76 Reply by silver (edited by silver 2009-10-25 17:59:11)

  • From: a.l.m.e.r.e
  • Registered: 2008-07-08
  • Posts: 234

Re: Kraakverbod (mostly Dutch)

Freek wrote:
silver wrote:

Wat doe ik ook moeilijk eigenlijk; ik reageer wel weer als er iemand spreekt die niet de aanname maakt dat eenieder die niet met zijn denkbeelden verenigt gewoon niet nadenkt. Daar valt niet tegenop te boksen.

(.. voorts is het erg makkelijk om 1 ietwat geprikkelde uitspraak uit een stapel posts te vissen en daarop te blijven hameren, maar zoveel was al duidelijk denk ik ..)

wil best in discussie gaan maar dan wel een beetje genuanceerd, nu krijg je de bal terug zoals je 'm kaatst..

freek: onzin, je pakt gewoon iets dat je goed uitkomt om daar vervolgens als een klein kind op in te hameren. begrijpelijk, but it won't buy you a moral high ground.

Die kut regering gooit eerst alle grenzen open om vervolgens onze eigen verworvenheden af te schieten, welkom in superstaat Europa...

ook "erg genuanceerd" als binnenkomer trouwens (pot vs. kettle), of wou je die misschien nog even toelichten?

zachary: awesome reply, kan ik weinig aan toevoegen en geeft echt goed de keerzijde van het beeld dat ik heb en het besluit in general aan.

(overigens was ik nooit blind voor de culturele kant van de zaak, wat ik ook minstens 1-2 keer duidelijk aangegeven heb)

hoi!

silver's Website

  • From: The Hague, NL
  • Registered: 2008-11-13
  • Posts: 137

Re: Kraakverbod (mostly Dutch)

silver wrote:

zachary: awesome reply, kan ik weinig aan toevoegen en geeft echt goed de keerzijde van het beeld dat ik heb en het besluit in general aan.

(overigens was ik nooit blind voor de culturele kant van de zaak, wat ik ook minstens 1-2 keer duidelijk aangegeven heb)

If you don't mind I'll respond in English, hoping to include a larger group.

In that case i think we are largely on the same page. The chief issue I had with some of your previous posts was that you at times seemed to treat a large and extremely diverse group as though it were homogeneous. Like any group the squatting scene has it's share of assholes, but you can't pretend those are representative. We don't ban offices for a few cases of tax fraud that are brought to light either; that'd be silly.

I think we are dealing with a rather large set of questions (housing shortage, space for fringe culture, speculation, etc, as well as -admittedly- some violence and destruction). As a society we will need to address these.

What is not clear to me is what problem this law is trying to address, how, or whether the side effects will be worth it. I think those are questions that will need to be answered for any new law. Personally I'm starting to suspect the main issue that this law is attempting to deal with is the perception of the right-wing parties by potential voters. Squatting is closely associated with the political left and I'm getting the impression that the chief purpose of this law was for the political right to make a gesture there. I don't think this law will even fix the issues it's meant to remedy, certainly not to a degree that will be worth the costs.

Zachary Bosch's Website

  • From: Noord Holland
  • Registered: 2008-08-14
  • Posts: 50

Re: Kraakverbod (mostly Dutch)

Zachary Bosch wrote:

There might be better solutions to both the question of space for cultural events, putting a halt to speculation on the housing market and the housing shortage in general and if one is found I'd be in favour of it. I just don't think we have seen one yet.

For me this is exactly why a ban on squatting should not happen just like this. I'm quite neutral on squatting in itself, but I'm all for giving opportunities to alternative cultural developments, whether I actually like those or not, and all against the immense shortage of housing in big cities here, especially Amsterdam ofcourse, over-inflated housing and rental prices, and seeing at the same time so many unused spaces in prime locations. Squatting might not be THE solution, but it's a whole lot better than nothing.

First things first! housing shortage is a way bigger problem than squatting excesses.

  • From: a.l.m.e.r.e
  • Registered: 2008-07-08
  • Posts: 234

Re: Kraakverbod (mostly Dutch)

Zachary Bosch wrote:

In that case i think we are largely on the same page. The chief issue I had with some of your previous posts was that you at times seemed to treat a large and extremely diverse group as though it were homogeneous. Like any group the squatting scene has it's share of assholes, but you can't pretend those are representative. We don't ban offices for a few cases of tax fraud that are brought to light either; that'd be silly.

You're right. I've gotten to know myself over the years and in some of my discussions where I come out guns blazing (like this one) there's always a turning point like this where I have to admit that some of my statements are based on frustration and focus instead of reality. Some other stuff isn't, but the weakest part of a post often makes the rest lose it's power.

What is not clear to me is what problem this law is trying to address, how, or whether the side effects will be worth it.

Not clear to me either. In fact I was quite surprised that now all of the sudden they wanted to crack down on this law, after having had it in place for so long.. I mean, to my knowing there haven't been any major incidents as of late or as of the past year.

I think those are questions that will need to be answered for any new law. Personally I'm starting to suspect the main issue that this law is attempting to deal with is the perception of the right-wing parties by potential voters. Squatting is closely associated with the political left and I'm getting the impression that the chief purpose of this law was for the political right to make a gesture there. I don't think this law will even fix the issues it's meant to remedy, certainly not to a degree that will be worth the costs.

We'll have to see about that in the long run, but for one I certainly hope they don't force all the good and worthy squat-based projects out of the window right now in binary fashion, and at least give people a fair chance to adjust to the new situation. I still think that in the end there are other ways to solve issues than squatting but I guess that was obvious from the start smile

hoi!

silver's Website

  • NoiZe
  • Ultimate WarBot
  • Offline
  • From: Mooi Zeist
  • Registered: 2008-07-15
  • Posts: 415

Re: Kraakverbod (mostly Dutch)

silver wrote:

What is not clear to me is what problem this law is trying to address, how, or whether the side effects will be worth it.

Not clear to me either. In fact I was quite surprised that now all of the sudden they wanted to crack down on this law, after having had it in place for so long.. I mean, to my knowing there haven't been any major incidents as of late or as of the past year.

There even was a study about this done by one of the governments (ministerie's), and it showed the squatting culture was not getting more violent. There were only a couple of incidents in Amsterdam, mostly with foreign squatters.

They want this law because it's a right wing dogma not to have this law.

* Download electro @ NoiZe Electro Hub *

NoiZe's Website

  • From: a.l.m.e.r.e
  • Registered: 2008-07-08
  • Posts: 234

Re: Kraakverbod (mostly Dutch)

Do you know exactly who and why instigated this abolishment then? I'm eager to know.

hoi!

silver's Website

  • From: The Hague, NL
  • Registered: 2008-11-13
  • Posts: 137

Re: Kraakverbod (mostly Dutch)

silver wrote:

You're right. I've gotten to know myself over the years and in some of my discussions where I come out guns blazing (like this one) there's always a turning point like this where I have to admit that some of my statements are based on frustration and focus instead of reality. Some other stuff isn't, but the weakest part of a post often makes the rest lose it's power.

That's ok; I can see how you would get frustrated when traffic around your work would be blocked by situations like that and if you can get rid of some of that frustration with some online debate then I think you are dealing with it quite well. You also could've started throwing stones and paint! ;-)

We'll have to see about that in the long run, but for one I certainly hope they don't force all the good and worthy squat-based projects out of the window right now in binary fashion, and at least give people a fair chance to adjust to the new situation. I still think that in the end there are other ways to solve issues than squatting but I guess that was obvious from the start smile

I think I agree, but I'd have to see what form that would take. The whole squatting law was a bit of a strange patch on the issues at the time; mostly it worked but I have to admit it's a very strange solution that might indicate some other things in society have taken some very strange forms. I could imagine reforming some parts of society to address the causes of the issues that squatting was meant to address but such things are always a big gamble.

It's also interesting to me how all these cultural aspects seem to have been a pure side effect of the squatting law; I don't think anyone anticipated that. To me these independent low-budget expressions compare quite favourably to the big subsidised institutions that are more or less expected to do the same kind of thing at least on a cost-benefit level. Apparently some people feel called to organise things on their own and will do so when there are some means for that. It would seem like a great waste to me if society as a whole wouldn't give such people those chances. This isn't just relevant to squatters but also to musicians. Bands and performers are often much better off with a well attended semi-legal gig in a squat where they get a cut of the door/bar money than they would be with a normal club or bar. "Free radio", which doesn't need to dance to the tune of the major labels will be far more inclined to play the music of the people on this board. I'm not sure how you would replace that sort of thing in a more formally regulated setting but it'd be interesting to try and come up with alternatives.

Zachary Bosch's Website

  • From: The Hague, NL
  • Registered: 2008-11-13
  • Posts: 137

Re: Kraakverbod (mostly Dutch)

NoiZe wrote:

There even was a study about this done by one of the governments (ministerie's), and it showed the squatting culture was not getting more violent. There were only a couple of incidents in Amsterdam, mostly with foreign squatters.

I don't think facts are deemed that important here. It seems more like a sort of tribal battle for territory and power to me. More or less like children playing cowboys and indians, about to look baffled that it's not such a hot idea to put nails on the tips of the arrows for your toy bow as that will have real consequences when the game invariably ends.

Zachary Bosch's Website

  • NoiZe
  • Ultimate WarBot
  • Offline
  • From: Mooi Zeist
  • Registered: 2008-07-15
  • Posts: 415

Re: Kraakverbod (mostly Dutch)

Interesting:
https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl … ;grootte=2

Can't find the document of which they are talking about (from anti-squatting law) and on Editie NL 7/10:
http://www.woonbond.nl/downloads/d_anti … 60_nr6.pdf

Uit het in opdracht van het ministerie van EZ en VROM/WWI uitgevoerde onderzoek naar kraken en leegstand blijkt ...

Positief stukkie op Editie NL over kraken. Daar wordt ook gesproken over een onderzoek wat de ministeries hebben laten uitvoeren met als conclusie in het rapport dat het in de 31 gemeentes allemaal helemaal niet verhard. Alleen incidenten in Amsterdam.

* Download electro @ NoiZe Electro Hub *

NoiZe's Website

  • From: Rotterdam
  • Registered: 2009-02-14
  • Posts: 1,143

Re: Kraakverbod (mostly Dutch)

So does anybody know exactly when this law is going official, said the de eerste kamer agrees?
I'm a newbie with dutch politics...

score100's Website

  • From: The Hague, NL
  • Registered: 2008-11-13
  • Posts: 137

Re: Kraakverbod (mostly Dutch)

January, I think. But the question remains whether it would be enforced.

Zachary Bosch's Website

  • NoiZe
  • Ultimate WarBot
  • Offline
  • From: Mooi Zeist
  • Registered: 2008-07-15
  • Posts: 415

Re: Kraakverbod (mostly Dutch)

1st of january indeed.

If an owner of a squatted building asks the police to enforce the law, they must do it.

* Download electro @ NoiZe Electro Hub *

NoiZe's Website

  • From: Wolfhaag
  • Registered: 2009-04-27
  • Posts: 2,283

Re: Kraakverbod (mostly Dutch)

Zachary Bosch wrote:

Personally I'm starting to suspect the main issue that this law is attempting to deal with is the perception of the right-wing parties by potential voters. Squatting is closely associated with the political left and I'm getting the impression that the chief purpose of this law was for the political right to make a gesture there. I don't think this law will even fix the issues it's meant to remedy, certainly not to a degree that will be worth the costs.

very well spoken. Personally, I'm starting to suspect every law/decision made by our politicians (read: fractie) over the last years (including the rediculous mushroom-ban and other absurd forms of populism) is an attempt to take away the liberties people have succesfully fought for in the past..



that said, there simply are no sound arguments for banning squatting. let politics come with hard facts and figures instead of always only playing into people's (voters') "underbelly feelings"..

http://soundcloud.com/zubeldia

Zubeldia's Website