In the 80's and 90's, trespassing was a kind of hipster sport in Pittsburgh. There were numerous abandoned steel mills and factories-- these were huge facilities that had stopped operating years ago and were left to the elements. Since many of us lived near these structures, it was irresistible to explore them and see what's inside. Photographically, they're amazing subjects. They're also a dream-canvas for graffiti artists. It was also cool to just be there in the middle of the night with your friends, in a place that was so alien from everyplace else in the city.
That said, property management doesn't see it that way. For them, it's a liability. These places are dangerous, there are often no lights and steep drops without guard rails. Sometimes the floor is just missing in places. Sharp objects everywhere and no easy way to get help if there's an accident. And if something did happen, who is to blame if a hipster falls down a chute 50 feet onto concrete? Not easy to say (regardless of what you may think). Security guards patrolled the area and would investigate any flashlights or people sightings. Worst case scenario you would get a citation, though our crew never got caught (in steel mills).
In less dangerous buildings, things were more loose. If you had a camera and were there to take cool shots, security was apt to just kick you out. A camera was like a kind of "passport" for trespassers. Graffiti artists got a much harder response.
Not in the US. The property owner is liable for injury in the property even if the person was trespassing or committing a crime. People have legally shot intruders in their home and then been successfully sued in civil court for the injuries to the intruder. I had a freight elevator door pin my hand and damage a bunch of nerves while I was helping someone move furniture into his illegal Brooklyn loft. I got $50k for it. I carried $1M liability insurance on my Brooklyn townhouse because some visitor could slip and fall and sue me for all sorts of hardship. The system is broken.
On the flip side I now live in a country where the law guarantees public access to the river running alongside of my property. The locals don’t actually know how the law works, only that they are supposed to have river access. So they jump fences, walk through my property, steal things on their way by, cut down my trees to make smokey fires for their bbq, piss and shit all over, leave empty beer cans and bottles and trash on the riverbank or in the river, and then swear that it’s their right to do so. So when they enter my property, they get a shotgun in their face and they are encouraged to find one of the myriad of other points of entry to the river. The law says they can access the river, but not that they can trespass to do it. Enter from the abandoned field on the other side. It’s the same river.
The public don’t respect public places. They treat them as private places they can destroy and leave. The article talks about the place where homeless people would shelter from the wind but fails to mention that they also piss there until the spot reeks from 3 meters away. Is that their right too?
> I had a freight elevator door pin my hand and damage a bunch of nerves while I was helping someone move furniture into his illegal Brooklyn loft. I got $50k for it.
You were doing something illegal, got injured, and sued? And you say "the system is broken"? The system is broken because of behaviour like yours
Much of Brooklyn's "residential" offerings aren't legally residential. They're old commercial buildings that landlords have cheaply repurposed to get a piece of the rising demand in housing.
I lived in Bushwick for a year and a half, never met my landlord, and I'm sure the building was breaking at least a dozen laws, but it was relatively affordable so no one really asked questions.
"Illegal" apartments in converted warehouses are very common in Brooklyn. Supposedly, the city turns a blind eye to them. Once someone lives there, they can't be evicted, even if it's not a legal residence. So renovation works happen without a work permit.
At least, that's what my brother told me, who lived in such an apartment. It was an eccentric place, but everything seemed up-to-code.
The system is still broken, regardless of what you think of GP's actions. "You shouldn't steal our customers' passwords" isn't a clever response to being told that your customers' passwords have been stolen and sold for $50K.
The apartment was illegal, possibly not zoned for residential or not up to code. The act of helping someone move would not be illegal. He had every right to sue.
To clarify... in the US, the property owner can be held liable for injury that results _from the property owner's negligence, etc._ even if the injured person was trespassing or committing a crime.
> The law says they can access the river, but not that they can trespass to do it.
I get being angry at them for the stuff they do while on the river or getting to it but this interpretation is bullshit. If they're allowed access to a location but every piece of abutting property is owned by someone to exercise that right they HAVE to trespass somewhere.
>...I had a freight elevator door pin my hand and damage a bunch of nerves while I was helping someone move furniture into his illegal Brooklyn loft.
Could you expand on this a bit? What is an illegal loft in this context? Was he squatting there or was the loft just not zoned residential? Were you allowed to use the freight elevator, or was that trespass?
> People have legally shot intruders in their home and then been successfully sued in civil court for the injuries to the intruder.
In most states you can use deadly force to protect your life, not your property. If some dude come in your place to steal a TV and you shoot them in the back with a shotgun of course you will get sued.
In order to use deadly force, legally, you have to meet three requirements. A reasonable person must believe that the other person CAN hurt or kill them. They must have a reasonable belief that the other person WILL hurt or kill them. Finally that threat has to be imminent. You can't go somewhere else and shoot someone because they say they are going to come kill you and you know they have a gun.
You CANNOT use lethal force to protect property. However there is a special case called Castle Doctrine where a home invader automatically meets the "WILL" condition. A reasonable person can assume that a person breaking into their home WILL kill, kidnap, or maim them. The capability part is usually satisfied as well. However this is why you can't shoot through your front door when someone is trying to break in. You have no reasonable belief that they can hurt you if there is a physical barrier between you and them.
EDIT ADDENDUM: You totally CAN shoot someone in the back if they have invaded your home and you catch them unawares. (This isn't a good idea if you can't identify them as an intruder, but legally speaking you are in the clear) However if they are fleeing they are no longer an imminent threat.
Everything above is extremely variable from state to state in the US and most of what you've said is wrong for the vast majority of states.
In Maryland, Castle Doctrine isn't enshrined by law but is held by precedent and still requires "reasonable belief" of harm.
In Texas, someone entering your property illegally can be met with lethal force in most circumstances, and some property can be protected with lethal force (with more than a few caveats, including the time of day).
Lethal force is lethal force. Whether you shoot someone in a cowboy duel face to face or smack them with a lead pipe when they are unaware doesn't overwhelmingly matter (putting aside reasonable belief issues that might arise).
The comment isn't to provide legal advice, only to make a point and provide a little information. There are BOOKS on that sort of information.
Also hopefully to make sure that someone doesn't put themselves into a situation where they can be legally killed by someone else. Being mindful that entering someone's home unannounced or brandishing a knife or fists to intimidate that trespasser on your back 40 could result in your death.
These requirements are from old style common law. I should have mentioned that it varies a lot from state to state and even under varying circumstances. For instance, if someone is 20 feet away from you, holding a knife and threatening to kill you, can you shoot them without going to prison?
The question is, does a "Reasonable Person" have a belief that the man holding a knife at 20 feet is able to kill you before you can react. He can't reach you right? But how long does it take a person to cover 20 feet and stab you? Could you react in time? How do you know that he could have covered the distance before you could draw your weapon? Can you beat that brandishing charge if you don't shoot?
Well if you point that gun at him and didn't know how fast that person can cover that 20 feet at the time then it isn't admissible as evidence for your legal defense to prove that a reasonable person would believe the person CAN kill you. Instead the DA will just say "He was 20 feet away!" and the jury will put you in jail because you didn't have the training or evidence that you KNEW he could cover that distance in less time than you can draw.
IMPORTANT: If you are willing to use deadly force, and arm yourself to do so, then you should be trained to do so legally. Not relying on rumors and advice of Hacker News commenters!
This isn't legal advice, mostly advice on how to not get shot. If you go into someone's home unannounced (even just to return their lost cat) or try to threaten a trespasser on your land you can be killed and it will be YOUR fault.
I am not a lawyer, but I do want to make sure that I know what my legal responsibilities are as a citizen. If you need an attorney to tell you when/how to use deadly force then you are probably already in trouble. You don't get to choose the time or the place that someone tries to kill you.
If you are an armed citizen please seek training in how to safely and legally use your weapon. Knife, gun, batons, or even less than lethal weapons included. It could keep you out of prison.
No you are right! I know a lot of people who, when they get a gun or a knife, get all bright eyed and bushy tailed. Harboring childish fantasies of getting into a fight and coming out the hero like in the movies. I should have emphasized the point that if you go looking for such a fight you are very likely going to end up in prison.
A better thing to say before giving such advice about home defense would be to preface it with: "In a home invasion it is always better to take your family and hole up while waiting for the police rather than trying to confront the burglar."
In some locales if someone is in your home while you are there, regardless if you entered after them, they're a danger to your life and it is permissible to use deadly force.
Home invasions and burglaries where someone is home are so rare where I live they make the state news when they happen.
The only time I've heard of someone being successfully sued was after executing a home invader who had already been shot and lying unconscious/dead, all caught on camera. Course they also went to jail.
>In most states you can use deadly force to protect your life, not your property.
Actually in most states you can use deadly force to protect your property, what is generally not permitted is using deadly force to protect others property.
Literally shot someone in the back while they stole a TV. 911 even told him not to do anything, don't shoot anyone, just stay inside, cops were on the way. Shot the guys anyway, and got off... because Texas. The wiki article doesn't say it, but IIRC they dropped the TV due to the shooting and it was broken.
You would be reasonable to think that, but it's pretty much up in the air who gets held to account. It depends on the specifics of the situation, the lawyers of both sides and the stakes involved.
This is a problem with abandoned heavy industrial facilities. The owners make themselves generationally rich from that business. And then, when it loses profitability, they close the facility and let it rot (perhaps changing the property ownership several times). A huge facility in a place where people live just rusting away to nothing, too expensive to demolish, unusable for other purposes, just sitting there as a sign of that community's economic implosion. This is the kind of stuff that conditions people's judgment of the property owners. There is a reasonable point of concern there and it can pop out when somebody gets hurt exploring that place.
What does that have to do with people trespassing? Is the argument that "The owners make themselves generationally rich," therefore they are liable for people's trespassing?
Because, in some sense, property owners are seen as irresponsible for letting these giant facilities rot in towns where people live, negatively impacting the local economy and well-being of everyone near it.
I'm in the Law and Finance building on 4th. For years our elevator access was secured by a hasp and had direct access to the roof. That was a fun place to check out the 250th anniversary fireworks with a 6 pack.
I am a tad incensed. My farm has been broken into..trespassed and squatted upon(literally and figuratively) ..my creek polluted and decades old trees topped off by not so innocent trespassers.
And I was told by my insurance that it was my responsibility to install gates and fences as protection against liability. It costs thousands. How do you fence off creek banks and abutting wilderness for the bird life and wildlife? The law enforcement’s hands are tied as they declare themselves homeless and they have advocates and activists. I pay taxes and I have no rights. Except to ask them to leave and they keep coming back after dismantling their tents. And when they leave, they destroy my farm a little more out of spite..tractor and trailer stolen,Metal arches pulled away and placed as tents just outside my property line to throw it at my face because I can’t complain about property that isn’t mine and power lines running zig zag in my orchard stealing my electricity...greenhouse panels pulled out to build a bridge to cross the creek...trees with nesting birds topped off for campfires. Fences that I put up repeatedly run over by visitors of said homeless camp dwellers.
I could go on..but this is what I surmised: when one thinks it’s ok to break one rule(trespassing), it becomes easier to break others. I consider unrepentant trespassing as character flaw and am wary of those who exhibit it.
I understand your frustration. I moved my family (actually sold my home and moved to a different town) due to trespassers. I put up signs, but they were torn down or uprooted and thrown on the lawn. I also called the police, and they said that they would be as helpful as they could be, but unless they caught someone in the act then they couldn't do anything. The police said that if the trespassers were aggravated then they may destroy property, and that without solid evidence prosecution was unlikely to go anywhere. So if you irritate someone and "get a brick through your window" (this was the example the police gave), even if you get a picture, it won't prove they threw the brick. The solution was to move.
I don’t understand the law is being punitive to those who are productive. This is a my place of business and has hundreds of thousands of dollars of capital infrastructure. And many of them on credit lines. If there aren’t any credit lines, farmers can’t survive. And farm land with infrastructure isn’t easy to avail..it’s not just the space but also soil, weather, being close to market, labour availablility and so many other factors.
Oh! And then there are the mentally ill. There was this one woman who would hold meetings in my shade structure. She would arrange chairs in a semi circle and talk to the chairs. There weren’t any others...it was just her and her dog. She’d talk to them and ‘hear’ them.
She would be so irritated when I come by and she’s hold the door open to let ‘them’ out..thanking each one of her invisible friends for coming.
I knew she was harmless but i always locked my tools away. Once I forgot to lock a pair of shears and the next morning, the lavender hedges were all razed..she had gone on a rampage on the greenhouse plastic..shredding it.
I finally called the cops. They were sympathetic but said they can’t do anything unless I file a complaint and ask that she be arrested. I was reluctant to do this..and they said that their hands are tied unless they book her. If she is mentally ill and someone had filed a missing person report, this was the only way they can question her and detain her..maybe get fingerprints. I don’t want anyone to ever stay in jail because they are mentally ill..but I relented. She came by a few more times and then she moved on to another area from what I heard.
This is a whole another kind of trespassing. I have no answers. Just frustrated and really sad and angry.
That's heartbreaking - have you thought about setting up cameras so you have unambiguous evidence in case you ever have to bring legal action? Are they ever armed? Would it be worth while patrolling the perimeter of your land with a rifle every now and then or would they just leave and come back later?
They stole cameras, lighting, greenhouse shelving, packing house tables. I employ a lot of girls part time and I am a sole operator of a female run business. They just refused to come back and work. And I don’t blame them.
I know they are dealing drugs. Sonoma county has legal pot ..so it’s not pot. Why would a homeless camping site have BMWs and Hummers and SUVs and other cars come by..they even had a system..bicycles near where they parked to get to the creek area hidden by trees. So people don’t have to walk to get to the little apartment like units they built.
I was being punished for calling on the cops because they’d defecate, fornicate and leave poop and condoms and tampons and bottles filled with pee..there is now a sign that says ‘restroom’ on a tree by the creek. And law enforcement won’t do anything. This is California. I don’t think I can patrol with a firearm.
I was living near Boonville and there was an illegal grow op run by Mexican gangsters. There was a car that had "broken down" by the side of the road and the lookouts openly hung out there "fixing" it. For months. I was told that, although the Sheriff knew all about it, he wouldn't do anything because the gang was just too well-armed, violent, and well-connected to bother.
Otherwise, if it's not some weird shit like that, I can't understand how/why the law wouldn't be more on your side.
- - - -
If your particular tormentors are gang-connected I would recommend you GTFO ASAP.
- - - -
Are you willing to injure or even kill another human being, considering that these bastards are not threatening your life, just trashing your material possessions? (Which is still really really bad!)
Remember that you don't have to actually shoot the people. A bullet whizzing overhead is known to have a cleansing and tonic effect on muddled thinking.
It might be sufficient to simply post some of your old targets from the shooting range up around the place. Ones with bullet holes in them. It's a subtle way to let your unruly neighbors know that you are reaching the limits of your patience.
- - - -
edit: Reading some of your additional comments, it seems like guns are totally not going to help your situation at all. Like, not even a little bit.
I don't know what to tell you. It sounds like you're at the front lines of the apocalypse. My heart goes out to you.
I license land from the water Dept now..it’s urban edge farming. It comes with its own set of challenges including lack of benefits of scale.
This is actually giving me an opportunity to think and figure out how create farm systems in urban settings. Rural areas are degraded and without support ..in some ways..like with law enforcement, basic infrastructure, connectivity, environmental protection etc.
I think the future is melding self sufficient urban centers with modernized rural food hubs. It’s the only way. On one hand, we have housing crisis and on the other hand, rural areas that are like the Wild West.
I like to imagine them as new cities of the future and just write down what comes to mind. I suspect much will change in our lifetimes..who knows?...but imagining how it can be better saves my sanity and keeps me from losing my temper in bad ways.
Where I farm..because it’s land associated with federal funds has security and a zillion resources that protect it. It’s also in an urban area. It can be improved. We can urbanize around rural hubs. We can introduce food producing hubs in urban settings.. Altho it might be smaller in scale...it will reduce supply chain and value chain when part of food production is local.
I understand farmers better now...but I had to walk in their shoes(But had to lose my shirt, as it were..)
This is so fascinating to me. Have you seen Christopher Alexander's "Pattern Language"? (Especially the "interlocking fingers of city and country" pattern?)
When I lived in Boonville we had an organic garden that generated a surplus, but there didn't seem to be a practical way to sell it to anyone, even with the Internet.
Also, are you into Permaculture or other forms of regenerative agriculture?
I really respect you for getting out there and doing it.
I am taking a break now and only growing/selling from my perennial plantings and fruit from the orchard. The apiary/honey sales is also very healthy. I can see how permaculture is likely more suitable for me. The idea of solo small acreage farming really appeals to me. Because. Labour. People.
I am considering buying a nut orchard or citrus acreage and leave it to farm management. This way I am still a ‘farmer’ while kind of outsourcing the labour. It will give me some breathing space to figure out what to do next.
The future is automation. Far future. I haven’t been able to find any American Agtech for small acreage farmers like me. We don’t develop any appropriate tech for small farms(sub 100 acres.
I hosted a demo for a visiting Ag robotics company. It was embarrassing. Rural america ..at least here in CA..is appalling in its lack of infrastructure. Connectivity, power..even the rtk base station clusters weren’t always available. One of the fuses fizzled and there was literally no one who had a 80A fuse. There was no radio frequency channel that was free for Ag use. All this was fascinating to me. I hand weed and have a compact tractor. What do I know? At that moment, robots in the field seemed like it was impossible in America.
How are we going to get robots in our fields when there are two different Americas? And this is in a state with 45 billion dollars in Ag income. so much environmental degradation, poor infrastructure and California really isn’t throwing money where it needs to stick.
Farmers are a powerful lobby. The big ones. There is no money in farming for others. They say farmers make money once twice. That ‘one good year’ and when they retire and sell the farm land. Example: a small rancher I know told me that he makes more money from mitigation service fees with the govt than what he makes from his 400 strong herd in his 800 acre ranch. Why? Because there is a tiny little salamander that is endangered in California. It has protected status..which is great! the land cannot be used for anything except maybe grazing or as horse property if the tiger salamander decides to make your property it’s home. But the govt also runs a mitigation program where they pay land owners to pick these salamanders and move it to their land. The now cleared property where the salamander used to live is ready to be built upon ..homes and condos.
The state makes many times over in property taxes when these lots are used for real estate. And the last I heard, developers pass it on to the new buyers at something like $5.00/sq.ft. The best way to avail $$ is to make a random critter a candidate for endangered status. I would like to think that I am a conservationist. I don’t see the logic in taking an endangered creature and transplanting it in an environment that it’s not it’s native habitat. What is wrong with this picture? Is the problem created so that the solution is offered? And it just so happens that the solution brings in millions in jobs, homes, taxes and recurring property taxes. What are they doing? I don’t understand. Colour me jaded.
I guess my point is that there is money only if land is used to build homes. The large farms that are corporations that grow pistachios or almonds or alfafa that bring in forex as they are exports are protected..commodity crops listed on stock market are valuable. Farming corporations with powerful bargaining lobbies for water allocation and tax breaks and monies from state budget get preference. The California residents rationed water so almonds could be exported. We paid more for water and even more for watershed protection and taxes and studies for subsidence where ground water and aquifers were emptied by farmers who had grandfathered rights. We sent alfafa to China during the worst years of California drought. It makes one’s jaw drop.
Small farms growing local food don’t get subsidies..don’t get support or have someone lobbying for them...’hobby farmers’ and small acreage farmers growing in marginal land or inherited land with barely there infrastructure and service will never make money.
Local food is important. Food security should be a big deal. Farming should include food for communities and not just exports and trade. Right now, it’s cheaper to export food from Mexico or South America. How much longer?
Before we can automate farming or become sustainable or be able to convert food production..an essential activity..into a profit making venture, there ought to be infrastructure improvements and we need the state to treat productive local small businesses better than they treat criminals who get better services than small/family/market farmers. Tax payers shouldn’t be burdened with raising taxes without any return on their annual tithing. Example: I paid $300/acre for the adobe fire in Napa/Sonoma Area in my property tax return. I am happy to do that. But PG&E hasn’t taken any responsibility and we had fires again this year. What does it all mean? What is the state’s role in fixing the foundational rot in CA? I don’t know. No one does.
We have the best soils in the country. The world even..our weather in CA is truly golden. 8 months..not a drop of rain. It’s a dream to farm in CA. Silicon Valley is in our backyard. There is literally nothing we can’t grow in California. What a beautiful place and I have lived all over the USA.(and two other continents) It should be a dream...but it’s a nightmare.
I love California so much. I have toyed with the idea of hemp farming or buying something for far less money in some place like Nevada..but there is an irrational attachment to California soil. This is where I learnt to farm. I can not possibly quit. I am going to wait it out until the dumbasses that run this state get their collective acts together. I will never quit farming. Altho I might feel like giving up..but I am going to do it right with round 2. I am going to figure a system that checks all the boxes..Agtech, sustainability, environmental and resource conservation and automation because..no automation, no profits. I am certain about that. I have crunched the numbers every way and even upside down..for farms at all sizes..automation is the only way farming can be profitable again. But we can’t do anything about it unless we get the infrastructure right and that’s not a private sector endeavor.
I also feel agtech companies that bring in farm robotics or agtech in the field should avoid large corporate farms and focus on automation small acreage farms first. Why? Because each crop is billions of dollars worth..even lettuce is 3 something billion dollar crop in CA. Strawberries are close to that figure too. They are not going to switch to automation and say bye to all their minimum wage cheap labour for a test farm equipment. They have to pass so many hoops and red tape and obstacles before it gets widely adopted. It will take decades to fully transition and it won’t be painless. An example is when tomatoes were harvested mechanically rather than by migrant labour. It gave raise to an entire political uprising. Companies like JD or Case or Monsanto or Sygenta etc have too much at stake. All tech will be swallowed by the big players and be left to die in a dark vault until they feel it’s time to let it out without cannibalising their own product lines.
We can’t afford to wait that long. It’s criminal to not apply technology that is possible and feasible and can be field ready at once. We need farm bots and should stop dicking around with drones and sensors. That’s all decades old tech. We need foundational changes. Small farms are so small compared to big Ag that application of appropriate future tech is not a danger to the bottom line of the big Ag suppliers or the balance sheet or tax coffers.
If there is one thing I would like to request the tech community..it would be that they ought to create appropriate tech for small acreage farms. It’s easy. It’s possible. It’s low hanging fruit but it’s impact would be tremendous. It would create a whole new farm system and initiate a paradigm shift wrt how we grow our food. To the govt, I would say that they treat them as legit businesses. To the public, I would say that they pay more for good food. Quality over quantity. To young farmers, check externalities and don’t farm with romance. It should be taken seriously or small farmers will have no voice. But starting with infrastructure and not rewarding criminals who damage such an essential act like farming via turning a blind eye is a good start. One of the reasons it became difficult for me was because I grow food. Poop and urine and condoms and tampons that I picked up shouldn’t be in a place where I grow food. I have to pay for certifications and if I have a GAP audit, I would fail if there is a tampon under my mulberry tree. The county owes it to me and my tax paying farm to keep undesirable elements engaged in unlawful activity after I file a complaint. It’s not my job to provide sanctuary to trespassers. And that’s the full circle!
Cheers and peace out. I said more than I wanted to...thanks again. I will check them out.
Wow! That was awesome (also frustrating and poignant.) Should be on the front page of HN, IMO.
I can't write a coherent reply right now, but I wanted to mention some things:
I dream of a world where people can step out of their kitchens and pick their produce from their own gardens, but I know that, realistically, you're right about automation. Most people don't want to tend a garden. But I'm an amateur roboticist and gardener and I'm not confident that automation will be at all easy. Even with the recent advances in ML, et. al., it's going to be hard to displace humans (after all, we are adapted to gathering food from plants.) The easy-to-automate farming might turn out to be microbes ( https://massivesci.com/articles/iwi-algae-protein-nannochlor... & http://boostbiomes.com/https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20687797 ), and/or marine farming ( https://www.greenwave.org/ ).
I'm hoping that it might be possible to make dense "food forests" near to population centers and people can come and glean for themselves. I had an idea for a kind of member-supported farm with a restaurant on-premises. Folks drive out (by appointment) for a fancy meal sourced (mostly) from the farm/garden around them, membership would include a certain number of meals. There's a lot of little details (members can purchase surplus produce online and pick it up after their meals, etc.)
- - - -
What about some sort of small online distributed Farmer's Market, like Etsy for Veggies, that allows people to pledge to buy produce before it's harvested, or even before it's planted? You would have to allow for e.g. bad weather or bugs/diseases ruining a given crop/area, but it would give small rural farms a stable market, maybe?
I know there are a lot of people who are willing to pay more for healthier, ecologically grown food. Just look at any Whole Foods store, for example. It's a matter of connecting the kitchens and the farms. "Merely" a logistics problem, eh?
It’s like musical chair..groups come and squat..they leave and the others come in..they leave behind mountains of trash.
There was one..who left me a note and asked me if he could pay for the damage done to the fence of a truck that backed into my chain link fence...and that’s because I noted down the license plate number of his visitor. And then he paid me in crates of beer. I didn’t even touch it...I honestly didn’t know what to do...it was in my packaging shed. Someone had stolen that too a few days later.
I would consult a lawyer. Depending on the state, I would personally be walking the perimeter of my farm with a gun, shooting at anyone who's stealing my property/power on sight. Homeless people have advocates, sure, but this is basically home invasion, burglary, and probably many other things that are just plain unacceptable by &/or from anyone.
California. I have a standing request with the sheriff’s Dept to arrest upon trespassing. At least give a warning. But every time they say that we should give them a week’s warning. The old group leaves and another group comes in. They have a hierarchy and a leader.
Once the deputy told me that he didn’t know this one, but the other one was actually nicer. I was like..speechless. They have dogs! Small yappy dogs and big ones. They run around unleashed and barking their heads off. I used to volunteer at shelters and I am not afraid of them..I know how to handle animals, but my workers won’t come anymore.
It’s absolutely ridiculous..you just have to step back and wonder if this is all real. But it is. Sometimes LEOs are instructed not to disturb them because they have homeless liaisons and should only go through them. That’s why they ask for a week’s grace period. I don’t care..I just want them gone.
In the beginning, the deputy shamed me and told me curtly that it’s not a crime to be homeless. After three something years and noting that nothing is slowing them down, he softened and suggested to complain that their activities are a fire hazard(this is Sonoma county and close to Santa Rosa/Napa Area fires a few years ago) ..and that would actually get other people involved...and that could be effective. I don’t think they have any power. They can only act after a crime has been committed. But even that is not possible when the advocates area are involved, I think.
At this point, I don’t care anymore. I am not ashamed to admit that this has caused me multiple panic attacks but I now realize that my losses are less if I don’t Farm. So I have taken a break. It’s throwing good money after bad to create deterrents. Nothing can be done. It’s a waiting game.
You should hire a security company that can have scary looking big guys to tell them to get off your property. Generally people like that completely fold when they are presented with any sign of physical confrontation from someone bigger than them. After a while they will learn to find an easier target.
I literally got in trouble for knowing this verse in elementary school. Dad came down with a tape cassette to show the principal what was up. :eyeroll:
Funny how Guthrie's communist, anti-borders, anthem got co-opted by nationalists so far that they don't even understand the meaning... this verse couldn't make that cut, though.
> Funny how Guthrie's communist, anti-borders, anthem got co-opted by nationalists so far that they don't even understand the meaning
There is a rich tradition in classical liberalism on the universality of land, predating the ideas of communism/Marxism. For instance, see Thomas Paine's advocacy for a tax on ground rent [0]; so-called "absentee landlords" were associated with royal aristocracies and enclosure [1].
I've done this all throughout my life. From exploring abandoned buildings & sites to going into "restricted against lowlifes" areas, it's amazing the cool stuff you can see!
I've camped in ghost towns in Oregon. I've visited uncleared temples in Cambodia, covered in underbrush deep in the jungle. I've been in abandoned factories & hospitals, crashed a few gala affairs, visited beautiful beaches... you name it!
And now, living in the former DDR (East Germany), there are so many abandoned places that you can visit a new one every weekend :)
Easy access to satellite imagery helps, along with always keeping an open eye and ear out for these things.
That being said, Germany has a lots of abandoned factories and warehouses to explore once one gets out of the major cities. You're looking for places with large former industrial activity. That's why Detroit had so many photos coming out of it in the early 2010s. I'm sure Poland is also rife with buildings to explore.
I've lamented the lack of true public property for a long time. I'm thinking about buying abandoned property in various places, at very low cost, and opening them up to public use.
It would be done through a non-profit land holding company with the stated mission of opening land and abandoned structures to public use. Enter at your own risk signs, and a brief description that this property is now open for any legal use would be the only changes. (Barring removal of true death traps)
What about National Forests? Would you consider that true public property?
> National Forest is a classification of protected and managed federal lands in the United States. National Forests are largely forest and woodland areas owned collectively by the American people through the federal government, and managed by the United States Forest Service, a division of the United States Department of Agriculture.
> Slab City, also called The Slabs, is a largely snowbird community in the Sonoran Desert located in Imperial County, California, 100 miles (161 km) northeast of San Diego and 169 miles (272 km) southeast of Los Angeles within the California Badlands, and used by recreational vehicle owners and squatters from across North America.
> The site is both decommissioned and uncontrolled, and there is no charge for parking. The site has no official electricity, running water, sewers, toilets or trash pickup service.[3] Many residents use generators or solar panels to generate electricity. The closest body of civilization with proper law enforcement is approximately four miles southwest of Slab City in Niland where the residents often go to do basic shopping. As a result, the site is described by its inhabitants and news outlets like Vice News as a miniature de facto enclave of anarchy.
I don't consider national forests true public property because of entry fees, scheduling camp grounds, restrictions on activity, and length of time you can be there. Also, remoteness is an issue.
I really like the idea of slab city, and have talked to some people who have been there. I haven't been myself. I also love the idea of the Kowloon walled city and the tower of David as models for a public space without top down control.
I thought there were places where you could just drive or hike in and camp for up to three nights? FWIW, w/o restrictions you would have folks living there permanently. (I know because I totally would.)
I guess the frontier really is closed, eh?
- - - -
I saw a BBC documentary on Kowloon and it scared the shit out of me, FWIW.
And do you intend to do the regular cleanup and maintenance these areas need when they're opened to the public? Do you intend to clean up the literal human waste and trash on a regular basis?
It's a nice idea to have truly public property, but the reality is that people destroy land, especially when it's not their own, and upkeep isn't free or even cheap. Add to that things like zoning, land use codes and restrictions, and taxes, and it's easy to understand why we've lost so much public land.
No, any activity on the property would be done by whoever was there. With no restriction, each person would be responsible for their own actions on the property.
This is incredible curious, an upvoted post where (at the time of my comment) every top level comment is downvoted, possibly the most polarizing post I've ever seen on HN
Shouldn't be a surprise, as private property (and keeping the government/all other parties out of it) is one of the fundamental tenets of the U.S. Constitution. And so a lot of people come with that mindset.
It's a double-edged sword, and while I agree with a lot of the points in the article (it's one of the primary reasons why Europe is unbelievably pleasant to visit), the US will never implement anything remotely close to free-to-roam (or whatever it's called in the UK, as an analog) policies. Too many private interests against it.
Private property is fundamental, but preventing people from traversing across private private property seemed to have morphed from being no big deal into a much bigger offense over the last century. Or at least that is my understanding.
I bet the more populated the US gets the more desire will be there for right to roam. Or at least I hope so. The same with billionaires cutting off access to public beaches.
It's a recent phenomenon as far as I can tell. Within the last few months or so, every comment I post (especially at the top level) gets immediately, sometimes within seconds, downvoted to -1 or -2, then throughout the day stabilizes back up to some equilibrium value. I also wonder what the cause is.
I’m glad to hear it’s not only me. I used to get powerful amounts of upvotes on my comments when well written, but lately I’ve been seeing my votes swing wildly all the way from -4 to back in the positives. I just don’t get it, and I wish Hackernews had a way to see the full voting activity on comments. As of now, I’m going to assume there’s vote fraud going on.
Not that it explains the instant down-votes or the "say one controversial thing and get everything else you've said in the past 24hr down-voted" phenomena but I used to run a script to track when I got up-voted/down-voted and the TL;DR of the data is that up-votes happen slowly around the clock and down-votes roll in when people show up to work and at lunchtime in HN's two most popular time zones (EST and PST).
Sounds like someone may be downvote-botting you. Or just brigading. You might report it to HN.
I've definitely seen the latter recently. Last week there was a post about Snopes' current legal troubles, and an argument started about whether Snopes was politically neutral or not. For the first hour or so, everyone who implied that Snopes was anything but rabidly left-wing was downvoted well into the grey, then mostly rose back up with time. It very much looked like someone had multiple accounts, or multiple friends with accounts, and was downvote-bombing everyone who disagreed with them.
In isolation, that's very possible. In practice, like ryandrake, I've been seeing comments on certain topics get mass-downvoted almost immediately and then slowly trend back upward. If it was just that HN readers in general disagree with me, I wouldn't expect such an identifiable and repeating pattern.
Other than the legal side that is only relevant to EU and NA countries, there's a practical side of "trespassing".
When you enter an abandoned building you take a huge risk. It's called abandoned for a reason - it's not maintained. Steps you step on may collapse. Plastering may fall on your head. Some drug addict may leave a used syringe on the floor for you to step on.
Same goes for undeveloped areas outside of cities no one cares about (that are owned by some private entity and are not public). You may stumble upon on a wild animal, spider, snake. Find a poisonous fruit or berry. Ground may be unstable, some river may overflow.
I've done a lot of wondering around of different areas in different countries but every time I enter an abandoned structure I hope today is not the day it collapses.
I see the parent post downvoted, but I don't see why.
Indeed, that was my first thought when I saw the title, and since it's a very long read, I just ctrl+f "danger", which doesn't come up once.
When I was a kid, I went into abandoned houses, churches, private land, and on a few occasions I crawled into old etruscan tombs looking for interesting bits (bits of broken vases, coins and such).
It was very fun, and also very stupid, and I count myself lucky that nothing ever happened to me.
One should be mindful when deciding to break into unmaintained areas, rather than charge in with a the hope of getting a nice instagram picture yelling "YOLO!".
I'm actually curious how many people are injured during "urbex" type activities? It might be a little harder to figure this out than you'd expect because the statistics would also likely count the homeless person that breaks into a warehouse and ODs.
While the people are definitely in a more dangerous environment than usual, they are also likely to be on guard for hazards so I'm guessing the number of people actually hurt/killed doing these activities is very small.
There was quite a sad case here recently. A midnight bobsled run. They'd done it before. It was great fun and relatively safe.
What they didn't know was that this time the track had been set up for luge. The luge entrance blocked the bobsled track with a big metal gate, and they slammed into it at high speed.
I occasionally went places I shouldn't have when I was a kid, but there's definitely risks to doing so. It's pretty hard to know what you're getting yourself into.
One thing that always struck me as strange was the liability from tresspassers for "natural" conditions. I mean there are good reasons for laws against boobytraps or other active threats but it seems insane when disused quarries are ringed with /barbed wire/ to prevent lawsuits from fools diving into it.
I wonder why "assume your own risk" for any sort of casual tresspassing (as opposed to say fringe circumstances where it would be legally justifird as the lesser evil) hasn't been a legal standard. I guess kids falling down the proverbial well set the precedents for everyone.
Yeah, life is risk. Whatever you do, something terrible might happen. You could have a random brain aneurysm just sitting on the couch. At some point you have to take a risk and do something or what's even the point of being alive?
It's a straw man to pretend that the risk-reward trade-off for every choice is the same. A father with young kids and a stay-at-home wife probably ought not to go skydiving; though driving is a risk, he probably ought to go to work. Men make choices based on potential risks and rewards; the rewards of trespassing are at best intangible, and robben1234 was making the point that the risks can be high.
It's also a straw man to pretend that everyone who might consider going in to an abandoned building is a parent with young children, or that they're going to Leroy Jenkins their way in yelling about Instagram. Anyone with half a brain realizes that there are some risks in going into abandoned buildings.
"Don't eat random berries you find" is something most people learn as a toddler.
And yet, it seems like the West has become so obsessed with safety (in every sense) that it has become so sterile, no fun. Helicopter parenting is just one manifestation of that.
You can barely explore or experiment. Start fires and throw random stuff in them. Is it still even legal to build treehouses? Hang a tire from a tree? Or does everything needs to be certified and inspected for safety, hot cups of coffee labelled “hot”, lest you be sued into oblivion?
There's so much wrong with this article that I'm lit. twitching, but I don't have time to write up a big thing on it.
Let me just say, speaking as someone who was homeless for about four and a half years and who did a little bit of non-destructive trespassing out of necessity, that, generally speaking, trespassing is dangerous and disrespectful. You should avoid it if possible. It's not "a radical expression of freedom, hope, and humanity." You are not "striking a blow against hierarchy and capitalism and uptight motherfuckers everywhere." You're risking your life, jail time, or fines, for a cheap thrill.
Trespassing only seems like fun if you're really really jaded, naive, or literally cannot afford to do anything better. You don't go to the amusement park and stand in line to throw rocks through the windows of an abandoned warehouse, do you?
The only time I trespassed was in Croatia, close to the Serbian border. We had taken the wrong road and ended up on a dead-end. A Serbian living there explained that the road ended up at a summer house of Tito, which was also intended to be used in case of Nuclear war, as it's built above a spring. We went to visit the building, which had been thoroughly trashed since the break-up of Yugoslavia. I also wonder why it hasn't been converted in a hotel, since it's close to one of the natural park of Croatia.
Yes, we all like breaking into places in ways that 'nobody cares about', and we all like beholding beautiful scenes which a majority of people don't think to look for.
But there's a reason why most places discourage this sort of freewheeling exploration; when you visit a place and disrespect its boundaries, you often end up damaging it for the people who come after you. Even footsteps will eventually wear away stones, knock things loose, and disturb delicate habitats/ecosystems such as fungi. As the old saying goes, "plants grow by inches, but they die by feet."
And if you play confidence games like the author, you're making it more likely for other people seeking the same location to get caught and punished.
Yes, the sunbeams that cut through the jagged broken windows of an abandoned train station are gorgeous, and the view from the top of a palatial tower is hard to beat. But it's also sort of like driving through a wetland or ignoring 'please stay on trail' signs in the wild; if we derive pleasure from these places and consider them special, showing them off and visiting them regularly without regard for conservation seems like a poor way to honor them.
Honestly, I have trouble seeing the views espoused in this article as anything other than selfish. Even publicly-owned lands have limits on their use, because we all share these spaces. They don't belong to you, they belong to all of us, and that includes future generations who will have the same yearnings that we do. I'd be interested to hear other takes, but as an occasional trespasser, this manifesto feels disrespectful and I feel like it might paint the community of urban (and natural) explorers in a bad light.
Indeed. Even the relatively harmless example of going up to a hotel floor to look at the view out of (I assume) the lift lobby is something that only works if you’re the only one doing it.
If a bunch of people start doing it then all of a sudden guests start noticing crowds of people outside their rooms, the hotel is obliged to post security guards to stop it happening, and bingo, suddenly life is slightly worse for everyone.
If you find yourself saying “it’s okay that I break the rules” with a full awareness that if everyone broke the same rules it would be terrible, then you are exactly the kind of selfish asshole that is the usual answer to the question of “why we can’t have nice things”.
> something that only works if you’re the only one doing it.
Tangential, but I wonder if there's a name for this, and how much it has been studied. While I appreciate the wisdom behind Kant's categorical imperative, there are many activities in the world that lose all meaning and authenticity if you're not the only one, or one of the few, engaging in them. The current zeitgeist seems hell-bent on normalizing and averaging everything out, but assuming something is bad just because not everyone can do it seems to me like a recipe for a duller society.
Related:
> If a bunch of people start doing it then all of a sudden guests start noticing crowds of people outside their rooms, the hotel is obliged to post security guards to stop it happening, and bingo, suddenly life is slightly worse for everyone.
I think the problem here is the hotel choosing an obnoxious way of stopping it from happening. I think it should not be generalized into "if too many people do something, doing it will become impossible, which is bad", because arguably nobody doing it is even worse. It's like with non-renewable resources - yes, exploiting them now makes them inaccessible in the future, but not exploiting them ever is as if they didn't exist; the only utility there is is in the exploitation.
There have been hundreds if not thousands of philosophy papers written on the subject.
In particular, I think the cases you're referring to are a "contradiction in the will"-- where it's not logically impossible that everyone would do the thing, but it would produce a result that no one would want.
The tragedy of the commons[0] seems to be the extended concept
> a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users, acting independently according to their own self-interest, behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling the shared resource through their collective action.
The "tragedy of mass tourism" would be the "1st world problem" equivalent, imo.
You're right, it's related. But I think it's a special case in which the commons is, from the very beginning, way too small to satisfy all the people interested in it, and one that doesn't have an intrinsic value, so not using it is just as bad as exhausting it (if there's a nice skyline, but no one ever experiences it, it may as well not exist at all).
Tourism is an interesting case. Many aspects of it are an example of the "it's only interesting if very few people are doing it". My go-to example is the leaning tower of Pisa. The first photo of a person leaning on the tower was interesting. But everyone and their dog repeating this is just pathetic.[0]
As for problems of tourism, I think most of them are self-inflicted, and it's not as much a tragedy of the commons as the issue of runaway externalities. Tourism today is mostly about living through artificial, fake experiences, specially created to handle and make money off the masses. But it's just the collateral damage that becomes a problem.
In economics there is a distinction between private goods, public goods, club goods, and common resources. The view from the tower would be a common resource. The canonical example is a village commons where everyone could graze their sheep, as long as no one abused the grazing area.
There's an easy way around this phenomenon: just do it and savor the experience. Don't take a photo and post it on Instagram. Don't go back repeatedly to take others. Don't blog about it. Just go, enjoy the moment, and savor the memory.
Not everything needs to be photographed and shared. Some things can just be experienced and forgotten eventually.
> Indeed. Even the relatively harmless example of going up to a hotel floor to look at the view out of (I assume) the lift lobby is something that only works if you’re the only one doing it.
In Singapore, most people (80%) live in public housing. Some even have great views and allow the public to view as well, they just enforce quotas [1]. Thus, it seems to work as long as it was properly designed and intended to work that way - also helps that crime is virtually non-existent.
That whole system rides on your last statement. Plus that Singaporeans are generally raised to respect others and the space around them.
Trying something like that in my own hometown, people would blast music from their phones because “hey bro we’re just having fun”, chow down and leave their garbage behind because “not my place so why should I care?”, and generally make a mess of everything.
Letting anyone in would be an absolute disaster in some places.
Maybe certain nice things should be part of the commons anyway, or not exist at all. A luxury hotel by its existence occupies space and resource that could be put to some other use. Some people accessing it for free can be seen as a way of rebalancing that.
I don't think the author would agree it would be terrible if everyone broke these rules. He is opposing rules he does not agree with. Rules made those who have accumulated land over a long period. There is clearly some nuance in how you might apply judgement on the justness of restriction of land, but it seems to me there are many cases it is largely unjustified and would not in practice cause harm to anyone to relax them. See for example the right to roam in Scotland.
You seem to be presenting a straw man argument about restriction of access for reasons of conservation and trying to generalise that to imply 'disrespecting boundaries' of any kind is therefore bad without justification. What about denying access to a hotel's top floor or a private beach is about conservation? There are far more many examples of denying the right to roam that are about preserving privilege or sheer arbitrariness than about conservation.
> But there's a reason why most places discourage this sort of freewheeling exploration; when you visit a place and disrespect its boundaries, you often end up damaging it for the people who come after you.
We're talking about abandoned buildings here. They are already practically ruins; I don't see how this applies. Even in your public parks example, we develop natural spaces so people can enjoy them even though doing so requires clearing some portion of the land for roads and facilities. Overall I agree that trespassing is selfish but I don't see anything wrong with that if it doesn't harm anyone else.
> But there's a reason why most places discourage this sort of freewheeling exploration; when you visit a place and disrespect its boundaries, you often end up damaging it for the people who come after you. Even footsteps will eventually wear away stones, knock things loose, and disturb delicate habitats/ecosystems such as fungi. As the old saying goes, "plants grow by inches, but they die by feet."
We're talking about abandoned buildings here. The damage caused by someone walking around is inconsequential compared to the damage caused by nature and the elements. This does assume that the trespassers aren't smashing the windows or chopping down structural members or something. But that's not trespassing, that's vandalism.
It's not like everyone has to go off the same trail, or up the same tower, or onto the same hotel roof. There are hardly any single things on this planet that would not be ruined if everybody did them, but we still use them with the implicit understanding that there mostly are sufficiently many fungible replacements.
Just because "Don't let any sheep graze; actually, just stop eating" technically is one solution to the motivating example for the Tragedy of the Commons, this doesn't mean that that has to be the solution that we actually choose.
> we all like beholding beautiful scenes which a majority of people don't think to look for.
Actually, that statement isn't true regarding me. When I see something beautiful, I really like to share the experience (even if not at the same moment) with other people. Seeing something beautiful, but only being able to tell others about it, is a bit sad for me.
You are attacking something the author did not say. I will assume that this strawman was unintentional (if I were to instead assume that you were acting in bad faith then there would no point responding to you; if you are in fact acting in bad faith, please take a moment to consider why it is that your argument requires a distortion of the truth to be defensible).
The author does say that trespassing on private property, owned by corporations, is not wrong like other forms of "trespass" may be. His argument has one critical nuance that you ignore, however: he says that trespass is not wrong when it is an act that reclaims fundamentally public spaces from private ownership to make them accessible to everyone. A park, a corner between two buildings, and even a view of the city are deeply public things.
Your office (especially the specific area in which you work and the items there) are not, and have never been, public spaces. These specific areas and items are also (by most interpretations) private property, which is another criterion that author has for property that should not be violated. To say that the author suggests that your office should be trespassed upon is an assertion ignorant of these components of the author's argument.
I don't have many unused houses, however my family does have a tiny summer cottage that we don't use in the winter since it's not insulated and so on.
Coming to it in the spring and finding that some kids decided to have a party in there and almost burned it down wasn't exactly a nice feeling. I certainly hope that it doesn't happen to anyone else, including mr Bezos, however much you may disagree with his business practices.
This is a really awful attitude. It's not okay to break into people's stuff, even if he's "mister evil big-corp". Especially since kids having parties tend to leave a horrible mess. Stuff usually gets stolen, too.
There's a deep sense of personal violation that comes from having one's house broken into; while that is probably lesser for people with more than one house, it's still wrong. Most people who support this sort of thing wouldn't loan their houses out for parties, I notice; if one wouldn't lone out his own house, why might he think it better to loan out Mr. Bezos'?
well, so long as they don't mistakenly break into Jeff's actually-occupied house and accidentally traumatize his wife and kids, I suppose he'd be pretty chill about it.
Rumor has it, that Jeff Bezos has homes that are being renovated for years on end, and that aren't used for living in. I think that's what the author meant.
I think he means it's ok so long as the building project is falling massively behind schedule. Crappy builders need to be punished somehow, and the easiest way is to strike terror into the hearts of their clients.
Don’t waste your time and everyone else’s time spending nearly a paragraph with a bad faith disclaimer. It’s super annoying to read so many arguments with “assuming you’re acting in good faith” bullshit.
"I’m not talking about breaking into your neighbor’s house at 3:00 a.m. to rummage through their stuff for drugs or money. This is the mental image that most of us probably associate with trespassing—"
However if you were making a "tragedy of the commons" reference, then I'd be more inclined to agree.
Edited to add:
But, yes, the article's headline and intro is a front for the author's argument against growing corporate ownership of the planet.
I tend to agree with the point being made, so I'm less likely to get snarky about "evil corporations" etc.
The author specifically differentiates between personal (neighbour-owned and not ok to trespass) and private (corporate-owned and fair game) property. Presumably his office is in the latter category.
Realize, you are talking about a publication that was started by a Kickstarter campaign that raised $16,000 [1], which is assembled in the living room of the EiC's apartment [2], and has a handful of full-time employees at most. The author doesn't have the sort of office you presume he does.
Well I do have an office of the sort that you're presuming that I'm presuming that he does, and so does most of the people in this thread, even the ones railing against the evils of The System. Unless he's doing this thing out of his mom's basement, I'm sticking with my wish for stoner teens.
I think there's a potential irony here in that the author would probably be fine with stoner teens wandering in, in that they'd more likely be kindred spirits in their railing against the evils of The System.
Stoner teens would grow up to be part of the author's target demographic.
Your analogy would be better if it was along the lines of a corporate boardroom-stalker trespassing their way into the author's home office, complaining about how cramped it is and that the view is worthless, but then still contemplating buying it up as an investment for the future.
The author's argument (and it takes a while for the article to get there) is much more systemically fundamental than "corporate trespass good", "personal trespass bad".
>I think there's a potential irony here in that the author would probably be fine with stoner teens wandering in, in that they'd more likely be kindred spirits in their railing against the evils of The System.
I doubt it - some unknown dudebro passed out on your carpet in a pool of their bodily fluids seems like too much to deal with at 3am for a poor reporter with writer's block.
"Corporate owned" being ok to trespass doesn't seem quite right. I would think it would be more like actively used vs. abandoned. Breaking into an active warehouse or corporate office seems to be a lot more dubious than breaking into an abandoned factory.
"According to Forbes, not only is Brookfield the biggest office landlord in London and Los Angeles, it “quietly owns entire city skylines in places like Toronto and Sydney.” In New York, it owns the massive World Financial Center complex (whose real name is Brookfield Place) in Manhattan, along with the enormous skyscraper at One Liberty Plaza (which was built atop the bones of the Singer Building, the tallest building ever torn down)."
It's important to note that the author seems to be an anticapitalist; hence trespassing becomes a non-violent form of protest against the system he despises.
Which is ironic, because he seems to be on the richer end of it (eg a white westerner who can afford intercontinental travel, on a job with a healthy work/life balance).
"Which is ironic, because he seems to be on the richer end of it (eg a white westerner who can afford intercontinental travel, on a job with a healthy work/life balance)"
Which means they're exactly the sort of person who SHOULD be protesting the system. It's easy to criticize when you're not on the inside.
I suggested an article to a colleague of mine. He was recently complaining about stale wage growth, and the article I suggested was showing reasons for of wage growth stagnation. He simply dismissed it by saying "yeah, but the person who wrote it is probably on $200k". End of story, point invalidated by privilege...
WTF is that attitude? The overwhelming majority of voices you can hear are those in a position of privilege, even in the age of the Internet. A long-form article like this one isn't going to come out of rando ne'er-do-well xchan channel.
Speak out from a non-privileged position: Pfft, work harder slacker
Speak out from a position of privilege: Pfft, your words mean nothing from that ivory tower.
I guess I'm old fashioned in that I care about the content and character of what people have to say and not where it is coming from. It could come from a billionaire, a gay man, a woman, a poor person, whoever. In fact the less I know about your background the better, so that it might not bias or color my opinion (Seems to be the exact opposite these days.)
Growing up I thought the Internet would be a great leveler. Anyone with a computer could anonymously make a point about something. But something changed around 2005ish; websites started requiring real names, social networks became about cementing existing social connections instead of creating new ones (For example compare the days of LiveJournal to Facebook) Most online entertainment is simply re-creating television. A few "influencers" and a lot of passive consumers. Which is sad and disappointing because everyone has the potential to create something that others would be interested in, even if the audience is small and you might never be famous doing it.
People care about the person it comes from because of so many calculating posts. You'll see a single entity argue against regulation that hurts them because "regulation is bad" and then later argue for regulation that helps them because "we need to set boundaries on what people can do." If you can get X% of the population to support repealing any regulation and a different X% of the population to support passing any regulation, and Y% of the population doesn't care about regulations that don't directly affect them, then the unprincipled will get exactly the set of regulations they want, so long as X+Y > 50.
I think you misunderstood me there (or maybe I shouldn't have posted this in a hurry before leaving for work? Is "ironic" maybe not the word that expresses what I think?). Anyway, I did not claim that his point was invalid - in fact I think that we live in a deeply unfair world and all of us who are on the "richer end" can be quite happy about this. To be safe: No, this does NOT mean poverty in rich countries would be a non-problem.
Unlike your friend, I would not dismiss the authors critique only because he's on the lucky end. It's just that I find it ironic that he expresses a very strong anti-capitalistic tendency (which is a valid opinion to hold!) and takes advantage of his luck by traveling (which also okay with me, sans environmental impact).
When I wrote this, there were many comments along "That's why we can't have nice things", "If everyone would do that", "It's still trespassing", "You shouldn't do that, it gives a bad impression of Urbexing",... - and my primary point (first paragraph was) that, in the end, what he suggests is a form of non-violent protest against capitalism. And in my opinion, much like [peaceful] demonstrations, this is a totally valid thing to do.
No. Poor people want capital. Any rich asshole who criticize capitalism (not corporatism or state capitalism) is utterly despised by the poor -- and rightly so.
It's truly amazing to me that people accept landlording as legitimate. Nobody made land, so why should some people be allowed to make money out of it at the expense of others?
By that logic you have to reject all property ownership entirely and modern society becomes totally unable to function since no one could ever build a building.
I think the vast majority of us find the ability to own land to be more useful than everyone living in grass tents that someone else could knock over because they want to sleep there.
I think the GP is drawing a distinction between private and personal property. If you outlaw private property (e.g. things owned in absentee by entities, usually to seek rent, like landlording) then you are not outlawing people owning the places in which they work or sleep.
It is only when you outlaw personal property (e.g. your clothes, your home) that you encounter the problematic scenario that you suggest.
When Marx says he wants to abolish private property (i.e. the means of production), he does not mean to abolish personal property. I think this nuance is often ignored or unknown, which is unfortunate.
In your example, who gets to decide who will use the "private" property? The government? The person who got there first? Does it become a sort of law of the Jungle that the person to defend a place is the one who gets to enjoy the view? At least in the latter the property is truly owned by the public. But in the former, you simply made the government the rent seeker instead of a individual person or company. The end result is no different.
So you are saying that people may only own land if they work or live on the land? This is not desirable for most businesses where renting property makes much more sense since it gives them the flexability to expand or downsize. It is also not desirable for people who are living somewhere temporarily.
Renting is desirable because land is expensive to buy. And that's because its value is inflated because you can use it as the source of passive income (rent).
If you could buy land from somebody moving out at the price similar to todays renting you wouldn't want to rent. And the company that's moving out would have incentive to sell it to you at low price because ofter it stops operating there it will loose the ownership and get nothing.
Renting itself is fine. Property ownership is actually a huge, annoying pain in the ass which, putting aside financial security reasons, and the fact that renters are often treated like scum, nobody would want to go through.
What is at issue here is landlording for private gain. As I pointed out, these rents are entirely unearned because nobody made land, and so should flow to the general public, not private owners.
Under that logic wouldn't a farmer farming for private gain have unearned money? They didn't make the land.
Not that there is never unjust rent-seeking activity but there are real investment of capital and work involved and merely "dependence on land" isn't a sufficient arguement.
You talk as though the concept of public property doesn't exist.
It's also possible eliminate land rents from private property ownership, by charging 100% tax on the land portion (as opposed to the facilities on it).
Perhaps your political preferences close your eyes to the practical possibilities?
Nobody made anything really. Everything you "own" was made by someone else or at least the raw materials were not created by you. What's the justification for any kind of ownership?
The general idea is that the value of something comes from the amount of human work that went into it, more or less. If you build paper planes and I buy one from you it's because I value the work you put into it (and, transitively, the work put into the paper it was made of etc...). If I think I can do it better, or that I can find somebody else who does it for cheaper, then I don't buy your product.
When I pay my rent, what work do I reward? What added value does the land owner offer to society? What service do they provide?
That said, property management doesn't see it that way. For them, it's a liability. These places are dangerous, there are often no lights and steep drops without guard rails. Sometimes the floor is just missing in places. Sharp objects everywhere and no easy way to get help if there's an accident. And if something did happen, who is to blame if a hipster falls down a chute 50 feet onto concrete? Not easy to say (regardless of what you may think). Security guards patrolled the area and would investigate any flashlights or people sightings. Worst case scenario you would get a citation, though our crew never got caught (in steel mills).
In less dangerous buildings, things were more loose. If you had a camera and were there to take cool shots, security was apt to just kick you out. A camera was like a kind of "passport" for trespassers. Graffiti artists got a much harder response.