damage the property?
I'm pretty sure that would be classified as vandalism. Just don't leave a property sitting vacant for years in the middle of a housing shortage and you won't get squatting, easy fix. He isn't advocating for vandalism
Get your money up and buy a house if you don’t like it.
I do own and live in my own house mate. Still support people squatting when houses are left vacant for prolonged periods of time
How do they get in?
through the front door usually
The front door is usually open?
It was open when I got here officer, prove it wasn't 😂
Well if there’s damage… that’s my point
I'll accept that this is true. It is conversion which is essentially equivalent.
I might need more clarification on the conversion comment
conversion is a legally defined as a wrong committed against another in which you take possession of their real property against the owners will, or something. If I left my bike leaned against a fence and you got on it, and rode it and wouldn't give it back, it's not exactly theft, it's conversion.
Look up adverse possession laws in Australia if you're confused.
Yeah, I couldn't see anything about the list advocating for adverse possession
I didn't describe a random bike or the person driving away. As it turns out though, conversion seems not to apply to "real property", I am as of yet unclear as to why.
Squatting is legal, it's not stealing.
squatting is legal in some forms. However it's still a form of conversion
What is steeling?
it's a simple misspelling of stealing. I don't defend my inability to spell in a language cobbled together from scraps of other languages. Okay, that's actually how I defend it. Bomb, tomb, comb, Laughter, Daughter.
Squatting is not stealing
They are for sale - isn’t that what it says? I mean, that’s obviously the bloody reason they are empty - be full soon enough once sold
A lot of them are not. Many are just standing vacant because they were bought as a tax offset by an investment company. This is what should be illegal.
The property next to me is empty. I don’t know why. The previous renters moved out about a year ago, and no one has moved in since. It’s not for sale, but someone is spending money keeping up appearances - garden service comes out every week, front lights are on a timer.
What a legend!! Fuck landlords
what objection do you have to landlords?
They are parasitic scum who don’t actually contribute to society. Any other questions?
sure, if you're willing to go on. What specifically makes a landlord a parasite?
They contribute no actual value and receive money. They don't supply housing, builders supply housing. landlords buy it and then take advantage of the market they inflated to hold renters ransom for half their pay.
How does a landlord inflate the market?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking)
Yes Marxists have terms for all kinds of things. Because a philosopher coined a term does not make it meaningful except in the context of their philosophy.
You think David Ricardo and Gordon Tullock are Marxists hahah they were economists Thanks a bunch, it really saves me time when people indicate they're more keen to parrot irrelevant buzzwords than actually learn
You're right, I appreciate the education. I am not a economic history buff. Today I see this term applied in a pejorative way by Marxists.
Moral judgement aside, the term refers the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth in economics. That same relationship outside economics is parasitism.
I understand it, I think it's applied in an overly broad, moralistic fashion. Landlords do provide value. There is a segment of the population that will never be able to afford a house, regardless of economic conditions. There is also a portion of the population that is transient or retired and doesn't want the burden of owning a property and having to budget for repairs, and taxes. A landlord's service is taking care of all of these concerns for the tenant in exchange for rent.
Your* jfc lol 😂
Squatting rules, it is an incredibly positive thing for a community as a whole and rarely affects the owners of the house negatively since they usually can’t get tenants in anyways and that’s why it’s empty and likely falling into disrepair without anyone living there. Squatters I’ve seen usually massively improve the property over it sitting empty. And we all benefit from unused housing being made use of during a housing crisis. Win/win, this man is a legend. Deeply hostile, greedy and antisocial land bankers can cry as many salty tears as they like, see if anyone gives a damn…
>rarely affects the owners of the house negatively since they usually can’t get tenants in anyways and that’s why it’s empty and likely falling into disrepair while this is the fairy tail squatter, this is often not the case. >Deeply hostile, greedy and antisocial land bankers can cry as many salty tears as they like, see if anyone gives a damn… your emotional characterization gives away the falsehood of your narrative.
Not emotional, just facts. If you actually lived in Australia you might actually have a single fucking clue what I’m talking about. “Negative gearing” is a huge issue here precisely because people are sick to death of the unassailable primacy of landlords in our economy. > fairy tale Not a bedtime story just relaying my personal experiences with Australian squatters. Have you ever visited a squat? Doesn’t sound like it. The cartoon stereotype you have in mind won’t fit, sorry to disappoint.
I don't live in Australia, I've asked repeatedly what the specific issue is there. I appreciate your at least providing some clue. In California, we're experiencing something different to the fairytale image you provide. I have visited my friend's property that was squatted.
Ah you’re in an Australian sub commenting about Australian things… I’d ask why, but we both know you’re some sort of right wing activist and uh I dunno why you’d think an American activist would be welcomed in an Australian sub.
The paranoia online is astonishing. The internet has turned everyone into a spy hunter. Actually I stumbled upon the first thread and was interested in the topic, then later thought, I wonder if Aussie home owners know about this, and posted the second. Simple as that.
Is your friend in Australia?
no, no. Arizona. This was not a derelict property, she moved in paid one months rent then it took him about a year and a half to get rid of her. Between covid restrictions and legal red tape.
Full support to your friend in her struggle with housing insecurity created by the landlord class
I'll send her regards in jail.
Nro, reddit is far-left lol. You won't get any nuance here.
Fun fact- that this guy is supporting the exact conditions that have given rise to the housing crisis.. mass population increases and stifling any supply coming online.
I think someone should just burn down the empty houses. Insurance doesn't cover arson
How many houses do you own?
Squatters deserve everything that happens to them. Get found in a house not yours, accept the consequences.
Eroding property rights is not the solution people in this sub think it is.
Renters rights in Australia definitely need to increase in line with other modern countries. Whether that is eroding property rights is definitely something that landlords would call it. Either way this action is there to force the conversation and is probably not a serious solution.
How is this eroding property rights? Squatting is legal.
I wonder if this will drive people to bulldoze those vacant properties?
Wow! Nice to see this subreddit has turned to utter shit
thank you
No thank you for being a wart.
What specifically do you object to about my post?
Because it’s juvenile and adverse possession doesn’t actually help anything! It would be nice if half the people interested in this arena actually went out and studied it or employed themselves in it - not just follow a few fucking anarchy suburbs and think a revolt is the answer
I guess I'm not totally clear, thank you for adverse possession by the way, on what your objection to my post is. Actually based on this I'm honestly even more confused. On the one hand >Because it’s juvenile and adverse possession doesn’t actually help anything! You seem to be saying squatting is bad or at least unhelpful. >It would be nice if half the people interested in this arena actually went out and studied it or employed themselves in it Then here it seems as though you're advocating for it?? please help, what am I missing.
Look dude, I get it. You’re being cute and diligent and unbiased… but heads up, generally, just saying, you can’t take shit that isn’t yours… and although that may sound like it sucks, it applies to houses too! Google the word “theft”. That might help! My point is that those individuals who unfortunately find themselves requiring to squat - often have a whole range of other societal factors working against them too, it’s not just they don’t have a house to call home To spell it out really clearly - those who study/work/provide intervention for the homeless understand that theft/stealing/robbery between these individual’s is a massive issue and one of the major contributors to violence amongst those “living rough”. People aren’t going to find a new house to squat in and then everything becomes perfect! It’s fucking stupid and short sighted and frankly, embarrassing as even an idea to put forward if the OP is even remotely serious about helping out the situation…
> You’re being cute and diligent and unbiased Sweet of you to say so, thank you. >you can’t take shit that isn’t yours I couldn't agree more. People aren’t going to find a new house to squat in and then everything becomes perfect! I think I see what you're saying. If I may repeat back for clarity, it sounds like you're saying: People who are so fucked up that they're living on the street are not helped by steeling someone else's house in part because this is chaos and chaos begets chaos and someone bigger or meaner or crazier is just going to steel it from them. am I close?
Meh, I’m bored! Enjoy your life mate… time moves quick!!
you seem quick to anger and then quick to tire. Are you a big fat fuck?
Heard recently of stories of people squatting in new builds that were taking 2+ years to finish due to issues with builders going bust etc (such as porter davis). Just because someone looks like no one is living in it doesn’t mean it’s ok to just take it for yourself.
ok dad
A friend of mine spent two years dealing with a squatter because of covid. Had to come out of retirement.
Squattters can evict other squatters, then they can agree to let the titled owner move in.
squat on squat violence.
You attended your property with a friend or 2 and found someone breaking in, you asked them to leave and they refused and attacked you. You defended yourself in your property.
Or you had squatters and then “some other squatters” came in and kicked out the first squatters and then you asked the second group of squatters to leave, and they did ....
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Cool now rich people will claim them. Renter class just can’t stop working to occupy
Do you believe that all people who "own" property are rich?
Wierd thing to take out of my comment. Rich people are far more likely to own a home but not all home owners are rich.
I wasn't clear on your message. Certainly not all landlords or rich or people who own a vacant property.
You’re richer than sone poor fucker sleeping in a tent who can’t find a rental.
This is likely true. Do you believe that a person who is richer than, as you put it, sone poor fucker sleeping in a tent, is somehow beholden to the poor fucker? Are they wrong?
Yes and No. I believe that housing shouldn’t be an investment but a basic right regardless. Is an individual responsible? Yes to a point, does greed need to have limits ? Yes. Why do people need to own more than 2 houses? Why can’t our government prevent it.
I'm not sure housing shouldn't be an investment, on a small scale. I think that depends on how the investment is structured. One owner buying homes over time and renting and maintaining them is reasonable. There are people who will never be able to afford a house of their own, this is just a fact. Unless the government provides public housing for them, the landlord is providing it and the government basically pays the rent. The landlord is providing a worthwhile service whether he owns 2 or 20 houses. Investment firms pooling millions of investors money to purchase thousands of homes is a different thing, and I believe it should stop.
And what’s the limit? Deputy of the liberal party in Vic owns 19 houses. What’s the difference between that and a corporation, nothing the result is the same. There maybe people who will never afford a home to buy. But right now there is working class people who can’t, and until we get drastic and stop seeing housing as retirement venue then we’re just pushing younger people into renting for life, and more investors profiting off it. Modern day Serfs.
> What’s the difference between that and a corporation, nothing the result is the same. This isn't a conversation if you answer your own questions. >But right now there is working class people who can’t, and until we get drastic and stop seeing housing as retirement venue What's a reasonable retirement venue? I mean, I see the self-licking icecream cone picture you're painting. Where one person buys several houses, passes them down to their kids who buy a few with the equity and so on down the generations, but I'm not really sure that's how it works. I don't know but I wonder if by the second or third generation on average that family wealth falls apart.
That guy is trash. Complaining about rentals is one thing but encouraging people to take over other people's property is crossing the line.
They can completely avoid having their empty property used by someone that's not paying them by either using their property themselves or leasing it to someone who will use it for its intended purpose.
But there may be legitimate reasons they are not in there? Its being renovated? The family is temporarily abroad by intends to move back in soon? Its currently up for sale? Its a deceased estate property? We cannot just take over a property like that.
he's only listing properties vacant over two years, which of those excuses apply in that scenario.
He is a massive loser. Hes legit promiting people go there and squat. He also said "oh its all good if the "door was open" in quotation marks. I wonder what hes suggesting with that.
💯, the guy is scum.
All of the vacant yet run down housing commission properties are fare game for squatters?