top of page

Squatting isn’t the solution, but it does help

7 hours ago
3 min read

Column by Rense Pals, student Spatial Planning.


Figure 1: Woonprotest in Amsterdam (Bron: Rense Pals, 2021)


“Those people are ruining the city” is a phrase you often hear when you start talking about squatting. But it’s used by both supporters and opponents alike. Supporters believe that landlords are ruining the city by leaving their properties vacant. Opponents of squatting believe that squatters make a mess of the properties they take over. Squatting is certainly not a neutral activity.


But first, what exactly are we talking about when we talk about squatting? Squatting is ‘the occupation of vacant property without the owner’s permission’, nothing more. So I encourage all readers to put aside the idea of graffiti, broken windows and banners for a moment. And to add straight away: yes, squatting is currently illegal in the Netherlands, but I believe that this is a flaw in the Dutch planning system that needs to be rectified. The criminalisation of squatting was successfully implemented via a bill tabled by the CDA/VVD/CU during the Balkenende IV government. It was passed by a narrow majority (78 in favour, 72 against) in 2009. Squatting has been explicitly illegal since 1 October 2010.


In the years that followed, a massive housing crisis arose as a result of the policies of subsequent governments. Squatting might have helped to counteract this. Not as a solution, but as a signal that the policy was failing. Before people start squatting, a great deal must already have gone wrong with spatial planning and social housing policy. First of all, there must be people who do not have a home. Secondly, there must be no possibility for those people to find a home, either because of a lack of availability or because of affordability. Thirdly, there must be space that is not being utilised. Only then will a number of people decide to squat a property. That third condition makes squatting, in my view, a good indicator of a significant policy failure. If policy simultaneously allocates too much space to one function and too little to another, then I consider that to be bad policy. Those who have criminalised squatting have removed the smoke alarm (‘because it’s such a nuisance’), whilst the fire is still burning.


Now, there will still be people who haven’t been able to shake off the image of smashed windows and graffiti. You might well think that this scenario will become a reality if squatting is legalised, but I believe there is already enough in the law to tackle such behaviour: burglary is still a criminal offence, criminal damage is a criminal offence, causing a public nuisance is a criminal offence, and trespass is a criminal offence. If squatting were to become legal, people wouldn’t suddenly be able to smash the windows of an actively used office building and throw a party there.


What those people could do is exercise their right to shelter when government policy fails. There are few early-warning mechanisms for policy failures that directly (or partially) solve a problem. With squatting, this is certainly the case. So I encourage people to legalise squatting again and to actively help improve our country’s spatial planning policy. Squatting need not be confined to vacant office buildings; it can also take place on derelict sites. Squatting need not merely serve a residential purpose; it could also work the other way round: set up an office in a vacant flat, or a bakery in a local disused factory building. If all this can be done safely and reasonably, it simply sends a signal to policymakers to do their job better.


Squatting continues!



References



 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page