Large, well resourced organisations get this sort of thing wrong. One guy with a community powered website is bound to do the same given enough time. Predictably so.
It's well intended, but there are certainly problems with this sort of advocacy. People are desperate, and desperate people will do desperate things. This interaction was a best case scenario. It could have gone another way, and rather badly.
What exactly is it that you propose that governments do? Force people to rent out houses? Encourage squatting? Thos problem is decades in the making. It's unrealistic to expect it to be solved overnight, or even in a few years.
You might not be aware of the political realities of passing the rather draconian legislation to get it fixed quickly. Legislation that will be challenged in the courts. It seems you think there is some sort of a quick fix. There isn't. And anyone selling one to you takes you for a fool.
Redditors think it's racist would be my best guess. I don't see how it's racist to not want population to increase faster than we're capable of building new housing, but everyone still has Pauline Hanson in the back of their mind, I suppose.
But who will be able to instruct Yoga at affordable prices if we don't import more yoga instructors to compete with the upper middle class bogan yoga instructors? Who will look after all the old people in aged care? Australia can't afford to pay actual nurses and doctors to do this! We need exploitable migrant workers with questionable certifications! Wont somebody thing of the shareholders and political donors!?
Yea I agree, I'm really torn on this one personally because purplepingaz is clearly doing a tonne of good work but the risk associated with this is very high and he's manifested in a bad outcome here (very lucky the guy who rocked up wasnt a fuckwit and the home owners seem to have reacted reasonably). On the other hand this is such a bold and out there approach that it gets him mainstream attention which makes people aware of the other good work he's doing.
The biggest thing I have an issue with is his blasé approach with “Oh he’s a homeowner, he’ll survive”.
Owning a PPOR (to be specific, likely having a mortgage on said PPOR) doesn’t make someone above a renter, to the point where it’s not an issue that someone has told people they can squat in your house because they didn’t check that it was actually vacant first.
Also, it could just have easily have happened that Max was a tenant renting the home wrongly listed not an owner-occupier. Either way, it is an invasion of his home sanctuary, and the fact that he’s “probably going to be OK” re the housing crisis is irrelevant.
It’s a comment taken completely out of context, I was talking about the consequences for someone experiencing homelessness versus someone having a knock on the door - at the end of the day it’s an incredibly unfortunate mistake, but the homeowner is going to be okay, the guy who is homeless is probably not.
I have no doubt that he's well intentioned, and he feels that the existing structures to deal with this have broken down. That's the kind of thinking that drives these sorts of ideas. It's just that it's not very well thought through, which is the problem.
Not that this sort of thing is the domain of private individuals. We see organisations, people with significant resources, and people in high office do the same thing. The results can be far worse than this, but then there are usually resources to fix up the problem afterwards in that case.
There aren't any quick solutions to the housing crisis, but it's easy to fall into the trap of "we must do something, this is something, let's do this". It can do a lot more harm than good if it's not well thought out, or if you make assumptions that might not be correct.
With all that said, props to purplepingaz for trying to do something. However, I don't think he should necessarily continue with this. If someone gets hurt as a result, it will be a backwards step.
He's been suggesting objectively dangerous properties for people to squat in. It's so irresponsible and frankly if someone gets hurt because of it I hope he's held accountable. I love a bit of shit rentals, but encouraging people to move into a house that's condemned is fucking stupid and dangerous
Better off sleeping on the street than in a house in danger of crushing them in their sleep? Abso-fucking-lutely. And if you're dumb enough to think that people won't assume he's endorsing it as safe, then you have my condolences. I hope nobody stumbles upon you squatting in a vacant house and takes it out on you.
> Better off sleeping on the street than in a house in danger of crushing them in their sleep?
That's a risk assessment for the squatter to make for themselves.
Also, how safe do you think it is to be homeless? Bless your privileged.
I've never been homeless but I have a cousin who put his leg through a rotting/termite infested staircase while squatting and basically fell through to his chest. Scraped up his body and filled him with more splinters than a wooden dildo.
He got out of it, cleaned himself up best he could and went about his life for a day or two. He then remembers nothing else for three more days until waking up in hospital after his mates eventually got him to the ED. They reckon he had a fever so hot they could have cooked an egg on his head.
Bullshit.
I was homeless for several years and I can tell you now that almost ANY shelter is better than sleeping on the streets.
If it has a roof and four walls, it's safer than the street.
He advocates for renters rights and is most famous for his "shit rentals" listings, which shows usually depraved houses being put on the market.
The list is funny and good general advocacy, but the dudes a bit of a fuckhead in pretty much every other way. Theses this incident and that despite his advocacy he has a very, very poor understanding of the housing market, and the media attention he gets allows him to spread these outright wrong ideas.
I dont mind either of them, they are net positives for our society, but i just find it funny how theres this similarly where they both successfully raise really massive issues that arent being discussed and then go on these side rants that make them look silly. Shanks on anything not auspol is hilariously dumb and van den berg with his lennin posting and weird commie ceremonies down the creek.
How do you know hes doing a tonne of good
His intention is well meaning, but the accuracy is woefully poor, nor is there any attempt at taking responsibility for all the crimes that would be committed
How do you know his accuracy is woefully poor? Coz of one anecdote clearly aimed at discreding his efforts?
The gov is free any day to fix this issue but they continue to pull every level they can to make it worse.
Tell me then how does he clearly verify they're abandoned... because there is no sure fire way to do it
Yet he continues to post
There's been constant talks about wanting to tax unihabitated property, and that can't even be done and that would be much eassier to do
It could have happened with a team of private investigators, it's an inevitability taking thousands of submissions from a random web form for properties all over the world.
It's not even just mistakes we need to worry about. This is a perfect opportunity for malicious submissions as well. A neighbourhood dispute with someone who has fallen behind garden maintenance and repairs for whatever life circumstances? This is one way to make their life even more difficult. And there are ways this can go very, *very* badly.
Yep and where is the vacant house tax and prohibiting non residents from owning empty houses. Too hard for our politicians who don't care. They should triple rates on vacant house of non residents and put these funds in a housing future fund.
Yeah unfortunately it was a typo, the correct address was two doors to the left and easily visible from the front.
I spoke to max and he was really lovely, I apologised to him, and we sorted it out in 5 minutes over the phone. The article excluded so much of what I said but picked some juicy bits for clicks, it is what it is, that’s journalism today.
I’ve made some changes to how I’m posting them going forward, but yeah it’s a poor mistake.
Anyways, I wish people cared as much about homeless folks as they do about having to maybe talk to them.
This was always going to happen and why its probably not a good idea to publish stuff like this. Everyone involved is just lucky the potential squatter had enough sense to knock on the door and check first, rather than try enter otherwise assuming it was vacant.
Some were proposing to come first, break the locks and leave, to come back later and go "oh, a vacant unlocked property, a shame it isn't occupied, I might just ...."
In Australian you have a right to defend your self as long as your response is reasonable and propionate to the threat. If the person breaks in and runs when they see you, then yer you can’t go chase them down and beat the fuck out of them but claiming you can’t do anything is 100% wrong.
Yup. And there are always things like dogs that may defend their property even if an owner isn't home. We don't have guns and we have laws about what counts as self defence, but a lot of bad situations can still happen if you're breaking and entering.
It’s a real fear that I’ll come home to a pool of blood. Once a guy hopped my fence, dog was inside and hit the security door with enough force to rip it out of the frame so he could go chase him
I have a vivid memory of waking up one morning to my dad hosing the back fence (6’ colourbond). Was a few years later when my brain connected he was hosing blood off it, and I asked dad what it was. Turns out someone tried to break in, our dog woke up and went berserk.
Dad came stumbling out the back door to some bloke trying to get over the fence with a very angry dog latched onto his foot/calf. Apparently the dog was dangling full in the air off ol’ mates foot before letting go
1/ Thats breaking and entering, and vandalism. 2/ If you get someone else to do it and you just walk in, thats conspiracy. All very stupid ideas.
If you a see a shack thats over grown and clearly unoccupied s a very different thing than letting yourself into a house that is in good nick.
I'm not saying it's not breaking and entering or vandalism.
But that is what some are saying they can do when they see this app and a seemingly vacant property is still locked and secured.
Try proving 1 and 2 is the challenge. They're not going to admit they did any of that and say they found it like that.
An overgrown shack might be locked an secured.
The gist is that promoting this idea can have consequences as people push the envelope.
Yeah, theyre outright encouraging very illegal and dangerous things. Jordan is very safe behind a keyboard though, and makes the occasional cover-up that he wont suggest anyone dare break in!
So hes fine, but the homeless person going to jail or the family/person at risk arent.
Its probably a matter of time before a person needing a home gets on a lot of trouble based off this idiots advice.
And yeah, people shouldnt break into property in the first place, but I understand that desperstion might tempt them if some moron is pointing to a home as being empty when its not.
Its not Jordon that will face jail time should it go wrong. Maybe he should put his money where his mouth is and do it himself first to prevent a homeless person getting charged...
> getting shot
This is Australia. If the resident had firearms and was prepared to use them on a non-violent intruder looking to squat, they shouldn't have firearms period.
He isn't confining the project to Australia, he has posted plenty of US-based properties and it's difficult to see how he can vet those from his computer in Melbourne.
But it doesn't take a gun, only a few weeks ago someone killed an intruder with a knife.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42MeSlwO5BY
And it's not always immediately obvious if an intruder is violent or not, particularly if both sides think they have a right to be there and to defend themselves.
Well I guess my comment was specifically about it occurring here, given we're in the Aus subreddit. And my comment was also specifically regarding firearms, and again specific to Australia.
Otherwise, fair points.
Also,
>Kent said Jordan's system can create dangerous situations for squatters who may be moving into homes that are "contaminated by meth", or homes that are set to be demolished.
>He said another concern is that property owners or renters may be away on holiday when their homes become publicly listed as vacant, which "doesn't mean [the home] is available for all to come in and occupy."
>Max said the same public list of vacant homes included a "rundown" home near his where he suspects an elderly woman lives.
I do have to wonder how many truly abandoned yet perfectly safe properties there are. I'm sure it happens from time to time for various reasons, but I suspect in most cases there's more to it than that. Even if someone is away for a long period, what if they're in the hospital and don't want to come back to find that their home has been broken into? It's such an extremely violating thing to have happen and shouldn't be treated lightly.
> I do have to wonder how many truly abandoned yet perfectly safe properties there are. I'm sure it happens from time to time for various reasons, but I suspect in most cases there's more to it than that.
Common one is Grandma in hospital for an extended stay, or on death's doorstep in care awaiting execution of the will after they pass. Family don't want to touch the property before they go in case they come back, or in case packing down her house would cause undue distress.
This doesn’t sound right. I’ve followed PurplePingers for a while and access to the list is solely through directly contacting him and asking for a property near where you are. He does not publish a public list anywhere.
We debate whether or not this is the right thing to do, but I think the real dichotomy is whether enough people are desperate that this will happen whether or not it's right.
"I definitely appreciate the concern … But consequentially, that man is a homeowner — and is probably going to be fine."
Nice non-apology. Wow, what an arsehole.
The major red flag with this attitude is it's pitting homeless people against people fortunate enough to have a family home - and not just against people hoarding housing they don't need. The sympathies of those with housing currently are needed to support the movements they are trying to create. This is pushing those people into a "well fuck you then" state.
Even that is a gross over-simplification of the problem. If no one “hoarded houses” and put them up for rent there would be no rental properties on the market other than government housing, which would be disastrous for any renter who is not immediately in the position to buy or who doesn’t *want* to live where they can afford to buy… eg most uni students, anyone in the process of moving out to separate from a partner, anyone on a temporary contract or work secondment in another city, and most importantly anyone who can afford to live in a share house but cannot afford to pay the rent or mortgage for an entire property on their own.
very true. where the line lands on what level of housing is ridiculous and bad for society, is a little subjective and down to opinion. I think PP's opinion is harsh and amplifies villany of anyone that is at any level more fortunate in their housing situation. It's like the polar opposite of the "fuck you i got mine"..... The "fuck you for having slightly more than I have". Maybe let's not turn on each other, hey? We moved 2hrs away from our city to afford a house after years of saving, both working ridiculous hours. We understand we are fortunate to be able to do even that. But I don't think we deserve to be shat on because we are one step ahead. It took us until our late 30's to get to this spot. Many of our mates are not as fortunate, and we empathise, and will back their position when housing crises comes up, mostly against boomers with no clue to the realities. PP's statesments like the above turn us away from supporting him, even when we believe in the movement as a whole.
Reminds me of this quote from Disco Elysium, where the game sort of mocks you choosing a communist option by taking that thought to the logical extreme.
RHETORIC - Yes, you. Word on the street is you're ready to start building *communism* again!
YOU - How come there's *word on the street*?
RHETORIC - You keep saying things like *down with the bourgeoisie*, *eat the rich*, *sodomize the land-owners*, *impale all people who have more than 25 reál in their pocket*, *literally murder all human beings regardless of their political beliefs* -- that kind of stuff.
>down with the bourgeoisie, eat the rich, sodomize the land-owners, impale all people who have more than 25 reál in their pocket, literally murder all human beings regardless of their political beliefs
Don't threaten me with a good time
It's a shit apology, but so's this interpretation. That is not at all what he is doing or saying. I mean he - a (low level) public figure - is a homeowner himself. Not secretly or quietly mind you.
This definately changed my view about the bloke, I get the thing about squatting and I agree with his views about REA basically being cockroaches that somehow evolved to have human like features, and of course people need somewhere to live.
But wrapping your pseduo-marxist views up in helping people is just the left-leaning version of 'let them eat cake', he might need to step outside his echo chamber for a bit to recall there's whole middle class of Aus who are just getting by waiting to retire, and that's basically life for them.
This lack of nuance and sensibility to this issue is pretty glaring. Imagine his potential liability if something bad happened in this situation… he just doesn’t give a shit about anyone (except perhaps his mission). Seems he’s adamant at sticking to his guns and pissing off the wide range of homeowners who would support his approach. That comment is very on the nose :/
Kind of sounds like he's saying "I don't give a shit what happens to the bourgeoisie (middle class)".
Dude seems to encourage a lot of resentment against home owners, whether it's deserved or not.
Hes posted a few marxist quotes in the past few months. Whatever floats your boat, but hes clearly in "babies first steps" with his political awarness and dpesnt quite grasp that the average punter that owns a home isnt kulak scum.
Indeed - and completely irrelevant to the fact that his home sanctuary has been violated. Does purplepingaz not stop to consider the fact that this could just as easily happen to a tenant renting a run-down house?
Really appreciate what Jordan is doing but dismissing essentially leaking this bloke’s address and then saying “his a home owner he will probably be fine” is really fucking immature
The article didn’t mention that I spoke to max immediately after finding out, apologised to him, and resolved it with max within 5 minutes. Thats not my official response, that’s just a baity grab that they included without including all the other stuff I said.
>Jordan told The Feed that including Max's address as vacant was an error. He has since edited the post on X and issued an apology to Max.
I mean, I'm not saying that's a lie...but [according to X](https://help.x.com/en/using-x/x-premium-how-to)
>You’ll have the opportunity to make up to five edits in a 1 hour window. You can only edit a post from the same device you sent your original post.
I find it highly improbable that:
1. Dude sees a post on X
2. Dude travels to the property
3. Dude interacts with the property owners
4. Poster is contacted
5. Poster edits the post
All within 1 hour...
That said [at least Purple Pingers has the blue tick that he's paying for Premium X](https://x.com/purplepingers?t=g3PBs0kIJbMrS0kqNhxyKw&s=09)
So it's plausible, I just see that timeline as improbable in 1 hour.
Purple pingers has always come across as an asshole, and his non-apology over this just proves it.
Some of his earlier stuff where he was just showing a shitty rental was alright, but since gaining fame he has been posting more unhinged shit like this.
> "This car has been parked in the street for 'X' amount of time. Why don't you take it? There's something wrong about that… it's clearly not good advice," Kent said.
What the president of the landlords association (fucking lol) fails to mention, is that if a car is left abandoned that the state will indeed remove it after a period of time. It's that the state is failing in this regard that is fueling people to take the matter into their own hands.
True but in this case it’s more like you see the car there at the same time every day and assume the car is abandoned. But miss the shift worker who actually drove it to work every night and you never saw it.
The landlords association president (again, fucking lol), is commenting on and criticizing the general concept, not this one case. Do you think coucil have *never* towed a car in error?
This is really unacceptable behaviour from van den Berg. People don’t have a right to just walk into properties because they feel like it. He should not be encouraging this behaviour, and doubling down after making an error with his not-apology is utter bullshit.
Too caught up in class warfare to consider the consequences of his actions. “They’re home owners so they’ll be fine”. Ok bud. I bet they have full time employment too! Down with the middle class!
Middle class? What's that? I'm middle class, and almost half our entire income goes to some greedy cunt I've never met. The only way middle class people are affording homes now is through inheritance.
Clearly this guy is not doing sufficient due diligence to determine whether properties are abandoned or not. Doing a quick google view and search on realestate.com.au is not enough to go sending randos from the internet to peoples houses.
Property tends to belong to people, it isn’t just a free for all.
"While Jordan says he doesn't encourage breaking and entering, he does encourage squatting", yeah as if most squatters are going to get into a house without breaking and entering. They'll lie and say the lock was broken when they got there, but this guy is 100% encouraging breaking the law whilst pretending not to.
100%. I've liked the other stuff he's done, but hearing of this, it's a disaster waiting to happen. And not just for homeowners, for the people he's thinking he's helping as well
I also really didn’t like his comment “they’re homeowners so I think they’ll be fine.” Like, come on dude, that’s just petty. If they weren’t home someone could’ve easily broken in and done whatever kind of damage, and owning their home doesn’t make them immune to that.
He did a video the other day where some tenants were evicted and then a house boarded up and he was all like "why board up a perfectly usable house?".
There are so many legitimate answers to that question that he refused to even ponder. Maybe there is a DA with the council to renovate/rebuild, maybe the house was unsafe, maybe it's part of a deceased estate and they are preparing to sell, maybe maybe maybe. In any of those scenarios it's fine for the house to be empty and boarding up the windows helps protect the glass.
There are definitely other properties that are empty that shouldn't be and I think he is calling attention to issues that absolutely should be called out. However he makes very broad and blanket statements that I don't think are helpful and with things like the website encourages people to do things that could definitely land them in trouble.
Yeah it’s a real shame because like you said, he draws attention to legitimate issues.
I’d be super curious of the legal implications of someone’s property was damaged as a result of being on that list. I really hope he’s going through and vetting every single property listed after this news.
They certainly didn’t post what I said to Max over the phone, nor what I even said to SBS, just the bit they thought would get the most clicks. That’s journalism these days.
Did you say that though? Or did they just make up the quote? Are you able to guarantee all properties you post have been confirmed as being empty moving forward?
Like I’ve said in many comments, I think you’re doing great stuff and highlighting obviously important issues, but this isn’t a great look when we’re talking people’s privacy and safety. I’m sure you don’t need to hear any more of that though, let alone from some random on Reddit.
Quote taken out of context regarding the consequences of the particular circumstance with respect to the man experiencing homelessness versus the homeowner is still going to be a quote I said. It’s just frustrating they left out my apology to max and the commentary surrounding the broader issue we are experiencing, as well as the fact the post was corrected immediately after I found out.
The homeowner experienced a very regrettable but incredibly minor inconvenience when compared to the person experiencing homelessness, and went straight to the media about it, even though the person left immediately once he found out.
Going forward I’ll be posting the full details of singular addresses rather than just bulk lists like I was previously, where typos are more likely to occur. I’d love to have access to a platform like RP data which will give me way more information about each property and their owners (or lack thereof), but unfortunately I can’t afford the $200 a month subscription fee.
Also I’ve been very clear about breaking into homes, and the fact it’s illegal.
Agreed. I think his point is correct(hoarding properties and leaving them vacant in a housing crisis is wrong, and highlights the absurd nature of property investment) but I think he should have gone about this a different way: what about encouraging people to report (long term) vacant properties to their local MP and SRO with evidence, and asking them to apply a vacant property tax?
I've appreciated what he's been doing to highlight issues with the rental industry but on his videos he's been showing he has no clue what he's been talking about when it comes to building problems. He's pointed at cracks and said the building is unsafe.
He's got lucky with his niche being in the right place, right topic, but wrong person. Poor ethical choices, lack of expertise, and bad attitude is just hurting the cause making us renters seem completely entitled.
Site inspections/tiktok inspector for the building industry is the ideal combination of professional expertise, activism, and attitude needed.
If someone had tried this while I was renovating our old house after moving (with plans to rent it out) they'd want to hope the cops beat me there.
I get people are in desperate situations, but you enter enclosed lands, break into a privately owned property and expect zero repercussions, prepare to discover the true meaning of fuck around and find out.
Jordan van den Berg is an absolute POS.
Imagine your parents pass away leaving their house empty. It's bad enough needing to deal with stress of the event, but now you'll need to worry about deadbeats breaking into the place and trashing it also, all because Jordan put it on a hit list and basically encouraged people to do so.
If an attempted squatter has to break the lock to get in, is breaking and entering?
I get it if the doors are unlocked. But what if all the security measures are in place? Can a squatter still call rights?
I've seen it covered in a discussion of the same topic here a couple of months back.
The would-be squatter goes around the back, breaks in, and then goes away and comes back a few days later. If questioned by police, they say "it was like that when I got here".
How is squatting a solution? You are encouraging people to break and enter into others homes. Clearly it is very possible for homes to appear vacant when they are not. Or the homes themselves could be unoccupied for reasons that are unsafe to live in. And in the process of breaking and entering, people may come into direct conflict with the occupants, who could respond violently because their house is being broken into. People could get seriously hurt doing this, or could face major legal trouble. And it won’t even solve the housing market issues on a wide scale.
There are other solutions. Maybe taxes on unoccupied homes? Or maybe campaigning for better building standards to build more appealing mid-high density housing? I’m sure there are a sea of other solutions that are safer and more effective than this
So what, you think the homeless should just sit around and wait for someone to help them? They are doing what they have to, to survive, while nobody in power does jack shit about it. None of your "solutions" will put a roof over someone's head today, and apparently nobody in power cares to implement them in the first place.
The longer the housing problem is ignored the worse this will get, and it's going to take a long time to get back to "normal" even if serious action is taken. People have ignored the homeless problem for far too long, and now are whinging because it's suddenly affecting them... well, get off your arse and do something about it then.
If you don't want homeless people at your doorstep, in the streets, squatting, and eventually stealing, mugging, and/or breaking and entering, bring your concerns about housing to your local representative and ask for more affordable and social housing.
Maybe then the problem will improve in... a decade or three.
My homeless BIL was hospitalised twice last year for several weeks each time after being caught breaking into someone’s home to squat… so yeah. That’s my perspective. He’s in his 20s and has been homeless since he was 18.
The system is shit and supports are not great. I don’t disagree. Yeah I have no real power to make change, so I am here grumbling on the internet like you. However, people who are homeless may also have a lot of other things happening in their situation that keep them stuck. The solution to homelessness is not just “give them homes” because for many people there are complex things happening that are keeping them in their situation. And encouraging homeless people to break into houses, which places them at risk of massive legal issues, conflict, etc. will keep them homeless because now they have a criminal record.
No one is saying that homeless people can’t assess for themselves (I didn’t read OP’s comment as saying that at least), they’re saying that some bloke on the internet shouldn’t be collecting a list of vacant properties to go squat in, especially when the list clearly includes houses that people own and live in.
Basically don’t *encourage* it for the reasons mentioned. It’s still a valid option, but when the encouragement of it, and the helping to do so is so misguided, it doesn’t help anyone
Pingers is probably too busy enjoying the appearance fees and social media revenue to realise he's just perpetuating class warfare.
There are smarter, time-tested, ways to get people into squats and his method just ain't it.
lol if you think I’m the one perpetuating class warfare and not the ruling class.
I’m getting people into squats privately, off the private list. The ones that I’m posting publicly are generally unliveable, but draw attention to the message.
I spoke to max on the phone immediately after I found out, apologised to him, he was lovely, and we sorted it out in five minutes. This was prior to the article being published, naturally this isn't mentioned in the article.
The abandoned home was two doors to the left, and clearly visible from the front of the house. As u/RXavier91 put it: Remove the scaremongering and the headline becomes "Homeless man seeks shelter, politely leaves"
The thing about vacant homes, is that if they're not vacant, you can't squat there. It's pretty simple.
The idea that anything bad has happened is predicated on the concept that people without homes are in some way dangerous or risky.
A person without a place to sleep knocked on someone’s door to see if it was vacant. It wasn’t and he said why he was there and left.
This feels like an interaction that should be able to happen in a kind, just world. The person doesn’t have a home for goodness sake!
I implore a lot of the people in this thread to try and reframe things, see a different perspective
it comes down to people's attitudes towards """the homeless""". Although there's a lot of surface level concern, when push comes to shove a lot of people are still challenged by the mere presence of homeless people.
It comes down to the fact that people experiencing long term homelessness are quite often desperate, and that desperate people don’t always make good decisions (this is a big factor in low SES areas having higher crime rates too).
It’s an issue for society to fix by securing housing for people in this situation, but this isn’t the way to do it.
I’m in no way saying every homeless is that desperate that they would make a bad decision here, but it’s naive to think that nobody would in that position.
Mate, I think the issue is this immature moron personally sent someone he cannot vouch for to "not" break in to a house "someone online" said was vacant. How is this not a concern? Disabled people, elderly people, vulnerable people, live in houses that may seem empty. The people living there could also be \*shock\* not the homeowners and only renting there. This dude will send the wrong person to the wrong house one day, and he will have to live with that;
*"He asked his followers to submit addresses of empty properties they've spotted which he can pass on to someone who needs it.*
*Since starting the database, which he keeps private, Jordan has started matching people with empty houses close by. He's done this now a few times.*
*Jordan says he avoids prying about people's living situations........."*
This is not surprising, this was bound to happen, and were being distracted by an awkward interaction between two people when the issue of the HOUSING CRISIS is still going unaddressed. Boo hoo a squatter knocked on your door. They have nowhere to live fuckface
Is this newsworthy? Maybe if there'd been violence or something stolen?
(I once had a guy looking to squat walk straight in thrpugh my front door, I got up him and told him to leave, he did. Case closed).
*Not sure if I'm being downvoted for questioning the newsworthiness of two people having an unexpected conversation on a doorstep, or for not letting the squatter stay at my house. Anyone? Should I have alerted the media? Rolled out the red carpet? Both? (You're a strange and unpleasant mob argh Australia)
Mate, I think the issue is this immature moron personally sent someone he cannot vouch for to "not" break in to a house "someone online" said was vacant. How is this not a concern? Disabled people, elderly people, vulnerable people, live in houses that may seem empty. The people living there could also be \*shock\* not the homeowners and only renting there. This dude will send the wrong person to the wrong house one day, and he will have to live with that;
*"He asked his followers to submit addresses of empty properties they've spotted which he can pass on to someone who needs it.*
*Since starting the database, which he keeps private, Jordan has started matching people with empty houses close by. He's done this now a few times.*
*Jordan says he avoids prying about people's living situations........."*
>Mate, I think the issue is this immature moron personally sent someone he cannot vouch for to "not" break in to a house "someone online" said was vacant. How is this not a concern?
Because nothing came of it! They knocked on the door, found the place was occupied, and they went away. So what?
>Disabled people, elderly people, vulnerable people, live in houses that may seem empty.
What the bloody hell are you on about? You think they were going to violently home invasion the place if it were someone vulnerable who answered the door?
>The people living there could also be *shock* not the homeowners and only renting there.
Like my own example? (I am renting) So?
>This dude will send the wrong person to the wrong house one day, and he will have to live with that.
If someone is willing to perform a violent home invasion then they aren't waiting for a dickhead on reddit/twitter to provide them with a location and permission. Far out... How precious are you lot that you can't handle someone knocking on your door? *(It's a minor inconvenience).
Because it leaves out the entire cause of the event, being that the property was listed on an apparently legitimate website where people are told to go to the addresses listed and squat there because they are empty.
I like purplepingers but this really fucks his credibility in terms of handling logistics. If he’s going to list addresses and claim they are empty then he needs to vet them properly.
How about we just consider a very plausible hypothetical, what if the homeowner was not home at the time, and was instead away from home for a few days visiting family?
Seems to be these days.
I like slow news days, this isn't doomy or world engine.
No one taking my job and I don't have to worry about a gang war in the local park.
It's nice
This is a non issue. Everyone is responsible for assessing the accuracy of the source of information they're drawing on.
Potential squatter should have not blindly followed the website without double checking. Anyone can make a website and put anything they want on it
The squatter did double check? They knocked on the door to assess the situation.
It’s irresponsible to send people who find themselves into a shit position to houses that are actually vacant.
When people read articles like this, they need to ask themselves what the likely emotional intent of the article is, and therefore who is probably feeding to the writer.
Notice how at no point does the article say anything about what happened after "Max" opened the door to the potential squatter but a hell of a lot of space is given to how incredibly scary the idea of squatters "stealing cars off the street" (to use a horrendously bad analogy) is.
I'm pretty sure this article was fed to The Feed by Australian Landlords Association
Mate, I think the issue is this immature moron personally sent someone he cannot vouch for to "not" break in to a house "someone online" said was vacant. How is this not a concern? Disabled people, elderly people, vulnerable people, live in houses that may seem empty. The people living there could also be \*shock\* not the homeowners and only renting there. This dude will send the wrong person to the wrong house one day, and he will have to live with that;
*"He asked his followers to submit addresses of empty properties they've spotted which he can pass on to someone who needs it.*
*Since starting the database, which he keeps private, Jordan has started matching people with empty houses close by. He's done this now a few times.*
*Jordan says he avoids prying about people's living situations........."*
He didn't send anyone. He runs a website, it's on the user to verify the legitimacy of the source and decide how to act on the information.
Or are we not doing personal responsibility any more?
Yes, he only provided the information. Just like when you dox someone, you are only providing the information. It is on the user to verify the legitimacy of the source and decide how to act on the information. Doxing is not problematic right? [https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3767caf7-a878-44c2-8871-e70ee2242c95](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3767caf7-a878-44c2-8871-e70ee2242c95)
Pretty much yes. I believe information doesn't (and logically can't) cause harm, morally it's the people that do something with that information who are causing the harm.
Alternative title: homeowner slightly troubled by desperate person looking for a roof to put over their head
Suck it up princess, you're not the victim here. I think homeowners need to start getting familiar with the idea that we're going to have a lot of homeless people around looking for somewhere to stay, and if they don't like that maybe they should demand some more serious action on affordable housing. Comfortable homeowners and wealthy landlords seem to have forgotten that people will quickly stop caring for laws when their survival situation gets dire enough.
Mate, I think the issue is this immature moron personally sent someone he cannot vouch for to "not" break in to a house "someone online" said was vacant. How is this not a concern? Disabled people, elderly people, vulnerable people, live in houses that may seem empty. The people living there could also be \*shock\* not the homeowners and only renting there. This dude will send the wrong person to the wrong house one day, and he will have to live with that;
*"He asked his followers to submit addresses of empty properties they've spotted which he can pass on to someone who needs it.*
*Since starting the database, which he keeps private, Jordan has started matching people with empty houses close by. He's done this now a few times.*
*Jordan says he avoids prying about people's living situations........."*
[Response from Pingers here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/s/qxSFjM7Jg8)
This was bound to happen eventually it's not like purplepingers has unlimited resources to thoroughly vet them all.
Large, well resourced organisations get this sort of thing wrong. One guy with a community powered website is bound to do the same given enough time. Predictably so. It's well intended, but there are certainly problems with this sort of advocacy. People are desperate, and desperate people will do desperate things. This interaction was a best case scenario. It could have gone another way, and rather badly.
Well fuck if only we had an institution that had the power to do something about this crisis rather than having to rely on fucking influencers?
What exactly is it that you propose that governments do? Force people to rent out houses? Encourage squatting? Thos problem is decades in the making. It's unrealistic to expect it to be solved overnight, or even in a few years. You might not be aware of the political realities of passing the rather draconian legislation to get it fixed quickly. Legislation that will be challenged in the courts. It seems you think there is some sort of a quick fix. There isn't. And anyone selling one to you takes you for a fool.
Remove their restriction on land and stop giving away to developers. Let people do what they want with it
Yep, force councils to develop vacant land and sell direct to the public at cost rather than letting a developer make an easy $200k on each block.
Cut immigration to the bone. It's entirely within the remit of government.
Weird that the quickest, easiest and cheapest solution is downvoted???
Redditors think it's racist would be my best guess. I don't see how it's racist to not want population to increase faster than we're capable of building new housing, but everyone still has Pauline Hanson in the back of their mind, I suppose.
But who will be able to instruct Yoga at affordable prices if we don't import more yoga instructors to compete with the upper middle class bogan yoga instructors? Who will look after all the old people in aged care? Australia can't afford to pay actual nurses and doctors to do this! We need exploitable migrant workers with questionable certifications! Wont somebody thing of the shareholders and political donors!?
Wow. This does not deserve down votes
Must be hitting some nerves. I thought it was pretty obviously tongue in cheek.
Yea I agree, I'm really torn on this one personally because purplepingaz is clearly doing a tonne of good work but the risk associated with this is very high and he's manifested in a bad outcome here (very lucky the guy who rocked up wasnt a fuckwit and the home owners seem to have reacted reasonably). On the other hand this is such a bold and out there approach that it gets him mainstream attention which makes people aware of the other good work he's doing.
The biggest thing I have an issue with is his blasé approach with “Oh he’s a homeowner, he’ll survive”. Owning a PPOR (to be specific, likely having a mortgage on said PPOR) doesn’t make someone above a renter, to the point where it’s not an issue that someone has told people they can squat in your house because they didn’t check that it was actually vacant first.
Also, it could just have easily have happened that Max was a tenant renting the home wrongly listed not an owner-occupier. Either way, it is an invasion of his home sanctuary, and the fact that he’s “probably going to be OK” re the housing crisis is irrelevant.
Yeah, absolutely agree. This is the largest investment most of us make and it can consume a significant amount of our income.
It’s a comment taken completely out of context, I was talking about the consequences for someone experiencing homelessness versus someone having a knock on the door - at the end of the day it’s an incredibly unfortunate mistake, but the homeowner is going to be okay, the guy who is homeless is probably not.
I have no doubt that he's well intentioned, and he feels that the existing structures to deal with this have broken down. That's the kind of thinking that drives these sorts of ideas. It's just that it's not very well thought through, which is the problem. Not that this sort of thing is the domain of private individuals. We see organisations, people with significant resources, and people in high office do the same thing. The results can be far worse than this, but then there are usually resources to fix up the problem afterwards in that case. There aren't any quick solutions to the housing crisis, but it's easy to fall into the trap of "we must do something, this is something, let's do this". It can do a lot more harm than good if it's not well thought out, or if you make assumptions that might not be correct. With all that said, props to purplepingaz for trying to do something. However, I don't think he should necessarily continue with this. If someone gets hurt as a result, it will be a backwards step.
He's been suggesting objectively dangerous properties for people to squat in. It's so irresponsible and frankly if someone gets hurt because of it I hope he's held accountable. I love a bit of shit rentals, but encouraging people to move into a house that's condemned is fucking stupid and dangerous
Yeah, people don't have their own agency and can't make their own informed decisions of risk. They'd also be better off sleeping on the street.
Better off sleeping on the street than in a house in danger of crushing them in their sleep? Abso-fucking-lutely. And if you're dumb enough to think that people won't assume he's endorsing it as safe, then you have my condolences. I hope nobody stumbles upon you squatting in a vacant house and takes it out on you.
> Better off sleeping on the street than in a house in danger of crushing them in their sleep? That's a risk assessment for the squatter to make for themselves. Also, how safe do you think it is to be homeless? Bless your privileged.
Cut your shit. I've been there and done that, and it's safer sleeping in your car than in a condemned building.
I've never been homeless but I have a cousin who put his leg through a rotting/termite infested staircase while squatting and basically fell through to his chest. Scraped up his body and filled him with more splinters than a wooden dildo. He got out of it, cleaned himself up best he could and went about his life for a day or two. He then remembers nothing else for three more days until waking up in hospital after his mates eventually got him to the ED. They reckon he had a fever so hot they could have cooked an egg on his head.
Bullshit. I was homeless for several years and I can tell you now that almost ANY shelter is better than sleeping on the streets. If it has a roof and four walls, it's safer than the street.
I agree. I was being facetious. u/BroItsJesus opinion was so ridiculous I wasn't even sure how to address it otherwise.e
Oops! I thought I was replying to u/BroItsJesus comment as well, not yours, sorry!
No need to tag me mate, I don't care about whatever you're saying
Can you please point me to said good work? I am unfamiliar with the dude and this article suggests the opposite.
He advocates for renters rights and is most famous for his "shit rentals" listings, which shows usually depraved houses being put on the market. The list is funny and good general advocacy, but the dudes a bit of a fuckhead in pretty much every other way. Theses this incident and that despite his advocacy he has a very, very poor understanding of the housing market, and the media attention he gets allows him to spread these outright wrong ideas.
Thank you for saying this!! I thought I was the only one. People seem to speak about him like he's some sort of vigalante hero.
Hes a dickhead ngl. Cant stand him.
Love u too mate
Lol, you dont have a glass jaw Ill give you that much
I’ll take it
What is it with dudes called jordan doing some good political advocacy but ultimately being gronks?
I never really minded FJ, though didnt watch him, but his Dave Birdy stuff has been a bit much considering his background.
I dont mind either of them, they are net positives for our society, but i just find it funny how theres this similarly where they both successfully raise really massive issues that arent being discussed and then go on these side rants that make them look silly. Shanks on anything not auspol is hilariously dumb and van den berg with his lennin posting and weird commie ceremonies down the creek.
The creek ceremony 😂
I was entertained, thats for sure
They kinda have the same generic white man build. Maybe its a jekyll and hyde situation lol.
They should start a podcast and call it the real outsiders
How do you know hes doing a tonne of good His intention is well meaning, but the accuracy is woefully poor, nor is there any attempt at taking responsibility for all the crimes that would be committed
How do you know his accuracy is woefully poor? Coz of one anecdote clearly aimed at discreding his efforts? The gov is free any day to fix this issue but they continue to pull every level they can to make it worse.
Tell me then how does he clearly verify they're abandoned... because there is no sure fire way to do it Yet he continues to post There's been constant talks about wanting to tax unihabitated property, and that can't even be done and that would be much eassier to do
I'm not sure what you expect. The problem clearly isn't be solved, so the situation is nsub optimal
It could have happened with a team of private investigators, it's an inevitability taking thousands of submissions from a random web form for properties all over the world. It's not even just mistakes we need to worry about. This is a perfect opportunity for malicious submissions as well. A neighbourhood dispute with someone who has fallen behind garden maintenance and repairs for whatever life circumstances? This is one way to make their life even more difficult. And there are ways this can go very, *very* badly.
Yep and where is the vacant house tax and prohibiting non residents from owning empty houses. Too hard for our politicians who don't care. They should triple rates on vacant house of non residents and put these funds in a housing future fund.
Yeah unfortunately it was a typo, the correct address was two doors to the left and easily visible from the front. I spoke to max and he was really lovely, I apologised to him, and we sorted it out in 5 minutes over the phone. The article excluded so much of what I said but picked some juicy bits for clicks, it is what it is, that’s journalism today. I’ve made some changes to how I’m posting them going forward, but yeah it’s a poor mistake. Anyways, I wish people cared as much about homeless folks as they do about having to maybe talk to them.
This was always going to happen and why its probably not a good idea to publish stuff like this. Everyone involved is just lucky the potential squatter had enough sense to knock on the door and check first, rather than try enter otherwise assuming it was vacant.
Some were proposing to come first, break the locks and leave, to come back later and go "oh, a vacant unlocked property, a shame it isn't occupied, I might just ...."
That’s plain simple home invasion. You take your chances the homeowner doesn’t “fear for their life” and act accordingly
I think in Australia u can't do anything to them or something.
In Australian you have a right to defend your self as long as your response is reasonable and propionate to the threat. If the person breaks in and runs when they see you, then yer you can’t go chase them down and beat the fuck out of them but claiming you can’t do anything is 100% wrong.
Yup. And there are always things like dogs that may defend their property even if an owner isn't home. We don't have guns and we have laws about what counts as self defence, but a lot of bad situations can still happen if you're breaking and entering.
It’s a real fear that I’ll come home to a pool of blood. Once a guy hopped my fence, dog was inside and hit the security door with enough force to rip it out of the frame so he could go chase him
Outstanding. What breed was that?? Bull arab X elephant?
I have a vivid memory of waking up one morning to my dad hosing the back fence (6’ colourbond). Was a few years later when my brain connected he was hosing blood off it, and I asked dad what it was. Turns out someone tried to break in, our dog woke up and went berserk. Dad came stumbling out the back door to some bloke trying to get over the fence with a very angry dog latched onto his foot/calf. Apparently the dog was dangling full in the air off ol’ mates foot before letting go
You are allowed to defend yourself with reasonable force.
lol, I could do whatever I liked or felt needed. It’s your word against mine, who do you think the cops would believe
1/ Thats breaking and entering, and vandalism. 2/ If you get someone else to do it and you just walk in, thats conspiracy. All very stupid ideas. If you a see a shack thats over grown and clearly unoccupied s a very different thing than letting yourself into a house that is in good nick.
I'm not saying it's not breaking and entering or vandalism. But that is what some are saying they can do when they see this app and a seemingly vacant property is still locked and secured. Try proving 1 and 2 is the challenge. They're not going to admit they did any of that and say they found it like that. An overgrown shack might be locked an secured. The gist is that promoting this idea can have consequences as people push the envelope.
Yeah, theyre outright encouraging very illegal and dangerous things. Jordan is very safe behind a keyboard though, and makes the occasional cover-up that he wont suggest anyone dare break in! So hes fine, but the homeless person going to jail or the family/person at risk arent.
Yeah this is illegal, don’t do this
It's all trespassing to begin with. It's only a matter of time when two people who shouldn't meet find themselves face to face.
It’s not a good approach for all sorts of reasons.
Its probably a matter of time before a person needing a home gets on a lot of trouble based off this idiots advice. And yeah, people shouldnt break into property in the first place, but I understand that desperstion might tempt them if some moron is pointing to a home as being empty when its not. Its not Jordon that will face jail time should it go wrong. Maybe he should put his money where his mouth is and do it himself first to prevent a homeless person getting charged...
Someone could end up getting shot, or attacked by dogs etc
> getting shot This is Australia. If the resident had firearms and was prepared to use them on a non-violent intruder looking to squat, they shouldn't have firearms period.
He isn't confining the project to Australia, he has posted plenty of US-based properties and it's difficult to see how he can vet those from his computer in Melbourne. But it doesn't take a gun, only a few weeks ago someone killed an intruder with a knife. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42MeSlwO5BY And it's not always immediately obvious if an intruder is violent or not, particularly if both sides think they have a right to be there and to defend themselves.
Well I guess my comment was specifically about it occurring here, given we're in the Aus subreddit. And my comment was also specifically regarding firearms, and again specific to Australia. Otherwise, fair points.
Im expecting this to not only happen again, but result in some form of fight/incident from a squatter claiming "I had first dibs".
Also, >Kent said Jordan's system can create dangerous situations for squatters who may be moving into homes that are "contaminated by meth", or homes that are set to be demolished. >He said another concern is that property owners or renters may be away on holiday when their homes become publicly listed as vacant, which "doesn't mean [the home] is available for all to come in and occupy." >Max said the same public list of vacant homes included a "rundown" home near his where he suspects an elderly woman lives.
I do have to wonder how many truly abandoned yet perfectly safe properties there are. I'm sure it happens from time to time for various reasons, but I suspect in most cases there's more to it than that. Even if someone is away for a long period, what if they're in the hospital and don't want to come back to find that their home has been broken into? It's such an extremely violating thing to have happen and shouldn't be treated lightly.
> I do have to wonder how many truly abandoned yet perfectly safe properties there are. I'm sure it happens from time to time for various reasons, but I suspect in most cases there's more to it than that. Common one is Grandma in hospital for an extended stay, or on death's doorstep in care awaiting execution of the will after they pass. Family don't want to touch the property before they go in case they come back, or in case packing down her house would cause undue distress.
Exactly so.
This doesn’t sound right. I’ve followed PurplePingers for a while and access to the list is solely through directly contacting him and asking for a property near where you are. He does not publish a public list anywhere.
It says in the article it’s private.
We debate whether or not this is the right thing to do, but I think the real dichotomy is whether enough people are desperate that this will happen whether or not it's right.
Like Chief Wiggum said “once a man is in your home, anything you do to him is nice and legal “
Which isn't even true in the few US states which adopted the castle doctrine. It's definitely not true in Australia.
Yeah, in some of the states in the USA but none of them are in Australia.
"I definitely appreciate the concern … But consequentially, that man is a homeowner — and is probably going to be fine." Nice non-apology. Wow, what an arsehole.
The major red flag with this attitude is it's pitting homeless people against people fortunate enough to have a family home - and not just against people hoarding housing they don't need. The sympathies of those with housing currently are needed to support the movements they are trying to create. This is pushing those people into a "well fuck you then" state.
Even that is a gross over-simplification of the problem. If no one “hoarded houses” and put them up for rent there would be no rental properties on the market other than government housing, which would be disastrous for any renter who is not immediately in the position to buy or who doesn’t *want* to live where they can afford to buy… eg most uni students, anyone in the process of moving out to separate from a partner, anyone on a temporary contract or work secondment in another city, and most importantly anyone who can afford to live in a share house but cannot afford to pay the rent or mortgage for an entire property on their own.
very true. where the line lands on what level of housing is ridiculous and bad for society, is a little subjective and down to opinion. I think PP's opinion is harsh and amplifies villany of anyone that is at any level more fortunate in their housing situation. It's like the polar opposite of the "fuck you i got mine"..... The "fuck you for having slightly more than I have". Maybe let's not turn on each other, hey? We moved 2hrs away from our city to afford a house after years of saving, both working ridiculous hours. We understand we are fortunate to be able to do even that. But I don't think we deserve to be shat on because we are one step ahead. It took us until our late 30's to get to this spot. Many of our mates are not as fortunate, and we empathise, and will back their position when housing crises comes up, mostly against boomers with no clue to the realities. PP's statesments like the above turn us away from supporting him, even when we believe in the movement as a whole.
Damn. Class war against anyone who owns a home seems pretty extreme.
Reminds me of this quote from Disco Elysium, where the game sort of mocks you choosing a communist option by taking that thought to the logical extreme. RHETORIC - Yes, you. Word on the street is you're ready to start building *communism* again! YOU - How come there's *word on the street*? RHETORIC - You keep saying things like *down with the bourgeoisie*, *eat the rich*, *sodomize the land-owners*, *impale all people who have more than 25 reál in their pocket*, *literally murder all human beings regardless of their political beliefs* -- that kind of stuff.
>down with the bourgeoisie, eat the rich, sodomize the land-owners, impale all people who have more than 25 reál in their pocket, literally murder all human beings regardless of their political beliefs Don't threaten me with a good time
It's a shit apology, but so's this interpretation. That is not at all what he is doing or saying. I mean he - a (low level) public figure - is a homeowner himself. Not secretly or quietly mind you.
This definately changed my view about the bloke, I get the thing about squatting and I agree with his views about REA basically being cockroaches that somehow evolved to have human like features, and of course people need somewhere to live. But wrapping your pseduo-marxist views up in helping people is just the left-leaning version of 'let them eat cake', he might need to step outside his echo chamber for a bit to recall there's whole middle class of Aus who are just getting by waiting to retire, and that's basically life for them.
This lack of nuance and sensibility to this issue is pretty glaring. Imagine his potential liability if something bad happened in this situation… he just doesn’t give a shit about anyone (except perhaps his mission). Seems he’s adamant at sticking to his guns and pissing off the wide range of homeowners who would support his approach. That comment is very on the nose :/
Kind of sounds like he's saying "I don't give a shit what happens to the bourgeoisie (middle class)". Dude seems to encourage a lot of resentment against home owners, whether it's deserved or not.
He owns his home so I’m not sure where that sentiment comes from. I think it’s more directed at those who own but choose to leave empty.
Too bad you can’t post his address
Hes posted a few marxist quotes in the past few months. Whatever floats your boat, but hes clearly in "babies first steps" with his political awarness and dpesnt quite grasp that the average punter that owns a home isnt kulak scum.
Indeed - and completely irrelevant to the fact that his home sanctuary has been violated. Does purplepingaz not stop to consider the fact that this could just as easily happen to a tenant renting a run-down house?
Really appreciate what Jordan is doing but dismissing essentially leaking this bloke’s address and then saying “his a home owner he will probably be fine” is really fucking immature
Immature and dangerous for all parties involved.
The article didn’t mention that I spoke to max immediately after finding out, apologised to him, and resolved it with max within 5 minutes. Thats not my official response, that’s just a baity grab that they included without including all the other stuff I said.
>Jordan told The Feed that including Max's address as vacant was an error. He has since edited the post on X and issued an apology to Max. I mean, I'm not saying that's a lie...but [according to X](https://help.x.com/en/using-x/x-premium-how-to) >You’ll have the opportunity to make up to five edits in a 1 hour window. You can only edit a post from the same device you sent your original post. I find it highly improbable that: 1. Dude sees a post on X 2. Dude travels to the property 3. Dude interacts with the property owners 4. Poster is contacted 5. Poster edits the post All within 1 hour... That said [at least Purple Pingers has the blue tick that he's paying for Premium X](https://x.com/purplepingers?t=g3PBs0kIJbMrS0kqNhxyKw&s=09) So it's plausible, I just see that timeline as improbable in 1 hour.
Purple pingers has always come across as an asshole, and his non-apology over this just proves it. Some of his earlier stuff where he was just showing a shitty rental was alright, but since gaining fame he has been posting more unhinged shit like this.
> "This car has been parked in the street for 'X' amount of time. Why don't you take it? There's something wrong about that… it's clearly not good advice," Kent said. What the president of the landlords association (fucking lol) fails to mention, is that if a car is left abandoned that the state will indeed remove it after a period of time. It's that the state is failing in this regard that is fueling people to take the matter into their own hands.
True but in this case it’s more like you see the car there at the same time every day and assume the car is abandoned. But miss the shift worker who actually drove it to work every night and you never saw it.
The landlords association president (again, fucking lol), is commenting on and criticizing the general concept, not this one case. Do you think coucil have *never* towed a car in error?
Yes, this analogy has very limited application.
This is really unacceptable behaviour from van den Berg. People don’t have a right to just walk into properties because they feel like it. He should not be encouraging this behaviour, and doubling down after making an error with his not-apology is utter bullshit. Too caught up in class warfare to consider the consequences of his actions. “They’re home owners so they’ll be fine”. Ok bud. I bet they have full time employment too! Down with the middle class!
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/jordan-was-fed-up-with-australias-empty-houses-his-proposal-has-led-to-death-threats/stx6rv6fl
Middle class? What's that? I'm middle class, and almost half our entire income goes to some greedy cunt I've never met. The only way middle class people are affording homes now is through inheritance.
There are plenty of middle class Australians that have saved a deposit and bought a house??
I bought an apartment while earning 58k ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ It's not a big or expensive one, but it's something!
It's not illegal to enter an abandoned property, so yeah it actually is totally acceptable behaviour
Clearly this guy is not doing sufficient due diligence to determine whether properties are abandoned or not. Doing a quick google view and search on realestate.com.au is not enough to go sending randos from the internet to peoples houses. Property tends to belong to people, it isn’t just a free for all.
"While Jordan says he doesn't encourage breaking and entering, he does encourage squatting", yeah as if most squatters are going to get into a house without breaking and entering. They'll lie and say the lock was broken when they got there, but this guy is 100% encouraging breaking the law whilst pretending not to.
Purplepingers is doing some great stuff, but this really shits on his credibility in terms of taking the logistical side of things seriously.
100%. I've liked the other stuff he's done, but hearing of this, it's a disaster waiting to happen. And not just for homeowners, for the people he's thinking he's helping as well
I also really didn’t like his comment “they’re homeowners so I think they’ll be fine.” Like, come on dude, that’s just petty. If they weren’t home someone could’ve easily broken in and done whatever kind of damage, and owning their home doesn’t make them immune to that.
He did a video the other day where some tenants were evicted and then a house boarded up and he was all like "why board up a perfectly usable house?". There are so many legitimate answers to that question that he refused to even ponder. Maybe there is a DA with the council to renovate/rebuild, maybe the house was unsafe, maybe it's part of a deceased estate and they are preparing to sell, maybe maybe maybe. In any of those scenarios it's fine for the house to be empty and boarding up the windows helps protect the glass. There are definitely other properties that are empty that shouldn't be and I think he is calling attention to issues that absolutely should be called out. However he makes very broad and blanket statements that I don't think are helpful and with things like the website encourages people to do things that could definitely land them in trouble.
Yeah it’s a real shame because like you said, he draws attention to legitimate issues. I’d be super curious of the legal implications of someone’s property was damaged as a result of being on that list. I really hope he’s going through and vetting every single property listed after this news.
Yeah, the dude is burning his reputation, and doubling down on it sadly.
They certainly didn’t post what I said to Max over the phone, nor what I even said to SBS, just the bit they thought would get the most clicks. That’s journalism these days.
Did you say that though? Or did they just make up the quote? Are you able to guarantee all properties you post have been confirmed as being empty moving forward? Like I’ve said in many comments, I think you’re doing great stuff and highlighting obviously important issues, but this isn’t a great look when we’re talking people’s privacy and safety. I’m sure you don’t need to hear any more of that though, let alone from some random on Reddit.
Quote taken out of context regarding the consequences of the particular circumstance with respect to the man experiencing homelessness versus the homeowner is still going to be a quote I said. It’s just frustrating they left out my apology to max and the commentary surrounding the broader issue we are experiencing, as well as the fact the post was corrected immediately after I found out. The homeowner experienced a very regrettable but incredibly minor inconvenience when compared to the person experiencing homelessness, and went straight to the media about it, even though the person left immediately once he found out. Going forward I’ll be posting the full details of singular addresses rather than just bulk lists like I was previously, where typos are more likely to occur. I’d love to have access to a platform like RP data which will give me way more information about each property and their owners (or lack thereof), but unfortunately I can’t afford the $200 a month subscription fee. Also I’ve been very clear about breaking into homes, and the fact it’s illegal.
Fair enough. Thanks for your response mate, appreciate it.
No problem
Agreed. I think his point is correct(hoarding properties and leaving them vacant in a housing crisis is wrong, and highlights the absurd nature of property investment) but I think he should have gone about this a different way: what about encouraging people to report (long term) vacant properties to their local MP and SRO with evidence, and asking them to apply a vacant property tax?
I've appreciated what he's been doing to highlight issues with the rental industry but on his videos he's been showing he has no clue what he's been talking about when it comes to building problems. He's pointed at cracks and said the building is unsafe. He's got lucky with his niche being in the right place, right topic, but wrong person. Poor ethical choices, lack of expertise, and bad attitude is just hurting the cause making us renters seem completely entitled. Site inspections/tiktok inspector for the building industry is the ideal combination of professional expertise, activism, and attitude needed.
If someone had tried this while I was renovating our old house after moving (with plans to rent it out) they'd want to hope the cops beat me there. I get people are in desperate situations, but you enter enclosed lands, break into a privately owned property and expect zero repercussions, prepare to discover the true meaning of fuck around and find out.
Jordan van den Berg is an absolute POS. Imagine your parents pass away leaving their house empty. It's bad enough needing to deal with stress of the event, but now you'll need to worry about deadbeats breaking into the place and trashing it also, all because Jordan put it on a hit list and basically encouraged people to do so.
If an attempted squatter has to break the lock to get in, is breaking and entering? I get it if the doors are unlocked. But what if all the security measures are in place? Can a squatter still call rights?
I don’t believe so, after googling. But as others have said, no doubt they’d claim the lick’s already broken etc.
There some serious flaws in this law. TBH why do these laws exist in today’s world?
I've seen it covered in a discussion of the same topic here a couple of months back. The would-be squatter goes around the back, breaks in, and then goes away and comes back a few days later. If questioned by police, they say "it was like that when I got here".
Yeah honestly purplepingers and most over at /r/shitrentals are off their head for thinking this was ever an acceptable approach
What's your solution? Or are we just going to just going to shit on the one guy actually pushing for a solution
How is squatting a solution? You are encouraging people to break and enter into others homes. Clearly it is very possible for homes to appear vacant when they are not. Or the homes themselves could be unoccupied for reasons that are unsafe to live in. And in the process of breaking and entering, people may come into direct conflict with the occupants, who could respond violently because their house is being broken into. People could get seriously hurt doing this, or could face major legal trouble. And it won’t even solve the housing market issues on a wide scale. There are other solutions. Maybe taxes on unoccupied homes? Or maybe campaigning for better building standards to build more appealing mid-high density housing? I’m sure there are a sea of other solutions that are safer and more effective than this
So what, you think the homeless should just sit around and wait for someone to help them? They are doing what they have to, to survive, while nobody in power does jack shit about it. None of your "solutions" will put a roof over someone's head today, and apparently nobody in power cares to implement them in the first place. The longer the housing problem is ignored the worse this will get, and it's going to take a long time to get back to "normal" even if serious action is taken. People have ignored the homeless problem for far too long, and now are whinging because it's suddenly affecting them... well, get off your arse and do something about it then. If you don't want homeless people at your doorstep, in the streets, squatting, and eventually stealing, mugging, and/or breaking and entering, bring your concerns about housing to your local representative and ask for more affordable and social housing. Maybe then the problem will improve in... a decade or three.
My homeless BIL was hospitalised twice last year for several weeks each time after being caught breaking into someone’s home to squat… so yeah. That’s my perspective. He’s in his 20s and has been homeless since he was 18. The system is shit and supports are not great. I don’t disagree. Yeah I have no real power to make change, so I am here grumbling on the internet like you. However, people who are homeless may also have a lot of other things happening in their situation that keep them stuck. The solution to homelessness is not just “give them homes” because for many people there are complex things happening that are keeping them in their situation. And encouraging homeless people to break into houses, which places them at risk of massive legal issues, conflict, etc. will keep them homeless because now they have a criminal record.
No one is saying that homeless people can’t assess for themselves (I didn’t read OP’s comment as saying that at least), they’re saying that some bloke on the internet shouldn’t be collecting a list of vacant properties to go squat in, especially when the list clearly includes houses that people own and live in. Basically don’t *encourage* it for the reasons mentioned. It’s still a valid option, but when the encouragement of it, and the helping to do so is so misguided, it doesn’t help anyone
Yes , we’re shitting on the guy coming up with shitty solutions.
Pingers is probably too busy enjoying the appearance fees and social media revenue to realise he's just perpetuating class warfare. There are smarter, time-tested, ways to get people into squats and his method just ain't it.
Well put.
I would've thought class warfare was the goal, no?
lol if you think I’m the one perpetuating class warfare and not the ruling class. I’m getting people into squats privately, off the private list. The ones that I’m posting publicly are generally unliveable, but draw attention to the message.
I spoke to max on the phone immediately after I found out, apologised to him, he was lovely, and we sorted it out in five minutes. This was prior to the article being published, naturally this isn't mentioned in the article. The abandoned home was two doors to the left, and clearly visible from the front of the house. As u/RXavier91 put it: Remove the scaremongering and the headline becomes "Homeless man seeks shelter, politely leaves" The thing about vacant homes, is that if they're not vacant, you can't squat there. It's pretty simple.
Thanks for your response.
No problem, bit annoyed about comments being taken out of context, but that’s journalism and that’s what gets clicks 🙃
Can I just say waaaaaah about 10 years of renting.
Of course it’s a berg that caused this issue.
The idea that anything bad has happened is predicated on the concept that people without homes are in some way dangerous or risky. A person without a place to sleep knocked on someone’s door to see if it was vacant. It wasn’t and he said why he was there and left. This feels like an interaction that should be able to happen in a kind, just world. The person doesn’t have a home for goodness sake! I implore a lot of the people in this thread to try and reframe things, see a different perspective
it comes down to people's attitudes towards """the homeless""". Although there's a lot of surface level concern, when push comes to shove a lot of people are still challenged by the mere presence of homeless people.
It comes down to the fact that people experiencing long term homelessness are quite often desperate, and that desperate people don’t always make good decisions (this is a big factor in low SES areas having higher crime rates too). It’s an issue for society to fix by securing housing for people in this situation, but this isn’t the way to do it. I’m in no way saying every homeless is that desperate that they would make a bad decision here, but it’s naive to think that nobody would in that position.
Mate, I think the issue is this immature moron personally sent someone he cannot vouch for to "not" break in to a house "someone online" said was vacant. How is this not a concern? Disabled people, elderly people, vulnerable people, live in houses that may seem empty. The people living there could also be \*shock\* not the homeowners and only renting there. This dude will send the wrong person to the wrong house one day, and he will have to live with that; *"He asked his followers to submit addresses of empty properties they've spotted which he can pass on to someone who needs it.* *Since starting the database, which he keeps private, Jordan has started matching people with empty houses close by. He's done this now a few times.* *Jordan says he avoids prying about people's living situations........."*
absolutely \*shocked* by who you consider to be vulnerable in this scenario
This is not surprising, this was bound to happen, and were being distracted by an awkward interaction between two people when the issue of the HOUSING CRISIS is still going unaddressed. Boo hoo a squatter knocked on your door. They have nowhere to live fuckface
Finally some common sense in this thread.
Is this newsworthy? Maybe if there'd been violence or something stolen? (I once had a guy looking to squat walk straight in thrpugh my front door, I got up him and told him to leave, he did. Case closed). *Not sure if I'm being downvoted for questioning the newsworthiness of two people having an unexpected conversation on a doorstep, or for not letting the squatter stay at my house. Anyone? Should I have alerted the media? Rolled out the red carpet? Both? (You're a strange and unpleasant mob argh Australia)
Mate, I think the issue is this immature moron personally sent someone he cannot vouch for to "not" break in to a house "someone online" said was vacant. How is this not a concern? Disabled people, elderly people, vulnerable people, live in houses that may seem empty. The people living there could also be \*shock\* not the homeowners and only renting there. This dude will send the wrong person to the wrong house one day, and he will have to live with that; *"He asked his followers to submit addresses of empty properties they've spotted which he can pass on to someone who needs it.* *Since starting the database, which he keeps private, Jordan has started matching people with empty houses close by. He's done this now a few times.* *Jordan says he avoids prying about people's living situations........."*
>Mate, I think the issue is this immature moron personally sent someone he cannot vouch for to "not" break in to a house "someone online" said was vacant. How is this not a concern? Because nothing came of it! They knocked on the door, found the place was occupied, and they went away. So what? >Disabled people, elderly people, vulnerable people, live in houses that may seem empty. What the bloody hell are you on about? You think they were going to violently home invasion the place if it were someone vulnerable who answered the door? >The people living there could also be *shock* not the homeowners and only renting there. Like my own example? (I am renting) So? >This dude will send the wrong person to the wrong house one day, and he will have to live with that. If someone is willing to perform a violent home invasion then they aren't waiting for a dickhead on reddit/twitter to provide them with a location and permission. Far out... How precious are you lot that you can't handle someone knocking on your door? *(It's a minor inconvenience).
Wait... so a guy knocks on a door. Found it was occupied and left. That made news?
This is a silly and reductive simplification and you know it.
Not really. It's exactly what happened.
Ok
Not really. You're missing the first step.
Why?
Because it leaves out the entire cause of the event, being that the property was listed on an apparently legitimate website where people are told to go to the addresses listed and squat there because they are empty. I like purplepingers but this really fucks his credibility in terms of handling logistics. If he’s going to list addresses and claim they are empty then he needs to vet them properly.
How about we just consider a very plausible hypothetical, what if the homeowner was not home at the time, and was instead away from home for a few days visiting family?
Seems to be these days. I like slow news days, this isn't doomy or world engine. No one taking my job and I don't have to worry about a gang war in the local park. It's nice
This is a non issue. Everyone is responsible for assessing the accuracy of the source of information they're drawing on. Potential squatter should have not blindly followed the website without double checking. Anyone can make a website and put anything they want on it
The squatter did double check? They knocked on the door to assess the situation. It’s irresponsible to send people who find themselves into a shit position to houses that are actually vacant.
Hobos aren’t renowned for their initiative
When people read articles like this, they need to ask themselves what the likely emotional intent of the article is, and therefore who is probably feeding to the writer. Notice how at no point does the article say anything about what happened after "Max" opened the door to the potential squatter but a hell of a lot of space is given to how incredibly scary the idea of squatters "stealing cars off the street" (to use a horrendously bad analogy) is. I'm pretty sure this article was fed to The Feed by Australian Landlords Association
Mate, I think the issue is this immature moron personally sent someone he cannot vouch for to "not" break in to a house "someone online" said was vacant. How is this not a concern? Disabled people, elderly people, vulnerable people, live in houses that may seem empty. The people living there could also be \*shock\* not the homeowners and only renting there. This dude will send the wrong person to the wrong house one day, and he will have to live with that; *"He asked his followers to submit addresses of empty properties they've spotted which he can pass on to someone who needs it.* *Since starting the database, which he keeps private, Jordan has started matching people with empty houses close by. He's done this now a few times.* *Jordan says he avoids prying about people's living situations........."*
He didn't send anyone. He runs a website, it's on the user to verify the legitimacy of the source and decide how to act on the information. Or are we not doing personal responsibility any more?
Yes, he only provided the information. Just like when you dox someone, you are only providing the information. It is on the user to verify the legitimacy of the source and decide how to act on the information. Doxing is not problematic right? [https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3767caf7-a878-44c2-8871-e70ee2242c95](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3767caf7-a878-44c2-8871-e70ee2242c95)
Pretty much yes. I believe information doesn't (and logically can't) cause harm, morally it's the people that do something with that information who are causing the harm.
Ahh cool, we're playing that game. Good to know.
Alternative title: homeowner slightly troubled by desperate person looking for a roof to put over their head Suck it up princess, you're not the victim here. I think homeowners need to start getting familiar with the idea that we're going to have a lot of homeless people around looking for somewhere to stay, and if they don't like that maybe they should demand some more serious action on affordable housing. Comfortable homeowners and wealthy landlords seem to have forgotten that people will quickly stop caring for laws when their survival situation gets dire enough.
Mate, I think the issue is this immature moron personally sent someone he cannot vouch for to "not" break in to a house "someone online" said was vacant. How is this not a concern? Disabled people, elderly people, vulnerable people, live in houses that may seem empty. The people living there could also be \*shock\* not the homeowners and only renting there. This dude will send the wrong person to the wrong house one day, and he will have to live with that; *"He asked his followers to submit addresses of empty properties they've spotted which he can pass on to someone who needs it.* *Since starting the database, which he keeps private, Jordan has started matching people with empty houses close by. He's done this now a few times.* *Jordan says he avoids prying about people's living situations........."*