It's a political/economic thing. A lot of people, not 'landed elite', have New positions on land reform. A lot of land is purchased by private parties and never improved upon, sometimes with no intention on making it any better, and the social groups in the area become frustrated that the capital is not improving their home.<br>
<br>The laws of Adverse Possession (Squatter's Rights) were originally created to resolve conflicts of ownership, for instance if some hundreds of years ago someone sold a plot of land illegally, and now two persons can claim ownership of the same plot of land. The laws were expanded to include rights for persons without title, given that they satisfy certain criteria.<br>
<br>Usually, this criteria is that you've ostensibly occupied the place for at least 7 years (like putting up a sign, or being very public about your ownership), improving upon the space (like building a social hub / hackerspace... not a meth lab, built buildings or whatnot), and that you have a 'substantial enclosure' (like a fence).<br>
<br>Laws for Florida - < <a href="http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=95.16&URL=CH0095/Sec16.HTM">http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=95.16&URL=CH0095/Sec16.HTM</a> ><br>
<br>The laws for Adverse Possession should be easy to find in your local government's statutes. <br><br><br>Adverse Possession / Squatter's Rights is a move towards land reform. People own land sometimes and don't do anything with it, depriving social groups in the area of positively improving the land, and making their home better and more productive. If they don't have the money, maybe they resort to squatting. I think in the Hackerspaces movement, they're trying to say our Global Civilization and 'Common Law' should respect ownership like a meritocracy, so that those who make improvements own them. <br>
<br>I've always thought this was an underlying principle in the illegal hacking of servers and internet resources. Most home computers don't do much, why shouldn't someone be able to get into them and make them do more? I know, it's a horribly flawed idea, and it'll never get through since these devices are in people's homes, but on the same token, aren't corporations invading our homes with their property? Cable boxes owned by cable companies, Warranty Void If Opened, lawsuits against reverse engineering and the banning of modded game consoles and such; we're not allowed to open our own purchased devices - our property, so it's effectively their property. If they can surruptitiously squat on our property, why can't we squat on theirs?<br>
<br>^ IMHO<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Deech <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deech@ninjacow.net">deech@ninjacow.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I'm not trying to be belligerent or anything, but I don't understand<br>
the circumstances here.<br>
<br>
As far as I can tell, this building was vacant and owned by someone<br>
else. This group decided to set up shop in someone else's building,<br>
without permission. The building owner did not want them there, and<br>
eventually got the police to forcibly evict the squatters from their<br>
property.<br>
<br>
Yet, it seems the tone is that we should feel sympathy that the group<br>
was evicted and wronged in some way.<br>
<br>
That's how I've gathered the information, thus I don't really<br>
understand the point of view here.<br>
<br>
If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm all for the underdog, but the<br>
underdog needs to have the moral high ground and in this case, I can't<br>
see that they do, or I'm just not understanding.<br>
<br>
Help me out here?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
-Deech<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Sébastien Bourdeauducq<br>
<<a href="mailto:sebastien.bourdeauducq@lekernel.net">sebastien.bourdeauducq@lekernel.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> In case you were wondering what happened of the building that we squatted in<br>
> Stockholm earlier this year:<br>
> <a href="http://lekernel.net/blog/?p=769" target="_blank">http://lekernel.net/blog/?p=769</a><br>
><br>
> Sébastien<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org">Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org">Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>