Ungdomshuset Evicted (2 Viewers)

[Janer]

Cheer up sure there will be a riot somewhere soon

 

[Kastrosama]

ahh its not so much the riot.. altho id love to be in the middle of it..
but the fact that theres so much shit going on under peoples noses.. and its all turned a blind eye to.. if the gaff wasnt stolen.. and lets be honest.. thats whats happened here. it was taken from them without thier willingness to hand it over... what else is going to happen ehh?

 

[Janer]

It literally was stolen as it's not there anymore.

 

[Kastrosama]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6418565.stm


Denmark rioters' squat demolished

Activists watched the building's demolition from a distance

Bulldozers have begun the demolition of a building at the centre of rioting in the Danish capital Copenhagen, after the eviction of squatters last week. About 650 people have been arrested following three nights of clashes between protesters and police.
The unrest has been some of the worst seen in the Danish capital for decades.
The trouble began after an anti-terror squad raided the Ungdomshuset building, which had been occupied by left-wing activists since the 1980s.
The local government sold the building to a Christian group in 2000, which then obtained a court order to have the squatters evicted.

Mechanical diggers bring the Ungdomshuset crashing to earth

Enlarge Image


But the activists vowed not to leave, saying the council had no right to sell the building while it was still in use.
They feared the Ungdomshuset, or Youth House, which had become an international cause celebre, would be knocked down if they were turned out.
And so it turned out on Monday morning, when at 0800 (0700 GMT) the demolition began.
Workmen wore masks and the company names on their vehicles were blacked out, apparently as a precaution against any reprisals.
The scene was watched over by large numbers of police and a small number of young people.
"They are breaking my heart. I cannot stand it," said Birgitte, a black-clad 21-year-old woman with dreadlocks.
'Ringleaders' held'
The capital had been relatively quiet for the previous 24 hours, though earlier the confrontation over the house provoked some of the worst unrest in decades.

The districts of Noerrebro and Christiania were left looking like a war zone after barricades and cars were set on fire.
Protesters tore up cobble stones torn up and hurled them at police, who had responded with organised charges, the BBC's Julian Isherwood reported.
Police said they had many of the ringleaders of the rioting in cells by Monday, after making a large number of arrests over the weekend.
Many have been remanded in custody for up to two weeks, and some of the foreign nationals involved - predominantly from Germany and Sweden - are being deported.
The weekend also saw peaceful demonstrations taking place in support of the protesters.
Around 1,000 bicyclists staged a mounted protest on Sunday, while banners proclaiming "Long live Ungdomshuset!" and "Stop police violence!" were held aloft.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

I'm really dying to know the actual situation behind the building been "given" by the mayor to the squatters.

Seems to me that this gift was more wishful thinking on the part of the residents than anything else.

 

[La La]

why are the occupants being referred to as squatters if the building was given to them?
surely this would mean that they were the rightful residents as opposed to squatters - or was the squatter term used after august of last year when the building was sold from under them?

either way the whole thing is really sad

 

[pete]

I used too.

me too!

 

[pete]

I'm really dying to know the actual situation behind the building been "given" by the mayor to the squatters.

Seems to me that this gift was more wishful thinking on the part of the residents than anything else.

why are the occupants being referred to as squatters if the building was given to them?
surely this would mean that they were the rightful residents as opposed to squatters - or was the squatter term used after august of last year when the building was sold from under them?

either way the whole thing is really sad

From what I've read, the building was leased / the lease was assigned by the city of Copenhagen to the original 80's occupants there. In the 90's the building was effectively condemned, due to a fire & some kind of rot(?) but the 'residents' / users of the place wouldn't let the authorities do anything about it, preferring instead to effect their own repairs.

At some point after this they stopped paying the agreed rent and effectively became squatters. The city of Copenhagen then decided to sell off the building, the craxy christians bought it and then started court proceedings to evict the squatters.

Most of the stuff on the interweb is pretty useless if you're after the actual facts of the situation, consisting of crap like "the politicians" did this and "the politicians" did that or just really bad translations, so i may be completely wrong.

 

[nooleen]

Define 'society'.

define 'cormcolash'.

 

[nooleen]

needle you seem to assume everyone on the dole just sits around there gaff all day laughing at the fact they're gettin free money and do nothing else.

sometimes they write songs about it too. social welfare inspires art.

 

[rotten tropics]

why are the occupants being referred to as squatters if the building was given to them?
surely this would mean that they were the rightful residents as opposed to squatters - or was the squatter term used after august of last year when the building was sold from under them?

i don't know a whole lot about ungdomshuset,but from indymedia it seems to have been some sort of mutual agreement between the occupants and local council.
''After serious social conflicts and uprisings by the autonomist and squatting movements in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the subsequent 'Ungdomshuset' was offered as part of a political compromise to the activists. The mainly young activists dubbed it ‘Ungdomshuset’ (‘The Youth House’), and started running various cultural and political activities out of there. It has for many years served as one of the only multicultural, basis-democratic collectives/community centres in Copenhagen, with the exception of the Freetown Christiania. Property rights remained in the hands of the local council, which in 1999 decided to disregard the previous political compromise and sell the house to the highest bidder. ''

 

[ITalkShite]

It does seem like rubbing salt in the wound that, in the week of International Women's Day, they'd demolish the house where International Women's Day was first declared.

 

[W.]

I'm really dying to know the actual situation behind the building been "given" by the mayor to the squatters.

Seems to me that this gift was more wishful thinking on the part of the residents than anything else.

This reeks of "you must have done something wrong", you have an obvious anti-ungdomshuset bias.

I interviewed an organiser from Ungdomshuset for an article about a year back here's the relevent extracts.

The ownership dispute came about following a fire which gutted part of the building in the mid-90’s. The city claimed repairs would cost millions but the squatters repaired the damage themselves. A lawyer for the city council allegedly sold the building through his private company to the Faderhuset group. Ungdomshuset activists say this situation is City halls fault as the house was given to over them 22 years ago and are calling on politicians to rectify the situation outside of the courts.

 

[pete]

This reeks of "you must have done something wrong", you have an obvious anti-ungdomshuset bias.

I interviewed an organiser from Ungdomshuset for an article about a year back here's the relevent extracts.

yeah but there doesn't seem to be any dispute that the city of Copenhagen retained ownership of the building all along. Talking about lawyers "allegedly" selling the company (evidence?) or claiming that the bulding was "given over" to them (on what basis) is is just pointless.

 

[nofunchee]

i think that debate over the concept of legal ownership of the building is fairly pointless, especially at this stage. who gives a fuck if the council owned it and now due to money changing hands some right-wingers own it (or it's rubble). the history of the place and what it has been used for for the last ages is what matters, or more precisely, what it now won't be used for 'cos it was evicted and knocked down.

 

[W.]

yeah but there doesn't seem to be any dispute that the city of Copenhagen retained ownership of the building all along. Talking about lawyers "allegedly" selling the company (evidence?) or claiming that the bulding was "given over" to them (on what basis) is is just pointless.

But even if the city retained ownership the collective running the building argue that they had renovated it sufficiently after the fire. The eviction is obviously more to do with the nature of the organising going on in the building and a europe-wide scheme of evicting social centres (quite likely because of the central role they played in the 1999-2003 summit mobilisations). Both sides have a claim, the state has the better legal claim at this point, unsurprisingly, but the squatters have 24 years of use of the building which certainly counts for something.

I dont know why turbonegro dont just get their best mate bam to buy a new building for the youth.

 

[pete]

i think that debate over the concept of legal ownership of the building is fairly pointless, especially at this stage. who gives a fuck if the council owned it and now due to money changing hands some right-wingers own it (or it's rubble). the history of the place and what it has been used for for the last ages is what matters, or more precisely, what it now won't be used for 'cos it was evicted and knocked down.

Well, I'd consider it relevant if 600+ arrests, who knows how many injuries, a school getting trashed and all the rest was based on an incorrect assumption (or deliberate misinformation?) and could have been avoided if someone had gotten their shit together and paid the rent a few years ago, but in the absence of any actual facts it's hard to judge.

Right now i'd be interested in knowing how its demolition is reconciled with its one time status as a protected historical structure.

 

[broken arm]

the eviction is obviously more to do with the nature of the organising going on in the building and a europe-wide scheme of evicting social centres (quite likely because of the central role they played in the 1999-2003 summit mobilisations)

where did this come from? if there is any proof it needs to be opened out.

i saw that because the Vortex is being evicted - different story though

 

[broken arm]

The PAD eviction anfew months back was fairly standard. it was only open a few weeks

 

[Shorty]

Look, the original contract in 1982 gave usage rights to the youth. There was a new contract signed in 96 that the council claimed nullified the previous one, which it can't legally do under danish law. (this is sending this discussion into a very legalistic trajectory, which is bullshit anyway). Recently, as in November, there was a mild scandal in that one of the politicians dealing with the case of ungdomshuset hadn't even seen the original contract. The selling of the house may have had something to do with rent, I'm not sure, I can ask someone here, but I also heard something about claims of drug use/sale and then the "illegal" activities being organised from the house (I can only interpret the latter in political terms) as a precursor to selling the house. Recently, there was also another mini scandal in the police saying that "No, we never said that about the house back in 99" in reference to the drugs and illegal activities. Also, there's no allegedly when it comes to the sale of the house. In fact Faderhuset had made an offer and had been declined as being unsuitable, basically being right wing christian fundamentalist nut jobs. The whole selling of the house is a corrupt farce, with the lawyer in charge of selling it setting up fake companies. The house WAS sold to Human A/S and then the company itself, not the house, was sold to faderhuset, wtih them effectively owning the house and (this part don't understand in Danish legal terms) the council losing the right to buy back the house.

What I've just posted, I feel, is irrelevant at this stage and I'd agree with weelers arguments about the house being put to use versus any supposed profit through sale, development, speculation. Though on a related point and one that revelas the inherent logic of the state and the police (as a wing of the state) as social control, the amount of money that has been spent on the police operation and the last few days would have been enough to have bought the house for the youth in the fist place, 20 (if not more) times over.

One other point, (which again is bullshit, as I support the right of squatters to have somewhere to live and thus for free) the house has only been lived in for the last six months as the threat of eviction necessitated a 24hr presence. So most of the conservative "free loader" sentiment arguments are pretty much also irrelevant but it's good that people were countering them anyway.