Squatting should not be illegal.

In fact, it
should be encouraged.
You go away on a two month holiday that you’ve been saving for for five
years, only to find a bunch of squatters have taken up residence in your “Homes are sacrosanct
home when you return. They’ve packed your clothes into bags. They’ve places: they’re places
rearranged your furniture. They’ve even changed the locks. It takes you to feel safe and
two weeks to get them evicted, two weeks of you staying with relatives or secure”
in the uncomfortable motel down the road, and afterwards you can’t even
charge them with anything. The backdoor was unlocked, they say. It isn’t illegal, they say. Where’s your
heart, they say.

It’s invasive, distressing and violating. Homes are sacrosanct places: they’re places to feel safe and
secure.

“No one has, nor ever should, have the And the thing is, no one is arguing with you on this. No one
right to move into your home without has, nor ever should, have the right to move into your
your permission” home without your permission. But this story is in the
minority, and it pays to remember that. In the past five
years, there have only been 112 reports of squatters moving into occupied homes. In this city, there are
1.2 million residences. Think of it this way: it is statistically more likely for you to be homeless than for
your house to be overtaken with squatters.

There is an estimated 17, 890 people who are homeless on any given night in this city. Of those, nearly
half are family groups, with almost 20% of those experiencing homeless aged less than 12 years old.
Over 30% of all homeless people are women and children escaping domestic or family violence. The
impact of homelessness on people is dramatic and even worse for children. Feelings of isolation,
insecurity, anxiety and depression are incredibly common. People who experience homelessness are
more likely to suffer serious health and mental health conditions, suffer discrimination and stigma and
have difficulties in making and maintaining relationships with others. If they are not already
unemployed, being homeless increases the chance of being let-go or fired, and makes any sort of
education incredibly difficult.

But consider this: according to census data, there were 107,226 empty houses “Feelings of
on census night in 2015. That’s nearly 6 for every single homeless person, isolation,
including the children. Even if 90% of those houses were owned by people on insecurity, anxiety
long term holidays, or embroiled in legal battles, or even simply unliveable due and depression are
to asbestos or mould, there would still be more than enough to provide safe, incredibly
secure and long-term accommodation to those who need it most. common”
And the thing is, no one is actually suggesting we simply give homeless people those houses. But
allowing, and encouraging, squatting in unoccupied dwellings is something that needs to be considered
and needs to be considered now.

Squatters, by and large, can actually serve a valuable purpose. Abandoned houses encourage vandals,
become dilapidated and run down and lose their property value quickly. They become infested with
rats, mice and bugs. Without use, the plumbing and electrical wires break and rot away. Squatters help
with these. They mow your laws, weed the garden beds, and keep the house clean. Squatters will fix
leaking pipes and replace missing electrical wires. As we said, homes are sacrosanct places: they are
places to feel safe and secure. If anyone needs that, it is those who experience homelessness.

House prices are rising. Rent is rising. The average cost of a three bedroom home is now close to
$1million while the average cost of a one bedroom rental is $450 per week, nearly half the average
income. Those who can afford homes often have more than one, and, due to the tax-evasion scheme of
negative gearing, many choose to leave those second
“It is time we stopped caring so much homes unrented, instead claiming them as losses. This
about property rights and started limits the availability of rentals and drives up the costs. In
caring more about human rights” one word, it is unsustainable.

Squatting in these “abandoned” houses is a short term solution to the lack of low-end affordable
housing. Making it illegal is just further disadvantaging the most needy and underprivileged in our
society. It is time we stopped caring so much about property rights and started caring more about
human rights.

MY ANSWER HERE:
- The argument seems to be based on the premise that there is a significant problem of homelessness
and lack of affordable housing in the city, and that squatting could be a viable solution to this problem.

- The conclusion is that squatting should not be illegal and should be encouraged.

- The argument appears to use a mix of factual claims (e.g. statistics about homelessness and housing
vacancies) and normative claims (e.g. the idea that human rights should take precedence over property
rights).

- One potential logical fallacy in the argument could be the assumption that unused houses are readily
available and suitable for squatting, without considering potential legal or safety issues. Another
possible issue is that the argument seems to conflate the problem of housing affordability with the
problem of homelessness, without acknowledging that some homeless individuals may have more
complex needs (e.g. mental health issues, addiction) that cannot be fully addressed by simply providing
housing.
- The author's use of evidence and claims may be debatable - for example, the claim that squatters
generally improve the condition of abandoned houses would need to be supported by more concrete
examples. Similarly, the argument that squatting is statistically less likely to occur than homelessness
does not necessarily make the practice morally or legally justifiable.

- The argument seems to have a clear bias in favor of prioritizing the needs of homeless individuals over
those of property owners. While this perspective may be valid in certain contexts, it could be seen as
oversimplifying the complex issues at play.

- The types of argument used in the text could include appeals to emotion (e.g. describing the distress of
returning home to find squatters) as well as appeals to logic (e.g. citing statistics to support the need for
more affordable housing). However, without a more detailed analysis it is difficult to assess the overall
strength of the argument.