It's articles like this that really antagonize the far left to people who might otherwise be their allies. EDIT: By which I should probably say that my underlying sentiment is that this article offends me and probably offends a lot of people who have things they need, and just happen to have more things they need than other people who have things they need. If, for example, a homeless schizophrenic guy started squatting in my house I'd be quite reasonable to kick him out (because I'd feel unsafe, unsure that my house and my possessions - like my clothes, a method of transportation, and the computer that among other things I use as a tool for my education - were secure, and that I was now open to various diseases that people living in impoverished conditions are more prone to), and though it would be the nice thing to do to point him toward people who can help him, I don't think I'm absolutely obligated to do so. There are any number of other situations where this Robin Hood-ism falls completely flat, as much as I agree with things like universal healthcare and access to all levels of education and a progressive taxation system, and this 'direct action' stuff is basically small-scale terrorism. Don't stoop to their level.
It is unlikely that the average individual is going to be harmed by this advice. Your own personal home is not going to become a squat - you will not return home one day and find people living in it. It actually plays out more like this: a bank forecloses on a house and the owners leave (or the owners simply stay and stop paying). The article did end up drawing a line toward the end between stealing from individuals and stealing from large corporations.
btw, you did the tag right? i like it. i'll probably use it #tohellwithpropertyrights