And if you had 5, 10, or 20 squatters... how long do you think it would take one jerk to ruin the place top to bottom.
Squatters don't need to be all bad to destroy properties. Only a tiny percentage of them have to be destructive, and then building will look like a hellhole by the time the owner sees what's been done.
You have made some logical errors here.
The fact that there is a hole in the wall is not ascribed to squatters and could equally be attributed to general disrepair.
I accept you might say: "there has been at least some crime, so there has been at least one criminal"... but you still don't know if that one criminal was a squatter or how many squatters there were who were not committing such crimes.
In the end, this anecdotal/circumstantial evidence teaches us nothing.
But I do take the point about the cost of evicting plus lost revenue. Use of empty properties could be a good solution for homelessness if well managed but the Govt. doesn't want to put resources towards that because it's easier to let charities deal with it.
I know quite a few people who've lived in squats from time to time over the years, and they're generally lovely people.
So, you know, we can all have an opinion.