How common is this disease in Switzerland?
Police end attempted occupation of Zurich's Platzspitz square - SWI swissinfo.ch
Very common. There are so many buildings that symbolise capitalist oppression and so little time available to occupy them all.
2 Likes
A quick google around shows that it peaked in the 90s and has declined since. Surprising that itās so low, given the housing crisis.
Iām not sure Iād call squatting a disease.
It exists but itās not really very common here.
1 Like
They did not want to occupy. They wanted to have a party there.
I squatted in 1974 in Earls Court London. Used the oven to heat the place!
The Rhino squat was a famous and emblematic squat in Geneva, Switzerland, located on Boulevard des Philosophes near the University of Geneva. It was occupied by squatters from 1988 until its eviction in July 2007 after almost 20 years. Rhino was known for promoting communal housing during a long-standing accommodation shortage in Geneva. The buildings housed around 70 people and also featured cultural activities such as an independent cinema (Cave 12), a bar and restaurant (BistroāK), and concert spaces. The squat was recognizable by a large red papier-machĆ© rhinoceros horn on its facade.
Thereās a thing called winter that makes long-term squatting challenging.
Anyway, itās so infrequent that it is interesting when it happens. Otherwise, nothing but āfamily tragediesā would happen around here.
1 Like
Are you seriously supporting even squatting
Iāve recently read an article about a normal (not an ultra rich or something) Belarusian guy who bought an apartment in Barcelona for his mum, and as she parted for one weekend for holidays elsewhere he effectively lost his apartment for a year of court proceedings while still having to pay his mortgage. He tried to take it by force one night with his brother and the police was on the side of squatters. The motivation is that a human right for a place to live in is prioritised over an ownership right. I hope this pathology does not reach here and people attempting to practice it get severely punished.
unfortunately, it is not a unique case. There is a serious problem with squatters (aka āokupasā --people who enter illegally a āsecond homeā --or even first home, when the owners are outā, and basically take over the property), and with āinkiokupasā, i.e. people who have a rental contract, and from one day to the other, they stop paying the rent.
Interestingly enough, the Spanish law āprotectsā these people. How the law has derived into this is pretty interesting, and a real social case study. It is not a small amount of units ā some 80,000 properties are occupied like that in the country.
The rightful owner has to take the squatters to court; while the process starts and the court case is resolved and sentenced, they live at the ownerās property and expenses (including electricity, water, heating, communal taxes) ā¦for about 3 years - if not more. The cherry on the cake? the propertly is left totally destroyed, and because these people usually donāt have much savings, they get off with little - if at all any- finesā¦
Yes, difficult to believe, until you see it happening to people whom you know.
I see I see, itās actually easy to believe and itās exactly how I imagined it..
As any investment, proceed only if you know what your doing. Cool and popular alternatives are only cool and popular, nothing else.
It depends.
There was no reason not to leave AOZ in Zurich to the young people while nothing was done with the run down building anyway (while the city spent 80 million on the opera house! With only 40 million being approved by the voters).
And the Stefanini-case in Winterthur. The guy owned half the city but left the houses empty and to rot. Which was often even a danger for neighbour houses. But mainly it was such a senseless waste of badly needed housing.
People squatted. I donāt know if they really did it long term or just to demonstrate the problem at times.
I wonder whatās become of all these countless houses. The guy passed away, he was a collector of anything - the crazier the better - maybe his heirs bring them back to good use.
I am no legal expert but I could imagine a legal framework for all of such cases without involving squatters fighting capitalism, for example,
- if one finds an abandoned property, he files a claim and if authorities confirm the ownership cannot be established, the property can be occupied
- if thereās an owner who simply wants his property to rot he should be allowed so if thereās no harm to others (say itās a remote farm), otherwise he could be forced to be paying penalties for various things (say a building or a tree is endangering pedastrians/surroundings) which ultimately could cost him his property
1 Like
yep. And until youāve collected the signatures, handed in the initiative to go through parliament (for those who donāt like the word Nationalrat) and is voted over by the people ā¦
they will squat.
And - as to your original question further up addressed to KiwiSteve - yes, under certain circumstances I support that.
IMHO itās impossible to support it mildly, āin certain circumstancesā. Who would define certain circumstances, and who would follow these rules, the law obedient squatters? Thereās either property ownership or a mess like in Spain.
thereās a guy in Lucern (I believe) that is doing this as his jobā¦ he has pocketed already a sizable amount of land, which he is selling at exhorbitant pricesā¦
1 Like
No, it is not that simple. A roof over your head is a basic human need. Even the āhomelessā seek a tent or a sewer or something.
I have a cousin who has lived for years in Menorca. There is a housing crisis for locals. Many homes are holiday lets and an investment. Many landlords leave their properties empty rather than let them to locals and /or the wrong price.
Bad tenants who do not pay rent and are difficult to evict are a problem.
Bad landlords who leave properties empty are a problem.
Weāre talking past each other. I define certain circumstances when I support squatting.
There is not either property ownership or a mess like Spain.
I can not speak for Spain (but I know they are in a desperate situation) but the cases in Switzerland were so far never about ownership. It was about people and companies not using buildings. The squatters all left once the owners were far enough organized to ACTUALLY START rebuilding, renovating or reusing the places.
āWhere is the valid building permit?ā is a legitimite question:
Many make deals with squatters actually for the time those buildings are just empty. Or rent the premises out to artists etc. for the limited time before the situation even arises. Private people do that too, ābefristeter Mietvertragā.
And youād be surprised, there ARE rules about squatting (German but there is deepl) and in Zurich for example:
The Zurich city police are considered particularly strict: property owners must prove to the authorities, by means of a rental agreement or building permit, that at least 50 percent of the space will be needed after the eviction. Otherwise, the owner is left empty-handed and must accept the occupation, whether they like it or not.
Leaving property empty and not taken care of just because you can is not a human right.
1 Like