[orthecreedence]

> But squatting contributes nothing to solving this problem.

Hang on, it actually does solve the housing problem by one important metric: an empty house has someone living in it now. I understand there are other metrics (cost to the owner) but it does do something to solve part of the problem, and I'd argue that the more a property is used as an invesment vehicle (sitting there collecting dust) the more it solves the problem. If someone is buying a house to fix it up and live in it as a primary residence, then squatters can fuck right off. But if I bought my sixth home and make my yearly visit to it and notice it has occupants, they aren't the assholes here. I am.

[atlantic]

Your metrics are wrong. The measure is not so much how many houses are occupied, as how many houses are occupied by local working people (as opposed to tourists / hippies / anarchists).

[orthecreedence]

My metrics aren't wrong. You just don't agree with them. That's fine.