Squatted hotel Rembrandt evicted
Hier kun je discussieren over Squatted hotel Rembrandt evicted.
Even though the biggest part of the building is safe to live in and the stripped part had been closed off, the court decided to evict without a hearing. We wonder if it has something to do with the extremely expensive lawyers of the owner?
The police came by on the 14th of October to announce that we would have to leave, our lawyer confirmed they made this decision and going into high appeal would not call off the eviction. They gave us 3 hours to pack our stuff.
A.S.S. Called for a demonstration in front of the building, to protest against this ridiculous verdict to protect the landlords of the city from homeless students.The police decided not to show themselves until the next morning when they evicted us with their special forces. Resistance ensued in the form of barricades, the occupants could escape before being captured. The owner hired private security to stand in front of the door for the rest of the day.
As of now we still have not seen a written verdict. The court is giving landlords and speculators a free road while we face repression for using the abandoned to attain a basic necessity; housing. We believe its necessary to use every means to fight these state-actions; on the streets, through legal and illegal means.
Their desperate means to legitimize their evictions is a confirmation of the threat we are, as we all know we would only need a spark to ignite the fuel of our outrage. Much respect for the people who showed up for the spontaneous demonstration, we are all in this together!
exact info ?
A 'court' decided ? who sued for what ? Or was it the prosecutors office (as mandated by the latest version of the squatting ban) ?
On another aspect:
Seen the fact that the property owners and their state currently always seem to find a way to evict immediatly, whats the point in entering propected squats covertly days before announcing the occupation? As there is no realistic changes of keeping the places, the squatting acyion becomes a demonstration and can better be performed openly ....
There are realistic chances
There are realistic chances of keeping. There are still squats in amsterdam. Living for days before announcing limits their legal options on speed evict.
legal not legitimate
Covertly sheltering in unoccupied buildings might be squatting, but is certainly not Kraken. Just as Kraken is not a protest against leaving houses empty, but against unequal disbribution of housing at all.
Kraken implies breaking the hegemony of the propertied class by overt and defiant direct action. It comes as little surprise that it migth also mean breaking the law, but that of little consequence eithe way.
Also: if we want to go the 'legal' route, we are far for likely to score a decisive win by cgallenging evictions without a hearing in open court as the ECHR mandates and as the Hoge Raad has confirmed in 2010.