[chous]

I don't agree. It's a non-existing problem that the media insists us to convince otherwise, just to force us to pay for useless and absurdly expensive monthly services. Poor people being afraid of other poor people, a classic.

[nerdawson]

I don't doubt the media are prepared to jump on and inflate any problem if it'll drive engagement. That doesn't mean the underlying issue isn't real.

I could offer some anecdotal evidence but that seems pointless. Especially when the stats speak for themselves. It's not just media hype.

[miguelxt]

It may be overblown by media, sure, let's say we agree on that, but I know of at least 3 cases of very close people that have suffered the issue in the last 3 years alone. It may be my social bubble, but I don't think it's a completely fabricated matter.

[diggan]

> It may be overblown by media, sure, let's say we agree on that, but I know of at least 3 cases of very close people that have suffered the issue in the last 3 years alone.

For curiosity's sake, were the affected people owners of multiple properties or was this issue considering their primary residential homes that they were actively living in?

[taopai]

I know no one who had his first home or summer house squatted. No one.

I've lived here all my life.

I know at least 15 okupas who lived +4 years in properties of banks, unused and not finished, which, after eviction, are still unused and unmaintained. What harm did this okupas do? They didn't contributed to rent inflation, so they did some good.

Having property unused and don't having an eye on it is madness. I wouldn't do it. That's common sense. People think that money buy things. Ok, buy a Ferrari and park it outside of a big city and leave it there during a month.

This law is here to protect the right of housing. Some mafias use it? Could be, but this law works to protect real families and the benefits are much greater than the harm that opportunists do abusing it, this organizations doesn't have anything to do with the okupa movement.