So what was the point then of bringing in this law if there are so relatively few squats and squatters? Use an already existing law -- arrest violent people!
But I suspect there's something else behind this law?

By CW | June 1, 2010 1:46 PM

Would be nice to a very high tax rate or some government action and fines on the owners of these empty buildings. I see buildings sitting empty for years all over amsterdam. The dutch housing system is a failure and needs reform... go after the owners as a government instead.

By Anonymous | June 1, 2010 7:38 PM

I agree with CW. There is something else behind this.
And I agree with Anonymos. As far as empty buildings are concerned. Why find more reason to put people in prison at tax payers cost, and not make the owners responsable?

By Fred Dines | June 1, 2010 10:43 PM

What's disturbing to me is politicians going back on "deals" they've made with krakers and evicting them instead. I am disgusted. There is definitely something behind it, called money and greed.

http://www.koppenhinksteeg.nl/english.html

By J. | June 2, 2010 9:44 AM

and also after the coming elections, there will be massive cuts in government & police, so they will never have the resources to do anything to force owners to not have their property empty

By an3 | June 2, 2010 11:06 AM

After I have seen how public buildings have been sold in Amsterdam (for example the Conservatory is sold to become hotel Conservatorium), I think the city council there has new interest - to sell buildings in the city or to be the person in the middle in such deals. I think the new law will defend this type of PRIVATE interests.

By George | June 2, 2010 11:22 AM

It's really quite simple. They need to project the assets of the banks. The banks don't want to flood the market with unsold stock and kill the illusion that houses are scarce in holland. Need to keep the same old supply\demand story going in holland. So basically the banks\governement want to ensure they have the time to control the market in order to keep prices high and not see their asset values destroyed by the squatters.. who's numbers are going to grow as a result of high youth unemploymment.

By Anonymous | June 2, 2010 1:08 PM

Having so-called squatters as neighbours, I wonder what they do for living, driving no rubbish cars, using elec & water (who pays this?), in a recently nicely renovated 1Mio Euro house in Den Haag with garden - Sorry for all those that sympathize with this romantic "protest". In other countries this is simply a crime and for good right. If this was your house, you would think differently about "property". Otherwise go to communist country Cuba or elsewhere. Most of those people do not want to work hard enough to earn money for the rent.

The legend about housing shortage is just that large number of people do not want to move somewhere else, they just call for the state to do something. Go to Den Haag and you find many cheap appartments for less then 400 Euros and take the train to Amsterdam to work. Studying ins AMS, why not elsewhere or is this not chic enough to be in Eindhoven, Groningen or Maastricht?

By mike | June 2, 2010 1:58 PM

Well said Mike. The squatting issue is masking the bigger problem. If you own a property and want to rent your property out in Holland, you have a major problem, as once a tenant is in your home, you can never get him out. If you make a six month contract with a tenant, and after 6 months state that the contract is over and the tenant must leave, the tenant will say no. If you have a "diplomats clause" in the contract, you will be faced with the burden of finding a similar property for the tenant at the same price, and he will decide whether he wants to move or not, and you will pay the moving costs. Contract or not, you are unable to sell your property as you have a sitting tenant. Why do you think there are so many vacant properties in Amsterdam? Most people would rather have an empty property that they can sell or keep till needed even if it costs them to keep it empty, and it does cost them. Make a fixed term contract between a home owner and tenant binding, making tenants vacate the premises at the end of the contract and enforceable by law, and I am sure the empty building problem will disappear.

By jaycee | June 2, 2010 5:05 PM

Mike,

I work as a teacher, as do some of my friends. Others are mechanics, publicists and many other varied jobs? What was it about squatters that made you think we can't afford a car and don't pay for our bills? Even above minimum wage, it's impossible to afford a room bigger than 15 square metres, let alone an apartment.... and the only other option is to sit on a waiting list for years (the average in some cities being at least 5 years or more).

The crime here is an owner/housing association who lets a building lay empty for a long period of time when there are people really desperate for housing.

And it's completely unfair to say that people should move away if they can't afford it. Since when did the cities belong to the rich? This is simply gentrification.

By H | June 3, 2010 12:56 PM

I live in the very center of Amsterdam and work as a dishwasher.My rent for half of an apartment is 600 a month Expensive,I'm not complaining at all.I have a nice,comfortable place.People in the world normally pay for a place to live.Get rid of freeloading squatters and "anti-krak"rentals.If you cannot afford to live somewhere,then move.

By cvb | July 29, 2010 11:32 PM

It's quite normal that rental and selling prices for housing go up as more and more people move to the cities. It's the "natural" counteraction process which prevents some big cities from growing even more at the cost shrinking of smaller cities.
If someone wants to live in the center of AMS... Ok, it's his/her choice. The price will OBVIOUSLY be higher. And forcing property owners rent it out will not solve the problem in long term.
There many nice places to live in this country. I rent a free-market house in Eindhoven, which is not cheap but is still a good value for the money. Nothing to complain about.

By kostya | July 30, 2010 9:43 AM

Its a sad sad day in the Netherlands. CVB and Mike congrats on having jobs and places to live. So ye are doing ok for yourselves in the rat race. Thats good for ye. But it still makes ye rats.

People like this are the same a-holes that get annoyed when immigrants come in and get helped to start a life. They are just jealous that they dont get the same treatment (even though they dont need it). Of course there will be immigrants who take advantage of the situation but im very sure that i could find some Dutch people doing the exact same thing.

Right on Jaycee
I havent found a contract here in the Netherlands that is binding. I've been made redundant from a full time permanent contract with no pay out. This country is f*#ked. It looks after the big boys and leaves us individuals to find somewhere nice to squat(or at least it used to).

I want the Netherlands back.

By langer | July 30, 2010 10:13 AM

Damn I was getting angry till I read Mike's comment, thanks for that. It's crazy the nerve of some people to say this new legislation is about the greed of the building owner or government but not the squatter. Let me see if I can wrap my head around that argument. So the rightful owner of the building wants to make money from his/her investment that's greed. The city wants to take an empty building and use it to generate funds for all the citizens of the city that's greed. A squatter break into a property that is not theirs and refuses to leave or pay rent.....not greed. That math doesn't add.

I've never seen a building get better due to squatters, and I've never seen squatters give back or help out the surrounding community that is sheltering them for free. Honestly, screw squatter. Why should we stand up for or help protect people that do literally nothing to help others or themselves.

By Bont | July 30, 2010 1:36 PM