[hackerspaces] Abbenay hackspace building status

[tetsu yatsu]

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.

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.

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).

Laws for Florida - <
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>

The laws for Adverse Possession should be easy to find in your local
government's statutes.


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.

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?

^ IMHO

On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Deech <deech at ninjacow.net> wrote:

> I'm not trying to be belligerent or anything, but I don't understand
> the circumstances here.
>
> As far as I can tell, this building was vacant and owned by someone
> else. This group decided to set up shop in someone else's building,
> without permission. The building owner did not want them there, and
> eventually got the police to forcibly evict the squatters from their
> property.
>
> Yet, it seems the tone is that we should feel sympathy that the group
> was evicted and wronged in some way.
>
> That's how I've gathered the information, thus I don't really
> understand the point of view here.
>
> If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm all for the underdog, but the
> underdog needs to have the moral high ground and in this case, I can't
> see that they do, or I'm just not understanding.
>
> Help me out here?
>
> -Deech
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Sébastien Bourdeauducq
> <sebastien.bourdeauducq at lekernel.net> wrote:
> > In case you were wondering what happened of the building that we squatted
> in
> > Stockholm earlier this year:
> > http://lekernel.net/blog/?p=769
> >
> > Sébastien
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20091226/b4ead7d3/attachment.html>