Canal squatters in capital to face forced eviction

[Lite Beer]

Canal squatters in capital to face forced eviction

BANGKOK: -- The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) is going ahead with its plan to construct flood prevention embankments and accordingly, numerous homes along the capital's nine major canals or klong will be evicted by May.

The eviction process will begin initially along Klong Ladprao which has more than 3,000 squatters.

Klong Ladprao is the first of all the klongs that the BMA will have flood prevention embankments constructed because it is a main drainage facility that is 38 metres wide.

BMA expected that more than 20,000 squatters living along its banks will have to be evicted.

In a recent survey along the entire 22 kilomtres stretch of Klong Ladprao canal, the BMA discovered that there are more than 3,000 homes along its banks housing more than 14,000 residents.

Three options are being looked at with regards to the eviction.

First is to relocate the squatters to a nearby location still close to the klongs, and second is to move them between 3 – 5 kilometres from their present location, while the third option is to find them an entirely new location.

In any event, none of the options will be easily accomplished as new housing will have to be provided and the biggest hurdle will be to convince residents to move in the first place.

Wang Thonglang district chief officer Thanita Phraewanich said the worst scenario for the residents is the fact that they do not have the financial means to relocate.

But if the government is able to provide some support and they are relocated not too far away from where they were currently living then the process might prove relatively painless, she said.

“You must remember that every one of these residents have personal attachments to their houses,”

The BMA plans to relocate all homes located along the nine major klongs spread out within eight districts within the capital in order to facilitate the construction of the flood embankments.

Residents along Klong Prem Pracha, Klong Bang Khaen and Klong Sam Wa will all face eviction as a result.

But deputy professor Dr Chamlong Phothiboon, the dean of the Environmental Management and Development Faculty at the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), warned that all residents must be convinced to understand the necessity of the action as it is becoming evident that many are as yet unaware of the situation and will not want to move.

If clear concise information is provided and they are treated fairly, people will understand that the embankments will provide flood prevention for all residents of Bangkok.

He said officials must be sent to talk the matter over with the residents to judge if they are willing to move.

The BMA and the National Housing Authority responsible for looking after the welfare of residents and must find new locations and housing for the planned relocation. What will be critical is the new location must provide at least an equal level of living standard as the former location, he said.

In the past, similar plans to evict squatters along the canals were unsuccessful because past governments were unable to provide alternative housing for them.

Presently, 2.4 billion baht has been set aside for the entire project and the BMA stresses that houses with legal permits and land titles will not be subjected to eviction.

All other illegal squatters will have to move no matter how long they have lived there.

The project is expected to begin in earnest this May and should be completed within four years.

One canal resident Salakjit Tsaeharn said whatever part that the BMA wishes to demolish she would allow but she would not move because she was old and don’t have the means to build or buy a new home.

She has been there for over 30 years.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/canal-squatters-in-capital-to-face-forced-eviction

-- Thai PBS 2015-04-04

[Lite Beer]

Prayut says eviction of canal squatters necessary

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha last night stressed the need to regulate squatters along the city's nine major canals to prevent repeated flooding problem in the capital on a sustainable basis.

He said it was necessary to begin the eviction of squatters now otherwise there would have no chance forever to do it.

He raised squatters along Klong Ladprao which eviction has to begin now as the next rainy season is coming.

There are over 3,000 households encroaching the canal that will face eviction, he said.

He said they would be moved out of the canals first so the canal could be regulated to pave the way for flood prevention scheme.

Although it was not an easy task, it has to be done immediately while authorities would find new locations for them.

He assured that the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security and the National Housing Authority will work together to find new homes for the evicted squatters.

Gen Prayut also raised his much criticised Section 44 for talk, saying of its advantages in pushing projects to go ahead with no unnecessary delays under the bureaucratic procedures.

As The Nation reported, He said Section 44 was used constructively to resolve the aviation woes within the timeframe.

He said that the Civil Aviation Department needs to have more staff, including foreigners to restore public confidence.

The power under Section 44 would ensure that this can be completed within 30 days, he said.

On the subsequent 60 days, a department to oversee the aviation industry will be established for the licensing while the Civil Aviation Department would maintain only the regulatory power.

As the number of flights have escalated to hundreds of thousands, the current staff of the department could never be able to handle, he said.

Under normal process, it would take a year and a half to establish a new department and recruit staff, he said while insisting that with the power under Section 44, he would make it in 90 days.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/prayut-says-eviction-of-canal-squatters-necessary

-- Thai PBS 2015-04-04

[ourmanflint]

This is a good move, these squatters, and almost all khlong side residents spend every day of every year of their lives polluting the canals. I just hope moving them away will be enough to stop their appalling habits.

[bangkokfrog]

This is a good move, these squatters, and almost all khlong side residents spend every day of every year of their lives polluting the canals. I just hope moving them away will be enough to stop their appalling habits.

A heartless comment and I pray that you never find yourself homeless and destitute

Why do these people squat? Because they have nowhere else to live and culturally squatting is seen as "O.K." Why do (might) they pollute? Because they either know no better or have nowhere else to throw out their garbage. Yes, it is a problem that needs to be solved and I agree with the government's action. But please treat the people with dignity.

[seajae]

houses were built illegally, why should they have any say, they all know that they should not be there but simply dont care, they want it for free. Being sorry fro them doesnt come into it, they dont have to do anything for them really but will, those refusing to move or demanding something else should just be tossed out, give them a set date then start demolishing them,if they want to they can have them taken apart themselves before the date otherwise they just have to leave. This is reality, people cannot just squat where they want with no comeback plus the canals are not their personal toilets and garbage collection points

[DLock]

Difficult situation, and I feel for some of these people.

On one hand they have lived rent free, or low rent, for a long time. Some people probably have taken advantage and have the means to move, others do not.

It's the older people who don't have the means to move elsewhere that I feel for.

I hope the Government thinks this through and just doesn't evict and dump these people far from their social support structure, food and welfare.

[ezzra]

This problem was allowed to fester for generation, while government after government, both local

and national have turned a blind eye and swept it under the carpet,

If the Thai government can squander zillions to rescue clueless framers and other industries,

surly they can find a long time and amicable solutions to house the canal people with dignity and respect.....

[DonaldBattles]

Esan is looking for more people and they have lots of jobs waiting.

[ratcatcher]

Many years ago before Bangkok was ruined, thousands of Thais lived alongside the canals (klongs) as their transportation system was water based.

The culture is still used to attract tourist to faux floating markets. Today's problem is the klongs are used as sewers and drainage canals as well as garbage dumping areas in some places.

A look at a few of the pictures here will illustrate the wide variety of "klongside" dwellings. I imagine some residents have actual land titles to waterside property and are thus immune from the clean out.:https://www.google.com/search?q=canal+side+houses+in+bangkok&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=WqgfVYqiHc-eugSCtoCIBw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg&biw=1009&bih=606

No doubt once the squatters are removed and the flood embankments are installed, there will be a flood of greedy developers lined up wanting to build 'des res' waterfront condos for the yuppy Bangkokneys to buy. Will be useful in a few years when a Venetian lifestyle prevails in Bangkok.

[NickJ]

Yeah....right, alongside, not in it. Its polluted. Its mutagenic......

[Strangebrew]

Could do like Philippines accidental fire cleared a huge section in no time.

[clockman]

Somebody has been payed, For years. Like where do they get electricity from? All Thailands problem stem from a totaly corrupt society!

>

[slapout]

many civil servents joined the service due to their receiving multiple benifits, a living wage, hospital care etc, the real world work force expect good, bad, and other conditions from one extreme to another. suck it up do the job you applied for and were hired to do. if not educate yourself to international standards or do as you would appear most qualified to do, give up you cush position, look fore/make any excuse to do as little as pssible, and go set on the street panhandling

i know many people who make hard decisions every day, effects of those decisions leave some people injured, killed or disappear. life is not faqir, predictable nor confortable most of the time. that is wht we have tr=erms like work, uninemployed, fired, disabled, job discription, review acce4pting a mistake w3as make and fix/repair what was broke, make excuses later to reduce the possibility of a 2nd coming problems that can be prevented.

the work ethitic of a vast number of warm bodie wondering around seem to mirror the soi dogs and those who have chosen to be their primary minders.a pure disgrase to the work ethetic of mankind of the past few years

[Chris Lawrence]

Squatters do have rights if they have occupied land for a certain amount of time, done certain things to comply with the lands occupation. I saw the quote below on a legal web site. So not sure how, or if the land that is being taken back, is private or Government land.

So some, not all of these people may have a legal and legitimate claim on the lands.

Under Thai law, squatters who occupied another person's land without permission can eventually claim ownership of the said land parcels if the land's rightful owner was not able to evict them in a certain period of time. A Chanote title deed gives land owners 10 years to evict the squatters from their land before they lose their ownership. http://usa.siam-legal.com/property-thailand/title-deeds.php

[JOC]

houses were built illegally, why should they have any say, they all know that they should not be there but simply dont care, they want it for free. Being sorry fro them doesnt come into it, they dont have to do anything for them really but will, those refusing to move or demanding something else should just be tossed out, give them a set date then start demolishing them,if they want to they can have them taken apart themselves before the date otherwise they just have to leave. This is reality, people cannot just squat where they want with no comeback plus the canals are not their personal toilets and garbage collection points

Don't fall off your high horse!!

I remember a long time back you posted here about problems with the Australian Government had stopped your disability pension, red tape of some kind, I don't remember. Common sense prevailed and your payments were green lighted again.

If that had not happened, maybe you could have ended up in a situation similar to those people (we don't know their history).

Just because you are on dry land now, it doesn't IMO justify your attitude of: Send in the bulldozers!!

A little softer edges and a little empathy is never wrong........................

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Don't fall off your high horse!!

houses were built illegally, why should they have any say, they all know that they should not be there but simply dont care, they want it for free. Being sorry fro them doesnt come into it, they dont have to do anything for them really but will, those refusing to move or demanding something else should just be tossed out, give them a set date then start demolishing them,if they want to they can have them taken apart themselves before the date otherwise they just have to leave. This is reality, people cannot just squat where they want with no comeback plus the canals are not their personal toilets and garbage collection points

I remember a long time back you posted here about problems with the Australian Government had stopped your disability pension, red tape of some kind, I don't remember. Common sense prevailed and your payments were green lighted again.

If that had not happened, maybe you could have ended up in a situation similar to those people (we don't know their history).

Just because you are on dry land now, it doesn't IMO justify your attitude of: Send in the bulldozers!!

A little softer edges and a little empathy is never wrong........................ alt=coffee1.gif width=32 height=24>

I rather doubt you can fully comprehend spoken Thai and it's various inflections and interpretations (the 11 Thai smiles comes to mind) but never mind that, you as always just always quickly look for opportunities to criticize. But perhaps that's your goal and to be honest you do well.

Serious flooding in the greater Bkk area still remains a very serious problem despite all the talk and promises, all colours, for 40? years.

Perhaps, and I doubt you know the answer, this is what should have been done 40 ? years ago, but wasn't done partly because 'it might upset people'. (or because there wasn't a good %.)

Well we could continue with that line, but there is a strong argument to get serious and do something substantive.

Will some people be upset? Probably yes. But does that mean 'do nothing'.

There's also the point that you and I don't know in detail what details have been discussed with 'the locals'.

But don't let that get in your way to automatically post negative.

[JOC]

^^^

Having a bad hair day, are we??

How can asking another poster to show empathy be considered negativity?

Yes those people have to be moved for the greater good of all Bangkokians, but in a civil way with respect and dignity, not by sending in the bulldozers!! But within a time frame of course.

[seajae]

houses were built illegally, why should they have any say, they all know that they should not be there but simply dont care, they want it for free. Being sorry fro them doesnt come into it, they dont have to do anything for them really but will, those refusing to move or demanding something else should just be tossed out, give them a set date then start demolishing them,if they want to they can have them taken apart themselves before the date otherwise they just have to leave. This is reality, people cannot just squat where they want with no comeback plus the canals are not their personal toilets and garbage collection points

Don't fall off your high horse!!

I remember a long time back you posted here about problems with the Australian Government had stopped your disability pension, red tape of some kind, I don't remember. Common sense prevailed and your payments were green lighted again.

If that had not happened, maybe you could have ended up in a situation similar to those people (we don't know their history).

Just because you are on dry land now, it doesn't IMO justify your attitude of: Send in the bulldozers!!

A little softer edges and a little empathy is never wrong........................

sorry mate, one thing I will not do is bludge off others or illegally squat on someone elses land, I was in the right with the aussie govt and they had no right to stop my payments, the legal system proved that and made them apologize and reimburse me, I was not trying to get something for nothing or claim something I was not entitled too, these people are, they built them without any legal authority, they have no sewage system and just crap in the canal, they have no rubbish set up and just throw that in there too, maybe if they actually took care of the area instead of turning it into a cesspit they would not be so badly treated but they simply dont care because they dont own it. Trying to use my physical condition has nothing to do with this(and is pretty pathetic), it is just another way for you to stir sh*t because you cant give a decent reason for them to be there. If they showed some sort of remorse or admitted they were wrong maybe I would feel sorry for them but they are demanding new houses to be built for them, land given to them they even want to remain on the edge of the canals in prime spots, with the attitudes they are displaying empathy doesnt come into it. So Joc what name were you operating under before you were kicked out? and came back with this one, for someone that has been a member for 7 months you are remembering things from years ago........

Edited April 4, 2015 by seajae

[dragonfly94]

These people are breaking the law and need to be moved on, Thailand does not owe these squatters a living. The bleeding hearts on here would sing a different tune if scum were occupying their own land, that would be different!

[Happy Grumpy]

Put the houses on rafts and then let them float on the canal.

Fix little props to them so they can help push the flood water out to sea.

Perfect solution.

[ourmanflint]

This is a good move, these squatters, and almost all khlong side residents spend every day of every year of their lives polluting the canals. I just hope moving them away will be enough to stop their appalling habits.

A heartless comment and I pray that you never find yourself homeless and destitute

Why do these people squat? Because they have nowhere else to live and culturally squatting is seen as "O.K." Why do (might) they pollute? Because they either know no better or have nowhere else to throw out their garbage. Yes, it is a problem that needs to be solved and I agree with the government's action. But please treat the people with dignity.

Not heartless at all, just pragmatic. Its about time something should be done about bringing the khlongs back into everyday use, and back into a less polluted state.

[samsensam]

if you have seen these buildings you will know the living conditions are atrocious. no running water, no sanitation people should not be living like this.

as to where they go and what they do it's their responsibility. there is a blind woman who has a small stall selling bread every day at a bus stop near my place. yesterday i saw a one armed street cleaner, he had a broom and one of those shovel things on poles they use here. it wasnt easy but he was working hard. my thai friends who own businesses are crying out for staff who will work hard and not petty pilfer.

there is work out there for people motivated to find it and to work hard.

[tbthailand]

This is a good move, these squatters, and almost all khlong side residents spend every day of every year of their lives polluting the canals. I just hope moving them away will be enough to stop their appalling habits.

A heartless comment and I pray that you never find yourself homeless and destitute

Why do these people squat? Because they have nowhere else to live and culturally squatting is seen as "O.K." Why do (might) they pollute? Because they either know no better or have nowhere else to throw out their garbage. Yes, it is a problem that needs to be solved and I agree with the government's action. But please treat the people with dignity.

thanks for that comment. Even the article was more sympathetic that "ourmanflint".

Just to add, regarding pollution, I am more appalled at the industrial pollution done by Thai billionaire industrialists than I am about squatters on a canal...

[tbthailand]

These people are breaking the law and need to be moved on, Thailand does not owe these squatters a living. The bleeding hearts on here would sing a different tune if scum were occupying their own land, that would be different!

another heartless and obscene post from "scum occupying" this forum...

[Enoon]

This is a good move, these squatters, and almost all khlong side residents spend every day of every year of their lives polluting the canals. I just hope moving them away will be enough to stop their appalling habits.

A heartless comment and I pray that you never find yourself homeless and destitute

Why do these people squat? Because they have nowhere else to live and culturally squatting is seen as "O.K." Why do (might) they pollute? Because they either know no better or have nowhere else to throw out their garbage. Yes, it is a problem that needs to be solved and I agree with the government's action. But please treat the people with dignity.

Not heartless at all, just pragmatic. Its about time something should be done about bringing the khlongs back into everyday use, and back into a less polluted state.

Would this be the sort of "everyday use" that you would like to see the khlongs brought "back" to, but with sanitation?

As has been pointed out many of these people, perhaps the majority, will have squatters rights so maybe the authorities could facilitate their continued residence by providing sanitaion, etc.

Oh no, that wouldn't do, where would be the profit in that?

Bangkok circa 1900

[NCFC]

houses were built illegally, why should they have any say, they all know that they should not be there but simply dont care, they want it for free. Being sorry fro them doesnt come into it, they dont have to do anything for them really but will, those refusing to move or demanding something else should just be tossed out, give them a set date then start demolishing them,if they want to they can have them taken apart themselves before the date otherwise they just have to leave. This is reality, people cannot just squat where they want with no comeback plus the canals are not their personal toilets and garbage collection points

And so speaks one of the elite's most avid supporters. Thanks for allowing us an insight into the way your mind works.

[NeverSure]

Squatters do have rights if they have occupied land for a certain amount of time, done certain things to comply with the lands occupation. I saw the quote below on a legal web site. So not sure how, or if the land that is being taken back, is private or Government land.

So some, not all of these people may have a legal and legitimate claim on the lands.

Under Thai law, squatters who occupied another person's land without permission can eventually claim ownership of the said land parcels if the land's rightful owner was not able to evict them in a certain period of time. A Chanote title deed gives land owners 10 years to evict the squatters from their land before they lose their ownership. http://usa.siam-legal.com/property-thailand/title-deeds.php

This is certainly also true in Western countries, but then they have the rule of law.

There is a legal presumption that if someone lives on land openly, notoriously and continuously for ten years, no one else then has an interest in it so it must belong to the inhabitant. Surely if there was an owner they would have been evicted. (The number of years varies with jurisdictions, but the doctrine doesn't.)

I wish this was true (or enforced) in Thailand because if it were, Thailand would have to pay for or replace these dwellings. Governments usually have the right of "eminent domain" and can take someone's property for the public good. But they can't take it without paying for or providing an alternative.

I know these people have to move but they are truly on the bottom and they should be moved with respect and dignity after all of this time.

[Chris Lawrence]

Squatters do have rights if they have occupied land for a certain amount of time, done certain things to comply with the lands occupation. I saw the quote below on a legal web site. So not sure how, or if the land that is being taken back, is private or Government land.

So some, not all of these people may have a legal and legitimate claim on the lands.

Under Thai law, squatters who occupied another person's land without permission can eventually claim ownership of the said land parcels if the land's rightful owner was not able to evict them in a certain period of time. A Chanote title deed gives land owners 10 years to evict the squatters from their land before they lose their ownership. http://usa.siam-legal.com/property-thailand/title-deeds.php

This is certainly also true in Western countries, but then they have the rule of law.

There is a legal presumption that if someone lives on land openly, notoriously and continuously for ten years, no one else then has an interest in it so it must belong to the inhabitant. Surely if there was an owner they would have been evicted. (The number of years varies with jurisdictions, but the doctrine doesn't.)

I wish this was true (or enforced) in Thailand because if it were, Thailand would have to pay for or replace these dwellings. Governments usually have the right of "eminent domain" and can take someone's property for the public good. But they can't take it without paying for or providing an alternative.

I know these people have to move but they are truly on the bottom and they should be moved with respect and dignity after all of this time.

Unless you can quote a statute that outlines your case, it would appear that your opinion is an opinion with no meaning in property law.

Eminent Domain is about compulsory acquisition, which is normally the acquiring of land by a Government Department or statutory authority for public use?

"In the past, the King had privileges to expropriate the land as it is deemed expedient. There is a legal research that the King would always give the evicting people fair compensation or arrange for relocation to the new places.

When private property is taken under the right of “Eminent Domain”, a fair price is paid to the owner by governing authorities. If the owner refuses to accept the price offered, condemnation proceeding are bought by the government and commissioners are appointed to appraise the property. The appraised value is paid to the owner." http://thaisolicitor.com/?p=97

They would still be paid compensation under “Eminent Domain”?

Need to do some research before posting, Neversure?

What the Government will rely on is ignorance and the poverty of the people affected, together with their poor education levels. Some may have a case, not all, but some.

[NeverSure]

Squatters do have rights if they have occupied land for a certain amount of time, done certain things to comply with the lands occupation. I saw the quote below on a legal web site. So not sure how, or if the land that is being taken back, is private or Government land.

So some, not all of these people may have a legal and legitimate claim on the lands.

Under Thai law, squatters who occupied another person's land without permission can eventually claim ownership of the said land parcels if the land's rightful owner was not able to evict them in a certain period of time. A Chanote title deed gives land owners 10 years to evict the squatters from their land before they lose their ownership. http://usa.siam-legal.com/property-thailand/title-deeds.php

This is certainly also true in Western countries, but then they have the rule of law.

There is a legal presumption that if someone lives on land openly, notoriously and continuously for ten years, no one else then has an interest in it so it must belong to the inhabitant. Surely if there was an owner they would have been evicted. (The number of years varies with jurisdictions, but the doctrine doesn't.)

I wish this was true (or enforced) in Thailand because if it were, Thailand would have to pay for or replace these dwellings. Governments usually have the right of "eminent domain" and can take someone's property for the public good. But they can't take it without paying for or providing an alternative.

I know these people have to move but they are truly on the bottom and they should be moved with respect and dignity after all of this time.

Unless you can quote a statute that outlines your case, it would appear that your opinion is an opinion with no meaning in property law.

Eminent Domain is about compulsory acquisition, which is normally the acquiring of land by a Government Department or statutory authority for public use?

"In the past, the King had privileges to expropriate the land as it is deemed expedient. There is a legal research that the King would always give the evicting people fair compensation or arrange for relocation to the new places.

When private property is taken under the right of “Eminent Domain”, a fair price is paid to the owner by governing authorities. If the owner refuses to accept the price offered, condemnation proceeding are bought by the government and commissioners are appointed to appraise the property. The appraised value is paid to the owner." http://thaisolicitor.com/?p=97

They would still be paid compensation under “Eminent Domain”?

Need to do some research before posting, Neversure?

What the Government will rely on is ignorance and the poverty of the people affected, together with their poor education levels. Some may have a case, not all, but some.

What in the heck did you say that I didn't say, and why do you have to be so rude?

1. I explained the doctrine of adverse possession - that someone could own land by occupying it openly, notoriously and continuously, and I said I wish that was true in Thailand.

2. I explained the law of eminent domain where a government could take land for its own use. If the people owned the land by adverse possession, then the government would have to take it under eminent domain and compensate for it. I said I wished that were true for these people.

Do you understand now, "Chris"?

Geez.

[choff56]

Prayut says eviction of canal squatters necessary

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha last night stressed the need to regulate squatters along the city's nine major canals to prevent repeated flooding problem in the capital on a sustainable basis.

He said it was necessary to begin the eviction of squatters now otherwise there would have no chance forever to do it.

He raised squatters along Klong Ladprao which eviction has to begin now as the next rainy season is coming.

There are over 3,000 households encroaching the canal that will face eviction, he said.

He said they would be moved out of the canals first so the canal could be regulated to pave the way for flood prevention scheme.

Although it was not an easy task, it has to be done immediately while authorities would find new locations for them.

He assured that the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security and the National Housing Authority will work together to find new homes for the evicted squatters.

Gen Prayut also raised his much criticised Section 44 for talk, saying of its advantages in pushing projects to go ahead with no unnecessary delays under the bureaucratic procedures.

As The Nation reported, He said Section 44 was used constructively to resolve the aviation woes within the timeframe.

He said that the Civil Aviation Department needs to have more staff, including foreigners to restore public confidence.

The power under Section 44 would ensure that this can be completed within 30 days, he said.

On the subsequent 60 days, a department to oversee the aviation industry will be established for the licensing while the Civil Aviation Department would maintain only the regulatory power.

As the number of flights have escalated to hundreds of thousands, the current staff of the department could never be able to handle, he said.

Under normal process, it would take a year and a half to establish a new department and recruit staff, he said while insisting that with the power under Section 44, he would make it in 90 days.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/prayut-says-eviction-of-canal-squatters-necessary

-- Thai PBS 2015-04-04

In response to his order, the "canal squatters" replied, it is necessary to begin the evictions of the government squatters now otherwise there would have no chance forever to do it.