Germany Confiscating Homes To Use For Migrants

Future neighbors in the US

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
FYI for those of you that don't know Germany's (local/state) goverment(s) have a habit of censoring news that do not potray them in a positive light.

I.E. like the ongoing migrant issues plaguing the country, but what do I know. I'm just a nobody.

Do you live in Germany? Right now?
Because to a German, you just sound.. wrongly informed.. to say in in a friendly manner.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

How would you know the difference if you never left Germany? I can tell you that Germany's media is 9 times out of 10 more regulated than the MSM we have over in the US. Like I said, I'm the uninformed individual.

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
Don't really care since it's Germany's problem. Sucks to be them, I have no sympathy for thier stupidity. They made their bed, now they will sleep in it and get a good nights rest. For tomorrow there will be dispair.

I do feel bad, though... The government made the decision that led them to this, not necessarily the people.

My government does # every day I disagree with.

If they came for my property, I'd burn it to the ground.

Oha, I just read the original article (infowars is not my favorite news-source).

The article tells us that a landlord HAS to lent its property as usual, to battle lack of lodgings in Hamburg.

Not a word about refugees, immigrants or illegals.

What if...

It's Merkel's plan to succeed the fourth Reich by making the Germans angry and nationalist enough, to take control over Europe when the time comes?

They are trying to take over financially through the Euro, soon there's gonna be a huge civil unrest in Europe over the migrant crisis which they endorse... And guess which European country will be cried out to save them all.

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
a reply to: ManFromEurope

How would you know the difference if you never left Germany? I can tell you that Germany's media is 9 times out of 10 more regulated than the MSM we have over in the US. Like I said, I'm the uninformed individual.

Source for those numbers, please? Or could you entertain the thought that you are in fact uninformed and rely on made up numbers to make others look being at fault?

And source for me not having left Germany ever... Yeah, that was nonsense, because you don't know me, and don't know about my life.

a reply to: seasonal

Well, that is precisely the point. Empty houses make for reduced revenue to the local council, because there are fewer people able to live within a given postcode. Further to that, it simply is not the case that property can be simply left empty for years and years, without posing a risk to property around it. Things decay, collapse, denature, when uncared for. Those problems that an occupied dwelling would have cured over a weekend, do not get noticed until the problem has become a catastrophe.

There is literally no way for it to remain "not the governments business" as long as property remains empty for long periods. That simply does not compute in the least. Property does not simply get along just fine without maintenance and occupation. Houses need tenants as much as tenants need houses.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
a reply to: ManFromEurope

How would you know the difference if you never left Germany? I can tell you that Germany's media is 9 times out of 10 more regulated than the MSM we have over in the US. Like I said, I'm the uninformed individual.

Source for those numbers, please? Or could you entertain the thought that you are in fact uninformed and rely on made up numbers to make others look being at fault?

And source for me not having left Germany ever... Yeah, that was nonsense, because you don't know me, and don't know about my life.

I'm not inclined to provide anything of "proof" as you would call it to validate anything I say. I couldn't careless if you agreed to it or not or think I am "uninformed". It's on your conscience, not mine. I know what I believe to be the truth. If you don't agree, have a nice day.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You seem to come at it from a gov't perspective.

I come at it from a freedom stand point. I do not exist to make the govt money. If the taxes are paid and the property is safely stowed. None of anyone's bees wax.

I can't speak to the condition of this property, but if it is in bad condition there must be laws in place to deal with it with out confiscating it and renovating it. It must be in good enough shape to do the reno's and get the migrants in there.

a reply to: seasonal

The difference is that at their core, the Leftist Democrats are all against private property rights; they revel in confiscatory taxation and collectivist dilution of private property rights; as far as they are concerned no one should own their own property, but should only rent their dwelling for ever from the government.

The Republicans just want to maximise profit.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

I put this in google translate- did not make much sense.

Do people not do their own web research? Or just believe whatever the news outlets/ news papers tell them or go by their family/friends thoughts on current events.... I mean seriously.

legalinsurrection.com...

www.spectator.co.uk...

a reply to: seasonal

Cuckold Germans or what?......cos...Hitler.......bend over and grease up for deeds done before you were even born.

a reply to: TonyS

Is the end result the same?

The corps (banks) want a society of renters. Private property is not allowed, all that $$$ tied up in hard assets means the people (consumers) are not spending on consumer goods.

Leased cars
Rented homes/apartments
no medical insurance
no ownership of precious metals

Sorry off topic

a reply to: TrueBrit

So, the council, after much consultation and attempts to negotiate a different outcome, sent in contractors to bring the building back to code, and charged the owner

here in the U.S. the local governments do something similar, they won`t renovate the building they will condemn it and if the owner doesn`t do something about it after a reasonable amount of time,the local government will send someone to tear the building down and make the owner pay for it.
renovating a building at the owners expense is a much better solution than tearing it down.an empty lot doesn`t produce as much taxes for the local government as an occupied dwelling does.

a reply to: seasonal

I dont think its the same at all. The Corp model is built on and around debt, you buy a home, you own a mortgage, (debt), thus you entrap one more wage slave to the company store. Same with autos; you buy a car, you own a car loan. If your smart enough and old enough, you eventually have stuff paid for. Then in a Repub/Corp run jurisdiction like Texas they actually work to lower property taxes so the retired will have more discretionary income to keep buying stuff. Its the business model that is different.

a reply to: Tardacus

Exactly!

I am all for personal property rights, but people need to take the responsibility that comes with those rights, and the responsibility has to be that one maintains a building to a standard which promotes or at least protects those who dwell around it, either from physical or financial harm.

This also prevents predatory purchasers from being able to lever prices down artificially.

This whole "refugee" (most are in fact parasitic economic migrants exploiting the genuine suffering of people from Syria and Iraq) crisis has been managed badly from the beginning.

First they say we have to take the refugees. Practically no actual facilities are built, those that are not in reasonable numbers or good condition, no transport is provided to them etc.

As a result most of the "refugees" end up unemployed and congregating in ghettos full of religious extremist infiltrators. Their horrible poverty causes them to resort to crime which doesn't paint the "refugees" in a particularly positive light. The skyrocketing crime rate that suspiciously popped up when the migrants began arriving in force is plain for everyone to see, even using doctored official statistics.

Then the terrorist attacks began. Either direct Islamist infiltration via the migrant hordes (an accurate description, since they are left to fend for themselves wandering across Europe), radicalisation of non-radical migrants or radicalisation of the native population. Only a blind fool cannot see the sharp rise in terrorist attacks motivated by Wahhabi propaganda in the past few years in Europe.

After all this what do our Leaders do? Why they tell us we have to take more of them, even though the facilitates do not exist to house them adequately. They tell us to simply live with and accept terrorism.

In more than one instance elected officials have simply told us to accept and bend over backwards to accommodate their frankly barbaric and incompatible values.

Like the President of Austria, or UNESCO using German taxpayer money

Now comes the news of property confiscation. First Italy, then Sweden, I guess it was only a matter of time before the Germans started doing it too.

Increasingly it is becoming evident that the European establishment, unelected globalist "progressives", and the subservient national governments who support them view their actual constituents with contempt, forcing the people of Europe to accept greater and greater sanction in order to accommodate these migrants, despite the fact there is no room for them. Migrants I might add who have shown us how much hatred they hold for European culture and European values.

Not to mention the vicious propaganda campaign by the media against any who even so much as questions the current policy as a "xenophobe", "nazi" or whatever the buzzword happens to be this week.

My questions are what is the endgame for the European elite? Clearly the current policy is an abject failure in all respects yet they seem utterly hellbent on continuing it. More importantly how much longer will the people of Mainland Europe continue to tolerate such injustices?

Something is very wrong in Europe, and it's not the European people, as the President of Germany, Mr Gauck is so fond of saying.

a reply to: seasonal

Actually, I come at it from the perspective of those forced to live in areas affected by artificial drops in house prices, created by people utilising their rights, without taking proper responsibility for their actions and their property. No right that has ever been afforded to a person, comes without responsibilities.