Squatters evicted from 195 Mare Street
The squat at 195 Mare Street before this morning’s eviction. Photograph: Eleonore de Bonneval
Squatters occupying a grade-II listed mansion were forced out this morning after the High Court granted developers Chris Sturdy Design and Build (CSDB) permission to evict them.
195 Mare Street – an historic Georgian-era building – has been lying empty and derelict for years and is regarded by amenity group The Hackney Society as a major heritage asset.
The building has been occupied for over three months by squatters who say they have sought to transform it into a community centre.
CSDB operations director Jim Casey said the building now would be restored for use as offices or an art college.
The gate to the property is currently locked and boarded up.
Related:
Residential housing is the enemy apparently for these people.
We did report a crime. The police are lying in their statement. They allowed the perpetrators to walk free when crimes were committed in front of their eyes. Either the police aren’t aware of the law, are choosing to disregard it completely or are being biased against some rather than others. Any of these would be shocking behavior and, sadly, all too common. Peoples human rights were violated (our water being cut off) which Jim Casey should be aware of as he used to work, high up, for a water company. A complaint has been lodged with the relevant police department and IPCC, though, of course, nothing has come of the proceedings.
We have now been evicted, as you might be aware. We won’t back down against criminals …[ Deleted by moderator]…, and a system that colludes, is prejudicial and suppresses human expression and human rights.
Enjoy your Christmas, we will try also and will be offering services again in the new year: Benefits Advice Surgery (a guide to an increasingly obscure system available in English, French, Spanish and Italian), Cinema (hard-hitting film) and information for homeless and social issues.
Wake Up.
Have you ever consider Max that the influx of middle class far-lefties has actually pushed out the real poor of Hackney?
Dear near to Hackney, what evidence do you have to back up your claim that Hackney is experiencing an influx of “middle class far lefties” and where do you recommend would be a good place to meet some of them?
I am aware, however, that Hackney has a very long and proud history of being associated with radicalism.
I am glad the squatters have been removed.
If they are genuinely passionate about offering their community services (rather than as a blag for free accommodation) they should have done it through other means, using a legitimate venue.
I never understood the need to occupy a building which doesn’t belong to them, in order to offer their community services.
If a physical location was vital for their free drop-in groups, then why couldn’t this has been held in the local park, using a simple pop-up tarp shelter or something.
I just hope that the individuals go on to help society through channels that don’t involve squatting.
This has now ultimately costed the tax payer in court costs. Their ‘helping society’ angle (which seemed a bit like an excuse for a roof over heads) has now ended up costing the community in council time, legal fees and so on. If anyone knows that cost, I would be interested to know just how much, so I know how angry we should all be.
There is nothing wrong with making a disused building into free accommodation.
Put away your pitch fork and your flaming torch, SB. My guess is that the only monsters you’re likely to encounter with your angry rabble rousing, will be reflections of your own mean minded pettyness.
If you want something to be angry about, SB, then get angry about rising poverty and rusing homelessness. Get angry about the number of properties that remain empty and wasted.
http://www.emptyhomes.com/
@SB – I doubt there was a cost to the taxpayer as it would have been a civil matter with the owner having to bear costs and the baliffs would also have been a private cost.
Whilst I can understand some of the anger directed at the builders/ enforcers who broke into the building they would have been acting on behalf of the owners.
So perhaps time to consider who is paying the piper on this? That appears to be some company called Berkshore (?) the main director seems to be Mr Simcha Green who if the owner maybe a property developer with a track record.
But if he does own the property he bought it on the open market. I’d like to think that Hackney council will now be ensuring that he does urgent repairs to make this historical building safe and waterproof and followed conservation direction. Given the years of neglect hard to see how it will play out. Did the squatters help the building? Probably not given their open, pay parties, number of people in an unsafe structure, hot wiring electrics and so on.
Did the squatters help the community? Hard to say. They offered something but if that’s what this is really about and they have that pool of skills then there are organisations and even the council who would welcome and help them do something. If their actions were more about having accommodation that circumvents the change to squatting residential property then come and say so. As it is the building appears to be now in a worse condition than before and with an uncertain future.
So if you want to bring this back to life then start to lobby Hackney council and the new owner to make sure it happens rather than more super expensive flats and dodgy development.
I have always admired this building. The squatters have only brought to light that more care and attention must be made with regards to historically important buildings such as this one. I hope that the current owner restores it back to its former glory and become a landmark which the residents of Hackney and beyond can be proud of
the building is a great building – its disrepair is a shame. It was on the market for ages at a knock down price – presumably because of the conditions of developing it and bring in back into use. The people buying it have a big job on their hands if they are to rehabilitate it. The squatters may have delayed this work which would have been a shame.
But the worst thing about these squatters was their righteousness – their “occupation” of another persons property was made out to be an act of the righteous where they proclaimed their politics and sought to spread their word to the “community”. – assuming the community wanted or needed their word and/or advice and could not see through them as takers.
I walked past 195 mare st this morning. The fence was covered in graffiti threatening the developer who evicted the squatters.
I guess the squatter’s true colours are shining though.