8 ms·

Spain also has relatively few homeless, at least compared to some other European countries. They have made it "de facto" legal to break in to an empty, unused h

Spain also has relatively few homeless, at least compared to some other European countries. They have made it "de facto" legal to break in to an empty, unused home. If you squat a home, proceedings can take years to get you out of there. The only way to get an express eviction is if the owner reports it in the first 72 hours of people moving in. So no wonder you see bars on every single house window and alarms.

ekianjo 3y ago
> They have made it "de facto" legal to break in to an empty, unused home. If you squat a home, proceedings can take years to get you out of there. Same for France
- tfourb 3y ago
  Not at all the same in Germany, but even as a property owner, I see some justification for effectively legalizing squatting in unused buildings. It would create some incentive for property owners to invest and rent out buildings, or otherwise sell them cheaply. Ideally this would be formalized and matched with a proper framework, i.e. municipalities can easily buy unused properties at a nominal cost, property owners can "convert" squatters into renters (who actually own rent) by bringing the property up to a minimum standard (which in turn the squatter would have to accept or move out), etc.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    > It would create some incentive for property owners to invest and rent out buildings, or otherwise sell them cheaply. Property is property, you should be free to do what you want with them. Otherwise it's not property. It's like saying "you have a car, you need to use it everyday, otherwise we can justify people borrowing your car when they need one". Also, rent controls, aren't they a thing in some parts of Germany like Berlin? That's what leads to poor usage of apartments, because if you own several places and the rent imposed by the authorities is too low for you to turn a profit, then it's not worth renting either.
    - m000 3y ago
      Property and property rights are defined by the society. It's not a natural law or something. If society agrees that property works in a "use it or lose it" manner, so it is.
    - redeeman 3y ago
      to my sibling comment, so what you're saying is, mob rule? this is probably defacto how it is, but it does not make it right. Nobody else has any rights to what I own, and I dont have rights to them. this kind of thinking that the "society" can just set rules that violates other people is a sick and disgusting development, this form of communist cancer has to be destroyed.
      - tfourb 3y ago
        See my sibling comment: property in most societies is something that not only confers rights to the owner, but also responsibilities. If you own an apartment in a city where there is great demand for housing, but (for whatever reason) you decide against making that apartment available for someone to use, society (through creating laws and regulations) can decide that you forfeit your rights to that property. It is the same logic that is behind laws and regulations that force people to improve their property in some way, i.e. by removing lead paint, installing more efficient heating, etc. This logic is well accepted throughout the world. "Property obligates" is the historical and present norm (except maybe in the U.S.) and the extreme libertarian view of "absolute rights" to property is probably what is a "sick and disgusting" development.
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        Look, there are two possible definitions of "ownership" and "property". One is, you own whatever you can physically keep. If you have a pretty stone, and I come to you, and bash your head in, and take your stone, guess what, it's mine now. If I scoop your brains out of your half-broken skull, I'll have a new ashtray too, so I profit off this exchange! The second definition is, whatever set of rules the society enforces to prevent the scenario described above, which define what I can keep, and under what conditions. You could say these rules "violate other people" and is "communist cancer", and you're right in a way - my natural right of coming over to you and bashing your head in is surely being violated now! But I prefer this anyway, because it also protects me from getting my head bashed in by someone stronger than me.
  - ricardobayes 3y ago
    That's exactly what they are trying to do. With the new law signed recently, they are increasing the yearly tax heavily on unused properties.
    - everybodyknows 3y ago
      That is of course the way to redistribute idle personal property to socially positive ends that does not involve imposing misery upon entire neighborhoods. It's some comment on the perversity of legislative processes that such taxes are not the norm everywhere. Admittedly, enforcement efforts will surely be challenged.
maccard 3y ago
> if the owner reports it in the first 72 hours So I could literally go away for a long weekend and come back and be homeless? That's _way_ too short!
- eloisant 3y ago
  Talking about France that has a similar law: no, that only works for unused homes. Let's say you have an empty secondary home that you don't use, don't rent, etc. Maybe you're trying to sell it, or maybe you just don't care because you have the money and you're sitting on it until you maybe take the time to renovate it or put it on the market. That's where a squatter can be considered "living" there even if it's unlawful. That doesn't mean he owns the house now, or that he can't be evicted - just that the police won't kick him out without a court order. The court order can take some time and in any case nobody can be evicted during winter.
- NeoTar 3y ago
  No. The key word was "Empty and unused" - if you are living in a house (i.e. it is your primary residence) and take a vacation, it's not empty and unused. It is a problem for landlords with empty properties, or for little used vacation homes. Although apparently there are alarms which will automatically call the police when someone breaks into your property which is apparently enough to trigger the 'within 72h' deadline.
dahwolf 3y ago
That's why in the Netherlands owners of unused buildings often use anti-squad tactics. They let in a legitimate renter in a type of anti-squat deal: rent is low but you can be kicked out at anytime (about 1 month notice).

ekianjo 3y ago

> They have made it "de facto" legal to break in to an empty, unused home. If you squat a home, proceedings can take years to get you out of there. Same for France

tfourb 3y ago
Not at all the same in Germany, but even as a property owner, I see some justification for effectively legalizing squatting in unused buildings. It would create some incentive for property owners to invest and rent out buildings, or otherwise sell them cheaply. Ideally this would be formalized and matched with a proper framework, i.e. municipalities can easily buy unused properties at a nominal cost, property owners can "convert" squatters into renters (who actually own rent) by bringing the property up to a minimum standard (which in turn the squatter would have to accept or move out), etc.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  > It would create some incentive for property owners to invest and rent out buildings, or otherwise sell them cheaply. Property is property, you should be free to do what you want with them. Otherwise it's not property. It's like saying "you have a car, you need to use it everyday, otherwise we can justify people borrowing your car when they need one". Also, rent controls, aren't they a thing in some parts of Germany like Berlin? That's what leads to poor usage of apartments, because if you own several places and the rent imposed by the authorities is too low for you to turn a profit, then it's not worth renting either.
  - m000 3y ago
    Property and property rights are defined by the society. It's not a natural law or something. If society agrees that property works in a "use it or lose it" manner, so it is.
  - redeeman 3y ago
    to my sibling comment, so what you're saying is, mob rule? this is probably defacto how it is, but it does not make it right. Nobody else has any rights to what I own, and I dont have rights to them. this kind of thinking that the "society" can just set rules that violates other people is a sick and disgusting development, this form of communist cancer has to be destroyed.
    - tfourb 3y ago
      See my sibling comment: property in most societies is something that not only confers rights to the owner, but also responsibilities. If you own an apartment in a city where there is great demand for housing, but (for whatever reason) you decide against making that apartment available for someone to use, society (through creating laws and regulations) can decide that you forfeit your rights to that property. It is the same logic that is behind laws and regulations that force people to improve their property in some way, i.e. by removing lead paint, installing more efficient heating, etc. This logic is well accepted throughout the world. "Property obligates" is the historical and present norm (except maybe in the U.S.) and the extreme libertarian view of "absolute rights" to property is probably what is a "sick and disgusting" development.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Look, there are two possible definitions of "ownership" and "property". One is, you own whatever you can physically keep. If you have a pretty stone, and I come to you, and bash your head in, and take your stone, guess what, it's mine now. If I scoop your brains out of your half-broken skull, I'll have a new ashtray too, so I profit off this exchange! The second definition is, whatever set of rules the society enforces to prevent the scenario described above, which define what I can keep, and under what conditions. You could say these rules "violate other people" and is "communist cancer", and you're right in a way - my natural right of coming over to you and bashing your head in is surely being violated now! But I prefer this anyway, because it also protects me from getting my head bashed in by someone stronger than me.
- ricardobayes 3y ago
  That's exactly what they are trying to do. With the new law signed recently, they are increasing the yearly tax heavily on unused properties.
  - everybodyknows 3y ago
    That is of course the way to redistribute idle personal property to socially positive ends that does not involve imposing misery upon entire neighborhoods. It's some comment on the perversity of legislative processes that such taxes are not the norm everywhere. Admittedly, enforcement efforts will surely be challenged.

maccard 3y ago

> if the owner reports it in the first 72 hours So I could literally go away for a long weekend and come back and be homeless? That's _way_ too short!

eloisant 3y ago
Talking about France that has a similar law: no, that only works for unused homes. Let's say you have an empty secondary home that you don't use, don't rent, etc. Maybe you're trying to sell it, or maybe you just don't care because you have the money and you're sitting on it until you maybe take the time to renovate it or put it on the market. That's where a squatter can be considered "living" there even if it's unlawful. That doesn't mean he owns the house now, or that he can't be evicted - just that the police won't kick him out without a court order. The court order can take some time and in any case nobody can be evicted during winter.
NeoTar 3y ago
No. The key word was "Empty and unused" - if you are living in a house (i.e. it is your primary residence) and take a vacation, it's not empty and unused. It is a problem for landlords with empty properties, or for little used vacation homes. Although apparently there are alarms which will automatically call the police when someone breaks into your property which is apparently enough to trigger the 'within 72h' deadline.

dahwolf 3y ago

That's why in the Netherlands owners of unused buildings often use anti-squad tactics. They let in a legitimate renter in a type of anti-squat deal: rent is low but you can be kicked out at anytime (about 1 month notice).