Jordan van den Berg's vigilante-style approach has won him fans and critics amid a housing crisis.

Three years ago, lawyer Jordan van den Berg was an obscure TikTok creator who made videos that mocked real estate agents.

But today the 28-year-old is one of the most high-profile activists in Australia.

Posting under the moniker Purple Pingers, Mr van den Berg has been taking on the nation’s housing crisis by highlighting shocking renting conditions, poor behaviour from landlords, and what he calls government failures.

It is his vigilante-style approach - which includes helping people find vacant homes to squat in, and exposing bad rentals in a public database - that has won over a legion of fans.

Some have dubbed him the Robin Hood of renters.

  • andrewta@lemmy.worldEnglish
    313·
    7 months ago

    If by definition of truly vacant you mean

    No one is knocking on the door saying hey get out, and there is reasonably no one going to come knocking on the door… Then yeah fine it’s empty. Then I don’t care. But if anyone who has the title is saying get out then yeah get out.

    If there is someone who has the title says get out, and the squatter doesn’t leave, it’s basically theft of property.

    • zalgotextEnglish
      82·
      7 months ago

      How is it theft of property? Theft usually involves taking something material away from someone. If the property owner has left their property vacant, having a squatter there doesn’t change anything. They’ve gone from making no money on their vacant property to… still not making money on their property.

      And don’t say “the squatter is preventing the property owner from making future profit off of the property”, because now you’re not talking about theft. Profits that don’t exist yet can’t be stolen.

      • andrewta@lemmy.worldEnglish
        18·
        7 months ago

        If I have a piece of property and somebody moves in there, squats, they are basically preventing me from using that piece of property as I choose. Yes I could go in there anyways but let’s be honest how would I actually use it in the way that I want if they are in there? How would I lay out financial documents on the kitchen table to do my bookkeeping? Knowing that someone else is in there could easily take pictures of it? That makes no sense. They’ve effectively taken the property from me and prevented me from using it as I choose. That is effectively theft. No they didn’t pick up a pen from you and take it away. No they didn’t take a phone and take it away. But they have effectively taken my property.

        If they insist on living there for six months, how am I going to be there for six months? Realistically. Think about it. So yeah it is that you may not agree with the term of that. But that to me is just irrelevant. In the eyes of the law it’s leaning more and more towards unlawful usage of the property. Which is why the laws are being wrote to remove squatter rights.

        • zalgotextEnglish
          51·
          7 months ago

          If a squatter is squatting somewhere you want to live, sure, yeah, you can’t live there. Just like you can’t live there if someone else is already renting it.

          The way you’re describing it, it seems like to you there’s no functional difference between someone paying to live in a property you want, vs. squatting in a property you want. You’re looking through your own personal lense only, and consider things that inconvenience you as “evil”. It’s a prime example of the “fuck you I got mine” mentality.

          • andrewta@lemmy.worldEnglish
            14·
            7 months ago

            No if they are paying the person who holds the title to be in there, then there is no squatting. That is legal usage. The title holder gave permission for the user to be there for a given period of time. Big difference between renting and squatting

            • zalgotextEnglish
              5·
              7 months ago

              But the inconvenience to you is the same, and that seems to be the thing you have a problem with.

              You’re taking issue with squatting, even though the effect on you is exactly the same as someone legally renting - ie, you can’t occupy that property. So what’s the big deal? How does a squatter steal from you, and a renter doesn’t? If the only difference is some legal definitions, maybe the two aren’t that different after all.

              • andrewta@lemmy.worldEnglish
                16·
                7 months ago

                If you haven’t figured it out by now I’d say that’s by choice not because you don’t understand.

                One is someone living there with permission (renter) one is there without permission(Squatting). Squatting is theft. Have a nice day. I’m out.