Three years ago, lawyer Jordan van den Berg was an obscure TikTok creator who made videos that mocked real estate agents.
But today the 28-year-old is one of the most high-profile activists in Australia.
Posting under the moniker Purple Pingers, Mr van den Berg has been taking on the nation’s housing crisis by highlighting shocking renting conditions, poor behaviour from landlords, and what he calls government failures.
It is his vigilante-style approach - which includes helping people find vacant homes to squat in, and exposing bad rentals in a public database - that has won over a legion of fans.
Some have dubbed him the Robin Hood of renters.
I’m not sure if Robin Hood fits. He’s not stealing. Either way, fuck predatory landlords.
Illegally appropriating access is close enough.
Given the abstract nature of a lot of the economy these days (which unsurprisingly benefits those with wealth) it’s debatable if it fits to be honest. I would lean more towards yes. They would argue that by exposing bad conditions, helping people lower the cost, causing a rental to go empty, or whatever else means they aren’t getting the money they feel entitled to.
The same kind of arguments are often used when corporations argue that piracy is stealing. All that has happened is an unauthorised copy of a movie/etc had been created. Yet that is called stealing and they try and fine people sometimes thousands more than what a legal copy would cost.
He’s encouraging squatting, which is stealing. He’s an awful person.
There’s entire countries that are on land that wasn’t originally theirs. Stealing isn’t sufficient for evil on it’s own.
Found the landlord.
If there is an empty house,and they aren’t doing damage, no harm no foul.
Forcing bad landlords to fix their properties, go for it.
Squatting yeah no. Get the f out
What’s the harm in squatting, as long as they aren’t damaging the property, and the property is well and truly vacant?
If by definition of truly vacant you mean
No one is knocking on the door saying hey get out, and there is reasonably no one going to come knocking on the door… Then yeah fine it’s empty. Then I don’t care. But if anyone who has the title is saying get out then yeah get out.
If there is someone who has the title says get out, and the squatter doesn’t leave, it’s basically theft of property.
How is it theft of property? Theft usually involves taking something material away from someone. If the property owner has left their property vacant, having a squatter there doesn’t change anything. They’ve gone from making no money on their vacant property to… still not making money on their property.
And don’t say “the squatter is preventing the property owner from making future profit off of the property”, because now you’re not talking about theft. Profits that don’t exist yet can’t be stolen.
If I want a piece of property and somebody moves in there, squats, they are basically preventing me from using that piece of property as I choose. Yes I could go in there anyways but let’s be honest how would I actually use it in the way that I want if they are in there? How would I lay out financial documents on the kitchen table to do my bookkeeping? Knowing that someone else is in there could easily take pictures of it? That makes no sense. They’ve effectively taken the property from me and prevented me from using it as I choose. That is effective theft. No they didn’t pick up a pen from you and take it away. No they didn’t take a phone and take it away. But they have effectively taken my property.
If they insist on living there for six months, how am I going to be there for six months? Realistically. Think about it. So yeah it is that you may not agree with the term of that. But that to me is just irrelevant. In the eyes of the law it’s leaning more and more towards unlawful usage of the property. Which is why the laws are being wrote to remove squatter rights.
If a squatter is squatting somewhere you want to live, sure, yeah, you can’t live there. Just like you can’t live there if someone else is already renting it.
The way you’re describing it, it seems like to you there’s no functional difference between someone paying to live in a property you want, vs. squatting in a property you want. You’re looking through your own personal lense only, and consider things that inconvenience you as “evil”. It’s a prime example of the “fuck you I got mine” mentality.
Well, it’s trespassing, but I’d argue it should be a crime to own a house and leave it empty. They should have it rented at least.
It is a crime, a crime against humanity. It’s just not a crime recognized in most legal systems.
Having more than you need of anything, while other people have so little they are on the street, go hungry, or die should be a crime that is punished.
I think you dropped your /s
The problem here is that you seem to value your own property rights over the right of individuals to have shelter. Sure, it’s not an ideal situation; in an ideal society “squatting” shouldn’t occur, but we live in a society where people are forced to choose between being homeless or squatting in someone’s property. If you think they should forgo their right to shelter to preserve your right to property then you are the awful person.
No name calling on this sub. You are blocked.
He called you an awful person.
After you called someone else an awful person. Or is it different when you’re just saying it behind someone’s back?
PS: You’re an awful person.
Name calling. Blocked.
It was phrased as a conditional, they weren’t DIRECTLY saying the other person was awful, they were saying “people who do x are awful.” It leaves it open to the idea that the original commenter does not do x and is therefore not awful.
In YOUR case, yeah, calling someone awful breaks the civility rule.
Does the rule only apply if they’re name-calling other commenters and not the subject of the article? If not then mke_geek’s original comment should be removed since he directly calls the subject of the article an awful person with no conditional.
Personally I think this rule is being a bit over-enforced and none of these comments should have been removed. Being overly strict with civility rules allows bad actors to take advantage of “civility politics” to shut down dissent.
Edit: except maybe the one calling them a dickhead, I get why that one was removed. The ones that just reflect their own words back at them I think should be left alone.