35 ms·

Squatting in Spain: Understanding Spain's "okupas" problem

• I_o_IllI__o_I 2y ago
  > The battle against squatting in Spain is not only a legal skirmish but also a deeply personal and emotional one for many property owners. The stories of those who have endured the frustration and helplessness of having their properties occupied illicitly are both compelling and heart-wrenching. These narratives underscore the profound impact that squatting can have on individuals, extending far beyond the financial losses to include significant emotional distress and a sense of violation. [...] > Property owners have shared experiences of feeling powerless as they grapple with the lengthy and often cumbersome legal process to evict squatters. Those poor landlords! Property owners are truly the most oppressed minority in Spain. It's heart-wrenchingly sad hearing their accounts of legal procedures and having to evict people living in their properties:(
• forgotmypw17 2y ago
  https://archive.is/xdoLf https://archive.is/xdoLf
  • hichamdoe 2y ago
    Epic! Same article... This bastards does this periodically...
• dheera 2y ago
  One thing I don't get -- if the law doesn't help why don't the owners of these properties release fart spray everywhere and turn the heat up to max until it is unlivable?
  • ds_opseeker 2y ago
    because that is illegal?
    • salmonfamine 2y ago
      So actual anarcho-tyranny?
  • diggan 2y ago
    > why don't the owners of these properties release fart spray everywhere and turn the heat up to max until it is unlivable? If the okupas have been there for longer than 48 hours without you trying to get rid of them, doing something like that could be considered harassment and/or endangering the occupants' health, so you'd probably face criminal charges for it. You're not allowed to alter the living conditions to force them out, but you need to (within 48 hours of the occupation) legally get them out of the property.
    • Adrox 2y ago
      Yup, lots of cases where the owners stopped paying/turned-off water, gas, electricity and the court made them turned them back on (and pay all the bills).
      • ssijak 2y ago
        madness
    • dheera 2y ago
      What if your house already had fart spray releasers in the first place because you "love the smell", and your thermostat was "broken" in the first place? When you live there you know how to "fix" them but otherwise you are not obligated to fix them.
      • prmoustache 2y ago
        You are living in pure fantasy. The squatters would simply fix the thermostats and disconnect the sprays. The buildings are occupied because the owner do not live there. Squatters target housings that are left empty by owners who are just speculating on the market.
        • alexpc201 2y ago
          No, in Barcelona, there are numerous examples of people who went on vacation, leaving their apartment completely closed, and it was occupied.
  • novariation 2y ago
    I believe when they say the squatters have a "right to housing" it means "right to use a unit of housing that's not theirs as if they paid for it", which essentially means doing what you suggest would be illegal. The reality of the legal dimensions is probably much more complex though, but it's helpful to have a simplistic mental picture of what's expected to happen.
  • crote 2y ago
    I am not familiar with the specifics in Spain, but in a lot of jurisdictions that would be illegal. Until they are legally evicted they have the exact same rights as regular tenants, and harassing them would be a crime. The reasoning behind this is that some shady landlords might try to claim that genuine tenants are squatters in order to get rid of them. There are plenty of desperate people who'd accept a verbal contract and payment in cash, after all. Not that hard of a choice when the alternative is being homeless. Oh, but you paid your rent a day late? Sorry, you're now a "squatter", so we're cooking you alive until you leave. Making it too easy to get rid of squatters would expose the most vulnerable people in society to even more abuse, and making it trickier for absentee landlords to get rid of real squatters is considered a fair price to prevent this.
    • jeffbee 2y ago
      > try to claim that genuine tenants are squatters This, exactly. These kinds of slanted articles that only state the issue from the perspective of negligent absentee landlords, whether written by ChatGPT or otherwise, all have the same problem: that's not how property disputes are resolved. The first thing that a court would have to establish is that the person trying to remove another person from a given place would be whether the first person has any right to the place, and to what extent. And the next thing would be the question of whether the second person has a stake in the place, and the nature and extent of that interest. Then they have to balance interests. I know Spain is not America and doesn't share America's uniquely bad system of estates, but we see this all the time in America where a self-described landlord wants the county sheriff to immediately taser some old lady, but they can't even sufficiently demonstrate that they own the home.
    • giantg2 2y ago
      The easy fix here is to require property contracts in writing and to be filed with the government and educate everyone on that point. We already do this for property sales to avoid these very issues on ownership. The same thing for leasing would provide better protections for both parties.
      • ggpsv 2y ago
  • itronitron 2y ago
    The owners can hire contractors that will go to the property in order to help 'determine the conditions' under which the squatters will leave. My understanding is that it's usually a balance of physical intimidation and financial incentive.
    • StevenHarlow 2y ago
      I have seen this happen with a building across the street from where I lived. There were 5 large men who could have easily been bouncers in Oakland outside with "FueraOkupa" shirts. The woman left later that day.
  • anonzzzies 2y ago
    Well that does happen. It happened around me with a few houses that are empty during the winter (whatever you think of that): the squatters got refused service in the town by the bars, restaurants and super markets. People would accidentally walk into them so they would fall over. Every one drives straight at them when they walk only to correct at the last moment and shout profanities at them. People spit on them and say it’s the wind, throw hot coffee on them saying it’s an accident etc. Until they leave; you think the policia or guardia that has their familia living their all their lives and are probably family of the occupied houses is going to file anything? Didn’t take long two times it happened. Of course in less close knit communities it would be different; a third time was the house of an english bloke who only came over for the summer; they put all his stuff outside in the rain in the winter, made a weed grow place out of it and until they had proof of the weed, they couldn’t get them out. House was completely fucked when they got it back including the furniture which was outside all winter. Squatting is one thing and you could agree with it, but this shit is insane. And trying to get them doesn’t work as they clearly don’t have money to begin with.
• golergka 2y ago
  Why would anyone invest in development in a country with such laws?
  • zfxfr 2y ago
    We more or less have the same laws in France (and that's probably the case in other countries in EU)
  • diggan 2y ago
    Because we have doors and windows closed, so in reality this isn't a huge issue. But historically, we've had huge issues with low employment, poverty and empty houses being all around you, while you cannot afford rent. Lots of empty houses + no employment + no money for rent = lets take this house and live in since no one lives there and we don't have a house currently. Basically, if you buy property, make sure to close it and install a security system. If okupas appear, do the "legal fasttrack" and get them out within 48 hours and it won't be an issue.
    • golergka 2y ago
      > Basically, if you buy property, make sure to close it and install a security system. If okupas appear, do the "legal fasttrack" and get them out within 48 hours and it won't be an issue. Doesn't that make you not want to buy property in the first place? I'd rather buy it someplace where it can't be stolen.
      • diggan 2y ago
        > Doesn't that make you not want to buy property in the first place? If it was a common problem, then yes. But it's relatively uncommon, and to be honest, I'd rather have the existing system in place where people can legally occupy unused buildings, because there is a lot of them around here. And lots of property owners just keep them empty for years until their "investment" gives them the returns they want, which to me is a bigger problem than okupas.
        • 2y ago
• mbowcut2 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • diggan 2y ago
    The article is as bland and vanilla as HN comments complaining about articles being written by ChatGPT without providing any sort of evidence :)
    • benterix 2y ago
      What kind of evidence do you need? It could be summarized in 3 sentences - it's wordy and repetitive. A human could also write such a thing if paid by line but in 2024 I'd rather assume it's a human + LLM.
    • 123yawaworht456 2y ago
      after dealing with LLMs for a while, you just know. >It is essential for property owners in Spain to be proactive in protecting their assets against potential squatting. This includes ensuring that properties are properly secured, regularly monitored, and that any signs of illegal occupation are promptly addressed with legal action. For squatters, it is important to be aware of the legal risks associated with occupying a property without consent, as well as the potential social and ethical considerations of such actions. just this paragraph alone is as blatant as misshapen fingers and distorted text in AI-generated images.
      • diggan 2y ago
        I'm 99% sure the article was originally written in Spanish and then (either by human or machine), translated to English, as Idealista is a Spanish company. Jumping to the conclusion that a LLM has written it, when you don't even seem to understand the context, seems really rash. But then this is HN, so you're forgiven.
    • mbowcut2 2y ago
      Touché. I put the first paragraph in GPTZero, and it says 100% AI generated. Unfortunately, AI detectors are notoriously bad, giving all kinds of false positives, which goes to my initial point that it is largely a gut feeling. But if you look at other articles posted on the site by the same author they also come up as 100% AI generated on GPTZero, and they also fail the gut test.
• fergonco 2y ago
  It actually fosters innovation, like https://www.desokupa.com/ https://www.desokupa.com/, a mix of bullies and lawyers that "mediate" to get the properties back.
  • alexpc201 2y ago
    And millions of euros to Securitas, Prosegur et al.
  • southernplaces7 2y ago
    This was amusing. I appreciate the spirit of entrepreneurial innovation but one look at the entire group of employees and owner of this business gives a strong indication of how their mediation might go...
• dgan 2y ago
  Oh wow I thought only France has squatting problem. here the squatters can legally occupy your place for 48 hours, and if that's your only place and you went away on vacation tough luck buddy, they can shit on the floor and tear the walls down Good luck getting your money/property back
  • diggan 2y ago
    I'd see as both Spain and France has a housing crisis, the squatting is a symptom of that problem. Guess the difference is that in Spain if you detect them within 48 hours of them entering the property, you can "easily" and legally remove them with the help of the courts and police. But once you're beyond those 48 hours, things get a lot harder.
    • alexpc201 2y ago
      I don't know where you read about the existence of those magical "48 hours" to kick them out; that possibility doesn't exist in practice.
  • mijamo 2y ago
    This is obviously not accurate. The 48h delay is not 48h after squatters entered the place, but 48h after you DISCOVERED them. And after those 48h you will still get your property back, just much more slowly because it is just not considered an emergency anymore if you discover a problem and don't signal it immediately. If you go on vacation for 3 weeks, discover squatters when you come back and can prove you are the owner you will get the squatters kicked out in less than 24 hours, plus potentially arrested. And it makes sense, otherwise everyone would be squatting houses all the time!
    • pc86 2y ago
      Well most people aren't criminals so no I don't think "everyone would be squatting houses all the time" is accurate under any realistic scenario. What happens if the police don't respond? You discover them at the beginning of a long holiday weekend? It's a second residence and you discover them as you open the door to let your family stay there? The mental gymnastics people will go through to try to justify someone breaking & entering and trespassing on someone else's private property is insane. They are criminals and should be treated as such, regardless of when you find them, regardless of whether you report it immediately or take a few days to try to reason with them or not.
• gdffgfff 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • anticorporate 2y ago
    The government's job is to house its citizens. It sounds like the people are already organizing their own solutions to this.
    • violent_answer 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • hichamdoe 2y ago
        In Spain it is a mandate from our Constitution (https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2014-375#:~:text=El%20art%C3%ADculo%2047%20de%20la,para%20hacer%20efectivo%20este%20derecho https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2014-375#:~:text=....) to ensure and facilitate to citizens their right of roof.
        • violent_answer 2y ago
          [flagged]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• ssijak 2y ago
  This is pure madness. So you have 48 hours after squatting started to report it and potentially get a fast eviction (why is it not an automatic criminal case for breaking into the property is beyond me). But after 48 hours it seems like it becomes a nightmare. So if you are on a business trip for 3 days or visiting parents in a different city or vacationing for a few days and somebody enters your home, you are out of luck and the squatters now have more rights than you?!
  • diggan 2y ago
    As always, there are always multiple sides to any issue. Another commentator put it better than I could: > The reasoning behind this is that some shady landlords might try to claim that genuine tenants are squatters in order to get rid of them. There are plenty of desperate people who'd accept a verbal contract and payment in cash, after all. Not that hard of a choice when the alternative is being homeless. Oh, but you paid your rent a day late? Sorry, you're now a "squatter", so we're cooking you alive until you leave. > Making it too easy to get rid of squatters would expose the most vulnerable people in society to even more abuse, and making it trickier for absentee landlords to get rid of real squatters is considered a fair price to prevent this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40586929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40586929 It's not a black & white issue where one side is obviously right and the other one is obviously wrong.
    • giantg2 2y ago
      "Making it too easy to get rid of squatters would expose the most vulnerable people in society to even more abuse, and making it trickier for absentee landlords to get rid of real squatters is considered a fair price to prevent this." Except this is poorly thought out and not really true. You can provide better protection for both sides by requiring written and recorded contracts for real property use/rental, just as we do for real property sales today. "It's not a black & white issue where one side is obviously right and the other one is obviously wrong." That's because the system is broke and allows abuses by both sides.
      • 2y ago
• hichamdoe 2y ago
  This is bullshit. I'm dev from Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain) and the squatting topic is periodically being pumped up by the same dumb bastards (always the same companies and media). Squatting exists at the city but it is not an issue in the daily lifes of Barcelona and Spain citizens, only for the fucking big owners with more than 10 flats each. Squatting happens because this bastards (big owners) are inflating the flat prices and getting the people of Barcelona out of their neighborhoods and giving the homes for temporal tourists.
  • toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Does Spain have any affordable housing or non market housing efforts to keep units out of the hands of market owners?
    • hichamdoe 2y ago
      Nothing real, only empty promises from politicians. They say they are working on it, but I'm sure that it is not going to happen in short term.
  • miguelxt 2y ago
    Homicide is also NOT an issue in the daily life Spanish citizens, that doesn't prevent it from being a big problem for anyone who suffers the problem.
  • radres 2y ago
    Demand of people is the only way of inflating the prices. The people who would like to live in Spain, both Spanish people and non-Spanish, are the people who make your country as rich as it is. Am I hearing you saying "What rich? we have poor economy". Yeah, prevent people from investing in real estate and you'll be even poorer.
    • taopai 2y ago
      We are getting poorer because people invest in real state to their benefit without adding any social value to our lives. Only to higher our rent and making touristic flats. Which crowds our streets with noise and filth while the benefits are for foreign companies that are prostituting our cities like a thematic park.
• violent_answer 2y ago
  [flagged]
• m3kw9 2y ago
  It’s basic human nature at play. Laws were created to protect renters from owners and now the laws are taken advantaged to exploit owners.
• anthk 2y ago
  Idealista arguing on the ethics of squatting it's like Exxon fighting against pollution or Trump talking against bribery. I've seen war trenches which seemed more liveable than the average racoon hole rented at Idealista.
  • alfredgg 2y ago
    Amen!
• reify 2y ago
  Squatters cannot break into your home and take residence. They can only enter if you leave a window or door open for them to enter. If they break-in that is a criminal offence and the police will treat it as a buglary and arrest those in the property. I used to squat here on Airstrip One in my twenties when I was homeless. We did not squat in homes where people lived, We squatted in empty properties. The utilities companies would reconnect the gas and electricy for us but only if we paid a substantial deposit. I dont see anything wrong with squatting in empty homes. It is the fault of society that creates homelessness and squatting is sometimes the only way to get a roof over your head.
  • alexpc201 2y ago
    It is not what happened a few meters from my home in a completely closed apartment. The "squatters" broke the first-floor window to enter, the Mossos took 15 minutes to arrive and did absolutely nothing. They have been there for six months, they already changed the front door, and the owner cannot get them out.
    • throwaway2037 2y ago
      Can the owner hire thugs to show up with baseball bats? I would do that, or do it myself with a ski mask.
      • abyssin 2y ago
        In theory I bet it's an efficient option. But I'm curious about the risks and costs involved in dealing with such "services", and how easy it is to find reputable thugs.
        • hnbad 2y ago
          I used to know a guy who had an impressive physique and foreign accent and was hired for similar "communication jobs" (debt collection). It was all above board so he didn't carry any weapons and didn't do anything but the mere implication in his presence was often enough to motivate debtors to find ways to pay shortly after his visits. He was actually a nice guy and not much of a fighter.
• CobrastanJorji 2y ago
  > This is fueled by a complex blend of socio-economic factors. There are a bunch of poor people, scarce affordable housing, and also a bunch of empty houses owned by banks. That doesn't seem very complex.
• backupthis 2y ago
  [flagged]
• nephanth 2y ago
  I mean from a justice standpoint, squatting is wrong But from a societal standpoint, the laws being this way have a bunch of positive externalities 1. It provides shelter to the homeless, with all the advantages we know that has 2. It provides an incentive to not leave property vacant. Very important in a country with high vacancy rates 1nd a hiusing crisis. Note also that this is done at the expense of investors. Whose role in a capitalist society is to take on risk. So while it is an injustice, i can definitely understand why it is this way.
  • lottin 2y ago
    If investing in housing is made less profitable, there will be less investing and consequently less supply in the long run, thus making the housing problem worse.
    • nephanth 2y ago
      Except in this case, what is less profitable is investing in land/infrastructure that could serve as housing but leaving it vacant. That is not investment in housing, simply speculation on land and buildings. Investment in housing (ie actively rented places) are unaffected, so there is no reason there woukd be less investing on that front
      • lottin 2y ago
        That's not how businesses work. Nobody spends millions building a house so that they can leave it vacant once it's finished.
        • nephanth 2y ago
          Except they do. That is the problem. See for example: https://m.murciatoday.com/almost_half_a_million_vacant_new_builds_in_spain_that_no_one_wants_to_buy_2174512-a.html https://m.murciatoday.com/almost_half_a_million_vacant_new_b... https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/posts/the-empty-house-a-window-into-europes-vacant-property-problem https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/posts/the-empty-house-a... It isn't a particularly Spanish problem either: following article about the American version of it https://www.cbsnews.com/news/empty-office-buildings-doom-loop-cities-60-minutes/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/empty-office-buildings-doom-loo...
• Tiberium 2y ago
  Not exactly related to the article itself, but it seems to me to be heavily AI-edited, with a lot of unnecessary fluff, the kind that ChatGPT adds. Honestly it seems like the article could be shortened in half at least. And probably all those bold highlighted phrases were added by ChatGPT too. I have nothing against LLMs, I use them often, but this isn't a good example of using them.
  • tkgally 2y ago
    Interesting point. I looked at the article again and noticed more signs of LLM composition: well-organized paragraphs of about equal length; a lack of specific examples, data, and quotations; and no errors or infelicities that would suggest human-written text. I got something very similar by prompting ChatGPT-4o with “Write a five-paragraph news article in English about the rise of 'okupación' in Spain. Focus on the legal issues.” One of those paragraphs: “The legal landscape surrounding ‘okupación’ is complex. Spanish law differentiates between two main types of property occupation: usurpation and trespassing. Usurpation, involving the illegal occupation of a property without violence, is often met with fines rather than immediate eviction, frustrating many property owners. Trespassing, on the other hand, which involves force or threats, is treated more severely but is harder to prove.”
  • badgersnake 2y ago
    It's the banal last paragraph desperately avoiding having an opinion that gives it away.
• 0898 2y ago
  Such a weird article. It’s all throat clearing and rhetoric, and never quite gets to the meat.
  • psicobajona 2y ago
    Because idealista is making money with the squatting propaganda. https://maldita.es/malditateexplica/20221026/datos-okupaciones-espana-denuncias-condenas/ https://maldita.es/malditateexplica/20221026/datos-okupacion...
• jmcb 2y ago
  There is no such "okupas problem" in Spain. If someone enter your dwelling (don't really know if is the correct term in English. In Spanish the house where you actually live is called "morada"), you can call the police and they will evict whoever is in the house in less than 24 hours. Other topic is holiday residences; those are not dwelling ("morada") so, in Spain, the right to have a dwelling is on the top of private property so yes, it's quite difficult to evict people who entered the house in this scenario. The ones who really have the problem are the people who buy houses for the summer.
  • eduardo_f 2y ago
    I invest in real estate in Spain and this is not true.
    • tsimionescu 2y ago
      What part of it?
    • KaiserPro 2y ago
      I'm also curious, which part is incorrect? I would have thought there is a clear distinction between owner occupied housing and empty property?
    • Malcolmlisk 2y ago
      This is completely true, so if you work as a real estate investor, you need to check your knowledge and start studying or stop lying. If you try to squat (okupar) the house where someone lives, you'll be evicted just when the police arrives to your house. And you'll get a criminal sanction (allanamiento de morada). The problem comes when your third house is occupied by someone, since this is not where you live, then you'll have a real problem since they can say they are living there right now, and that's when the time dilatation comes. This "problem" is just for people with a lot of houses, rentist, that are part of the problem. Or the banks and vulture funds, who had most of the houses and flats in spain. And the squatting problem in spain is ridiculous small. THe percentage over the poblation is ridiculous. This that, in this article, don't mention at all.
• dr__mario 2y ago
  "The rise of okupation"... but they make no references to data. Here is the data (in Spanish) [1]. The difference between trespassing (that somebody enters in the house you live) and usurpation (the house is yours but is not where you live) is very important. Both problems are way less prevalent than what appears on the media (see [1]), but trespassing is waaay lower (and as the owner you have better mechanisms to recover your house). However, there is a huge propaganda campaign here in Spain, where TV shows talk constantly about trespassing, and one can only imagine what they get from that (swaying votes to conservative political groups, selling alarms, less rights to people that live on rented apartments...) [1] https://maldita.es/malditateexplica/20221026/datos-okupaciones-espana-denuncias-condenas/ https://maldita.es/malditateexplica/20221026/datos-okupacion...
  • franciscop 2y ago
    Not everyone who gets this problem sues the okupas, since as it says this is a many-year complex legal process. I personally know multiple people who have had this problem, which suggest that it is probably MORE widespread than the data shows. In the end there are two other big ways of dealing with it: paying the okupas to leave, or paying desokupados to get them out, where both of those ways would not be registered in those statistics.
    • dr__mario 2y ago
      But again, you talk about usurpation or trespassing? And even in that case, the data is the data: the rest is speculation.
      • Zanni 2y ago
        The data you have is the data you have but not necessarily the ground truth. See, for example, San Francisco shoplifting statistics.
        • dr__mario 2y ago
          I agree that it may not be 100% accurate, but probably correlated with the truth and directionally accurate. If you discard it, what do you have? Anecdotes? The media narratives?
• victorbjorklund 2y ago
  I have seen some apartment being severely reduced because they are under occupation (makes sense since the buyer buys an apartment they cant even go into without a multi-year legal process). I wonder if it ever happens that people occupy an apartment only to get the owner to sell for cheap and then they (or their friend) buys the apartment for cheap?
  • southerntofu 2y ago
    I've never heard of something like this. It's not exactly like squatters are millionaires trying to save on rent to buy more champagne... I'm not saying this has never existed, there's probably an outlier somewhere. What does exist for sure and is publicly advertised is companies like the original article trying to make owners desperate about squatters so they will sell their property for cheap. For example here in France, "Squat Solutions" has been doing this for years, buying property for ~10% of market price because of squatters, after convincing the owners they had already lost everything.
    • victorbjorklund 2y ago
      Yea I didnt mean real squatters being the buyers. More like A who is a company/or rich person pays person B to go and squat in person Cs house. Then A goes to C and say "Ill buy your house for 10% of market value" and then the sale is done B leaves and C sells it at marketprice for a huge profit. And A and B just start the cycle again
• misja111 2y ago
  > if a property is not adequately secured and is left unattended, it becomes vulnerable to occupation. > Spanish law provides for an immediate eviction procedure that can be enacted within 48 hours of illegal occupation So if I understand properly, if you go away for the weekend and forget to close a window, you might find squatters in your house when you come back, and you can't quickly get them out in a legal way?
  • Malcolmlisk 2y ago
    This is not true. Your first and second house are protected by the law. If someone enters in your first or second house when you are outside, they will get expelled in the same moment the police arrives, and they will face criminal consecuences. The problem comes when you have 200 houses and somebody squats one of those where you don't live and you don't use. A problem for the banks, vulture funds and big renters. And to be honest, I cannot care less..
    • erremerre 2y ago
      Do not forget to mention that every news tv program is sponsored by Alarms companies. That the banks, the phone companies, are sponsored and sell alarms. Which potentially, might have something to do, which so much does this situation appears on news in comparison to other problems the country has.
      • juststartguide 2y ago
        Thank you for acknowledging it. It's crazy to see how there's at least 1 alarm ad whenever there is a news piece about Okupation. Most of the occupied apartments belong to banks and big renters who would rather see the building fall apart than offering the apartments for a reasonable price/rent. The problem for citizens isn't that they're losing their apartments/houses to Okupas, since that's a really small minority. The real problem is that some Okupas do it "professionally" for profit and can be quite violent.
    • misja111 2y ago
      Ok, thanks for clearing that up. But does the law define a difference between, say, your second home or your 100th?
• _jplc 2y ago
  Idealista and all the real estate companies are the morons feeding the problem by putting the country for rent. They’re the reason people can’t afford a house and we have to talk about okupas in the first place.
  • otherme123 2y ago
    First, I think okupas are a very small problem, mainly used for propaganda. But how are real state companies feeding the problem? The problem is that there's no houses available, because politicians create artificial scarcity. In any local government, the stronger department is "Urbanism", decides if you get rich by allowing you to develop on your property, or you stay poor because you don't get the permits. Come on, this is very public knowledge in Spain, they barely try to hide. Everybody knows how it works, and how close the biggest (and even not so big) developers are to the politicians. Then they politicians blame Idealista or AirBnb like they don't have any power to allow the country to duplicate the available housing starting today. There is also the problem with the insecurity for the landlord in Spain: right now, is you rent to a family with kids, and the family doesn't pay, you can't do nothing! How is it a mistery that landlords are retiring their properties from the rent market to sell them? That's causing a massive shortage, that causes prices do go up.
    • matt-p 2y ago
      Yes, seriously, blaming a real-estate listing website for listing real-estate is absolutely insane. We all need to build more housing, that's it. That's the solution.
      • _jplc 2y ago
        They do not only list real estate, they own a lot of it and speculate with it thanks to their advantageous position.
        • joking 2y ago
          do you have prove of Idealista owning a lot of real state? are zillow or trullia part of the problem in the US? Idealista is the lead real state listing site in spain, and has other kind of problems, but I don't think they have a say on this.
• coopykins 2y ago
  The housing construction in Spain dropped flat in 2018. From building 9000 units/month to 700 units. Yet the population increased in 1,000,000 people in the last 10 years. It is not sustainable. https://tradingeconomics.com/spain/housing-starts https://tradingeconomics.com/spain/housing-starts https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/spain-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/spain-populat...
  • victornomad 2y ago
    Most of the construction happened in touristic areas and for speculation. There is not a lack of housing in Spain. The biggest issue there is how shitty funds and speculators are screwing the market so normal people cannot buy a house.
  • jajko 2y ago
    Since its usually pretty lucrative business, what is the reason? Either government is making it too hard, corruption too rampart, people too poor, banks not giving loans (but then why since generally they like doing so) and so on. Everything that has to do with state of economy and government. I expect people to be a bit more curious on Hacker news and drill a bit into shallow facts, everything has underlying reasons.
  • southerntofu 2y ago
    What would be more interesting is to have statistics about empty dwellings. The banks have evicted countless people after the 2008 crisis, but are they renting those places now? If so, how cheap is it? There is no shortage of housing. There is a shortage of rentable affordable housing, due to an epidemic of greedy landlord accaparating the market.
• victornomad 2y ago
  propaganda and lies from a company that profits from this... 1) Squatters squat empty buildings that have been empty for years, not personal homes... 2) If your home is squatted that's an infringement. The police will come and detain the people inside. - Who profits from this propaganda? i) Owners with dozens / hundreds or thousands of houses (such funds) ii) Security and insurance companies iii) Extreme right. The use this to capture the vote of normal people being afraid iv) Right wing in general (who are the land owners of Spain) because this might lead to have laws that benefit themselves for continuing speculating with the house market (edit formatting)
• matt-p 2y ago
  Can we establish that the squatters are doing this out of economic necessity and not to "profit" (e.g can't afford to rent or own someplace else)? I imagine so as living with no security in an abandoned building with no utilities seems pretty desperate, sub-optimal and sad. If we can then realistically the root cause to this is lack of housing supply. "Just build more f**ing houses" would fix this no?
  • AlunAlun 2y ago
    No, we can’t explicitly establish that. It is of course true that many squatters do so out of financial necessity, but others do so for other reasons: a lifestyle choice, a political choice, or plain freeloading and financial gain - in a squat in my village there were people living there with full time jobs and driving brand new Audis! I would add further that the responsibility of paying the utilities and tax falls on the building owner even if it is occupied by squatters. None of this diminishes the fact that housing is increasingly expensive in Spain, particularly in Madrid and Barcelona, and this is causing real problems. But the situation is definitely more complicated than just ‘build more houses’.
    • pas 2y ago
      Ah, the squatters with Audis sounds newsworthy, is it something like this https://www.elmundo.es/madrid/2023/02/23/63f66cacfdddffa0b48b45ad.html https://www.elmundo.es/madrid/2023/02/23/63f66cacfdddffa0b48... ?
      • kgwgk 2y ago
        Another BMW-driving serial squatter (having a secondary residence for the weekend is also a human right): https://www.elespanol.com/reportajes/20240528/maria-okupa-beyonce-menorca-vive-chalet-lleva-bmw-sin-carnet/858664349_0.html https://www.elespanol.com/reportajes/20240528/maria-okupa-be...
    • matt-p 2y ago
      I wonder what the split is here? Lets say 1000 squatters how many can afford housing but choose not to? Of those who can afford to rent how many have jobs and cars but do this so they can save for a house deposit rather than all 60% of thier income going to housing? I'm not "pro squatter" or anything I just think you could solve 90% of this problem if you built much more housing.
• xzjis 2y ago
  I have a very simple way to avoid squatters to squat in Spain, or any country in the world: stop making housing a market. If it's a market, then supply and demand applies. So, for your house to gain value, you need to have a supply inferior to the demand.
  • pas 2y ago
    Even making it a proper market would help! The problem is that people in general are very averse to changes, and cities are stuck in a very bad policy pit. (Building is hard, but even when finally a project is greenlit it barely moves the needle, adding supply is not happening fast enough because there's this fear of high buildings. And, on the other hand, there's no quota or lottery for moving, which means prices going up ... so the system is completely neglecting to care about pricing out incumbents.) https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/market-rate-housing-will-make-your https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/market-rate-housing-will-make-...
    • hnbad 2y ago
      I don't see how the housing market could ever be less exploitative than the healthcare market given that you literally need a place to live the same way you need to not die and that there's more money in building extremely expensive housing and hoping it sells than building affordable housing and just about breaking even.
      • pas 2y ago
        housing is much more transparent, people shop around, there are sites to check prices, there are short term solutions, people can spend a few nights at friends and family. for most of the US healthcare comes from their employers, which is the direct opposite of an efficient market. getting claims validated and actually getting reimbursed or getting treatment is the problem, and the abysmal quality is ... because there's no incentives to have it better, lack of competition and/or oversight (because lack of funding for authorities, no real consequences for providers if they miss deadlines, etc) . . the big problem is that currently affordable housing is fucking expensive too, because of small volume.
• rudnevr 2y ago
  I live in Spain and own property in Spain. There's clearly a gap between imaginary noble okupas addressing housing crisis via occupation of unused bank property and reality of weed smoking anarchists and their collaborating deoccupying mafia harassing mostly not-so-rich middle class, who can't afford the security measures the rich can. It's not a small problem, there's like 12K cases per year last time I checked. Everybody knows the problem exists, most people take extra, otherwise not necessary measures against it. The leftist govt adds to the problem somehow rationalizing it and trying to channel poor's frustration onto middle-class, while the actual abusers, who are well aware of the problem, stay safe.
  • xchip 2y ago
    Sources?
  • pimterry 2y ago
    > It's not a small problem, there's like 12K cases per year last time I checked. https://maldita.es/malditateexplica/20221026/datos-okupaciones-espana-denuncias-condenas/ https://maldita.es/malditateexplica/20221026/datos-okupacion... has the actual data (in Spanish): * 10-17k cases of occupation annually (rising until 2021, but down in 2022 and further down in 2023: https://www.cronista.com/espana/actualidad-es/adios-okupas-cae-la-usurpacion-ilegal-de-vivienda-a-niveles-de-hace-dos-anos/ https://www.cronista.com/espana/actualidad-es/adios-okupas-c...) * Of those ~15k, 5% are actually occupation of somebody's residence (allanamiento de morada) and 95% of cases are occupation of an empty and unused house/shop/office (usurpación de vivienda). That includes unused commercial properties, and homes that are neither rented nor used by the owner. * Note that a personally used holiday homes are also considered as a person's residence, so any occupation there would also come into that first 5%: https://www.ocu.org/fincas-y-casas/gestion/gestion-patrimonial/analisis/2020/09/policia-y-ocupacion https://www.ocu.org/fincas-y-casas/gestion/gestion-patrimoni.... That is to say: it is a problem (the 500 - 1000 cases per year nationwide of occupation of people's homes is clearly problematic) but it's not a really widespread problem for most middle-class people (the vast majority of people even in the middle classes do not own totally unused property). It is a significant concern if you're a commercial landlord with any shops & offices between rental contracts, or if you're directly investing in property as pure speculation, without using it at all (which imo should be discouraged regardless - although I'd rather punitively tax it). In the really problematic 5% case of people's homes, my understanding is that the law has tightened significantly, and if you can show that you're registered as actually living there, in theory they will evict okupas within 24 hours (I don't know how well that works in practice though).
• rbanffy 2y ago
  Homelessness is a problem. This looks like an interim and very imperfect solution. If you have a residential property that's just closed and is not rented out and not used (even seasonally, such as a vacation home), it's not giving any worth towards the society it exists in. It's only fair that the owner pays higher taxes over it to help fund the creation of new housing for the existing demand. I don't really think just occupying it is a great idea, but I do think it might force the owner to employ the property in a more socially responsible way.
• santialbo 2y ago
  I see a lot of people here justifying the occupation of bank-owned homes as if that is okay. I hope you never have to experience living next to squatters, as among other things, you might end up paying for their exaggeratedly high utilities.
  • chous 2y ago
    Behind a bank-owned home there's always a tragedy, never a trickery.
  • diggan 2y ago
    I've lived next to squatters (having them above me, below and sharing a wall), what exactly am I suppose to have hated about it? They were never troublesome, but of course I can understand in some other cases they were, but we have laws for those things already. If they were being loud, you can call the police and complain. If they're ruining stuff on your side, you can also call the police. I'm not sure in what way they could bother me, and I wouldn't have the law on my side if I chose to act on it.
• nerdawson 2y ago
  I have family who let out property in Spain. They, along with other people in a similar position to them, have all suddenly become experts in smart home tech. They have video doorbells, motion sensors, door sensors, etc. All so that they can be alerted to any activity immediately, allowing them to act within the exceptionally short eviction window. The reality on the ground is that these ridiculous policies are widely exploited.
  • sgfgross 2y ago
    I couldn't agree more. My parents have an "okupa" and they can't even go talk to her or she can sue them. They also have to pay for her electricity or water, otherwise, she has the right to sue them for "endangerment". And she wasn't even a tenant. She has been there for 4 months now, and the judicial system simply works against home owners, it's crazy!
  • chous 2y ago
    I don't agree. It's a non-existing problem that the media insists us to convince otherwise, just to force us to pay for useless and absurdly expensive monthly services. Poor people being afraid of other poor people, a classic.
    • nerdawson 2y ago
      I don't doubt the media are prepared to jump on and inflate any problem if it'll drive engagement. That doesn't mean the underlying issue isn't real. I could offer some anecdotal evidence but that seems pointless. Especially when the stats speak for themselves. It's not just media hype.
    • miguelxt 2y ago
      It may be overblown by media, sure, let's say we agree on that, but I know of at least 3 cases of very close people that have suffered the issue in the last 3 years alone. It may be my social bubble, but I don't think it's a completely fabricated matter.
      • 2y ago
• tiborsaas 2y ago
  A friend of mine acquired an investment property in Spain and after a while okupas moved in, lock changed etc. A woman with two children. They were clearly helped with an organized team to get into that place. The sad resolution after lots of headache and thinking was to pay the invaders the 5000EUR they demanded to move out. There was some followup information about what happened after this. She was picked up by a car and taken to the next place to occupy.
  • diggan 2y ago
    On the other hand of issues like this, is the people forced to move away from their neighborhoods because outsiders keep acquiring "investment properties" and price out the current tenants. We're finally getting more protections from this, but there been a lot of hurt because of this already. Entire neighborhoods in Barcelona (like Barceloneta) had generational families being forced away because of issues like this. So on hand, it sucks for your wealthy friend that their investment only made X% amount instead of XX% amount. But on the other hand, I feel for the people who are being forced away from their home as well, because there still isn't enough protections for the people who actually live and work here.
    • tiborsaas 2y ago
      This is a complex problem, I understand that rent is a sensitive issue. But sustaining a system that criminals actively exploit is probably resulting in the worst possible outcome for everyone. He did not rent the place out, but preferred to keep it to themselves as a pleasant place to spend a few weeks to months as they are getting old now. But after this incident he sold it quickly.
      • diggan 2y ago
        > He did not rent the place out, but preferred to keep it to themselves as a pleasant place to spend a few weeks to months as they are getting old now. But after this incident he sold it quickly. If it's their primary residence, then it's not considered "occupation" but rather "breaking and entering", and contacting the local police would get the criminals removed quickly, without much fuss. It sounds more like it was a vacation house, and potentially for people who don't actually live in the country. In that case, it gets harder to claim they're in a morally superior position, especially considering the housing crisis we face here, that gets worse and worse every day.
• zrn900 2y ago
  Its not Spain's problem. Its the real estate sector's problem. Both the legitimate okupas and illegitimate 'professional' okupas do serve the purpose of forcing the real estate owners to actually USE their real estate instead of being able to let them sit empty. They either live in them, sell them or rent them - which helps to address the housing demand. Compare this to the US where such a phenomenon does not exist: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/homes-for-sale-affordable-housing-prices/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/homes-for-sale-affordable-housi...
  • betaby 2y ago
    > Both the legitimate okupas and illegitimate 'professional' okupas do serve the purpose of forcing the real estate owners to actually USE their real estate instead of being able to let them sit empty. Total nonsense, Spanish new recently reported the case when couple went for 3 months trip only to find their apartment squatted. Spain has no property rights for smaller folks.
    • diggan 2y ago
      That's anecdotal though... How many of the current okupas happen in other's primary residence? Would be considered trespassing in those cases and a lot easier to get rid of them, compared to the other cases.
      • piuantiderp 2y ago
        Lmao, that's wishful thinking. That's why in decent countries you can get them curb-stomped and their teeth kicked-in for invading a property.
        • diggan 2y ago
          > Lmao, that's wishful thinking. It's literally not. Maybe if you'd actually experience the situation yourself here you'd know about the differences. But alas, hard to understand from the outside I suppose. Invading a property people actively live in = The police comes quickly to throw the invaders out Invading a property that been empty for years where the owner refuses to either rent out or sell it = Harder to get them out, for obvious reasons.
• madcaptenor 2y ago
  A linguistic question - why is this spelled with a "k"? I assume this is derived from "ocupación" - the "k" looks funny to me as someone familiar with but nowhere near fluent in Spanish.
  • diggan 2y ago
    I don't have an definitive answer, but generally radical movements (like anarchism) sometimes change the expected spellings to appear more non-traditional/anti-establishment. In this case, okupa comes from ocupar, "k" is not used a lot in Spanish so in order to appear even less mainstream, changing the "c" for a "k" makes it stand out more. That'd be my guess at least. Maybe someone could track down a definitive answer.
  • taopai 2y ago
    You are right. If you okupas you always ocupas. But you can ocupar without okupar. The k differences the political movement from the physical act of using a property which is not yours. Okupas don't promote squatting in a small owner property. They promote using unused properties from banks. In fact in Barcelona there are la Oficina d'okupació: https://radar.squat.net/ca/barcelona/oficina-lokupacio https://radar.squat.net/ca/barcelona/oficina-lokupacio
• n3storm 2y ago
  Idealista sells insurances, stealing and non-payments/underpayments https://www.idealista.com/seguros/ https://www.idealista.com/seguros/ Sometimes a guest that is not paying is considered and treated as a "squatter" (which is not) Idealista, using fear which liberalism most popular weapon of choice nowadays to sell products and services, produces pretty biased information. Enjoy.
• rdtsc 2y ago
  There are all kinds of perverse market opportunities opening. Enforcers who help "convince" squatters to leave are getting rich. But what if there are not enough squatters? Well, they can ask their friends to pretend to be squatters to keep up demand. "Convincing" is not always violent I understand, it be a payment. Yes, people get extorted and you pay them ransom to get your place back. If the government fixes the laws, now these private "enforcement" companies will be left out on the streets. So, presumably, some will want to convince the government to not change the laws, and may even start supporting PAH!
• bluecalm 2y ago
  I was considering buying a house in Spain to spend half a year in. Okupas was one of the reason I am not doing it. Instead I will be paying professional landlords to rent a house to live in for half a year. A real win for squatters' "ideology". If it continues the only people who own property will be professionals with private armies and organized security systems.
  • piuantiderp 2y ago
    This, ironically, is why tyrants get into power. When anarchy reigns, any relief from it is welcomed by normal people and families.
  • taopai 2y ago
    Great. I am glad to hear this. You forgot about people who live there all year round. You know, the ones who work, maintain services, offer food, have children who will keep everything working. Spain shouldn't be a big hotel, it is also the country of people who live all year round.
    • asylteltine 2y ago
      [dead]
    • bluecalm 2y ago
      Astonishing entitlement man. I was born in a dark country with shitty weather, bad air. Now when I made enough money to change it I want to spend a few months a year in the sun. People who live there are amazingly lucky to be born where the weather is good. Most of those desirable areas would be 3rd world country level if it wasn't for tourism as people there were unable to develop any kind of functioning economy and have to rely on others who spend their money there just because the weather is good during winter. Spain has vast areas of unused buildable land, especially the South. It's not like land is a scarce resource there. Me buying a house won't cause someone unable to buy another one in the area. They can build it nearby if they want. The problems there are not caused by tourism as there is enough space for everyone and then some. Telling someone who has to actually work to be able to spend a few winter month in the sun that Spain should be for people born there while benefiting from EU (that means free movement of people among other things), trade and first of all tourism money is just the most arrogant entitled attitude I can imagine.
• Pelayu 2y ago
  I see a lot of people here claiming that the okupas only affect landlords and banks. Here for example is an article in Spanish that tells the account of an 82-year old pensioner who's house was taken from him (occupied) while he was out visiting a friend in hospital. https://www.antena3.com/noticias/sociedad/vuelve-hospital-visitar-amigo-encuentra-que-han-okupado-piso_20240405661021f817c56e00014b290a.html https://www.antena3.com/noticias/sociedad/vuelve-hospital-vi... I myself have also heard from friends in various cities in Spain of neighbour's apartments being taken also. I'm even aware of some apartments even in my small city that have been occupied. The fact of the matter is that these lax laws harm many ordinary people. This cannot be argued. There are a few factors causing the housing crisis but I will not comment more on this as to not go off-topic further. However I don't think the laws allowing okupas help the housing problem at all and are in fact dangerous and just cause more harm to ordinary, hard-working people. They need to be changed.
  • diggan 2y ago
    That particular example shows the difference between what happens when a occupation of a primary residence has happened, and when a occupation happens in other properties. In the case you put, the guy called the police, and the police threw them out. What more can you want? Seems the system works perfectly fine, in that case, because it was his home, the squatters have no rights, so the police threw them out immediately as soon as he called the local police. How is the laws "lax" in this case, when the police has the authority to get rid of them? No one is arguing for squatters right for other's primary residence. The division comes when you start talking about properties that are bought/owned for the sole purpose of speculation. For others who might not know Spanish, here is a translation of the part where the trespassers (not occupiers/"okupas", as that's a different thing than what happened here) gets thrown out: > He assures that he panicked: “I started to have an anxiety attack, I don't even know how I had the strength to call the local police... on the phone they told me to calm down”. > The man, 82 years old, tells a team of Antena 3 Noticias that the agents arrived very quickly and tried to negotiate with the “squatters” , without success. “They asked me for permission to break down the door, and I said yes!”, and adds, “The police acted very quickly and I am very grateful to the agents”. Emotionally, he narrates, “That something like that happens to you and they sink your life, I would have stayed outside with my two little dogs.”
• ilikeitdark 2y ago
  When I moved here to Barcelona, it seemed like many "squats" were punk and artist taking over unused or abandoned large spaces. Many we even open to the public and had events, and some were even part of the local community. Nowadays it's more often drug addicts and criminals and mafias taking over uninhibited homes (even when people are on vacation), who terrorize the neighborhoods.
  • taopai 2y ago
    Some people used to say that touristic companies promoted this to lower prices and buy cheap to remodel whole neighborhoods. Like Raval. Some German companies had bought whole buildings and know they rent their flats, or even worst, rooms in flats with locks. This is crazy. I've been in such a place, in the heart of Raval, full of drug addicts, and filth enter to a place remodeled inside with small rooms who "expats" pay a lot, A LOT. It's crazy.
• timonoko 2y ago
  Comical. I used to hang around Spain in wintertime in 80's, mostly living in tent, albeit I could afford a month in a pensionnat when I found a good one. People were friendly and sometimes suggested better camping place within their property. European Union and unhindered migration from every direction turned the country into total shithole. Downvote all you want :-)
• narag 2y ago
  This is outrageous and now it's a political talking point for the right, because the left uses it as a matter of "activism" from the "grassroot" movements that celebrate their spoils, at the same time they deny the problem exists at all from their ministries. But let me remind you: from 2011 to 2018 Spain was NOT governed by the left, but by the Partido Popular with this guy as prime minister: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariano_Rajoy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariano_Rajoy This moron didn't move a finger to solve the problem, that was already a thing. That's how things work over here: unless there's a massive public outrage, politicians do nothing.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• DowsingSpoon 2y ago
  In some states in the US, you can just shoot home invaders. That is, the use of deadly force is appropriate for protecting one’s self and family from a home invasion, and there is no additional duty to retreat from your own home. It’s a shame that the people of Spain live with such little freedom that these bandits are able to basically force people out of their own house.
  • petsfed 2y ago
    "I so feared for my life that I drove to my primary home, retrieved my firearms, returned to my second home, where I then shot the home invaders through the window". Sure. There is no state in the union where you can shoot people who are simply existing in your otherwise-unoccupied home, because "sleeping in a house you don't have permission to" is not an offense that requires any kind of violent defense. Even in castle-doctrine/stand-your-ground states where you don't have a duty to retreat, you still don't have a blank check to assault. Squatters are not home invaders, literally forcing people out of their own homes at gun point or some such. Otherwise, all a would-be murderer would need to do is plausibly lure their victim to their home, at some point say "I need you to leave", then shoot. There's a million good arguments around American gun culture vs. European gun culture, but this is emphatically not one of them.
  • taopai 2y ago
    It's ironic: in the US you have the freedom to kill, but not the freedom to be saved in a hospital. Just the opposite of Spain.
• mariojv 2y ago
  It's kind of dystopian that it would even get to this point, but I wonder if there would be a business model that could sell "squatter insurance" to people, requiring that they follow particular security system procedures, but pay them out if someone successfully squats in their place.
• creer 2y ago
  Isn't it also a strange disconnect to support squatting to that degree (or generally downgrade, explain away, tolerate most crime) and also wonder about the growth of the extreme right in Europe? (Not just in Europe, obviously). Many were mentioning the emotional toll on small property owners. Un-responded crime is necessarily very present on the victims, potential victims, their families. Relations with China are all very nice but constant alertness and lack of recourse has a very present weight. Same as the impact on construction really. The risk of squatters or other hard to remove tenants is the obvious objection to owning rental property (i.e. supporting construction of new property - both in capital, labor for that construction and then availability on the market.) European assembly elections this weekend. With many quite worried.
• tippytippytango 2y ago
  It would seem like this encourages building larger property portfolios as a form of insurance. It's easier to plan for and absorb the loss at scale.
• Cradamy 2y ago
  Article conveniently omits that Okupas are only of property that has been actually abandoned by their owner, usually for 2 years. The movement doesn't just grab any old property.
• locallost 2y ago
  Historically a lot of property was forcefully removed from their owners, and it was such a success that it became one of the foundations of modern societies. Slaves for instance were property until societies decided that human rights take precedent to property rights. Also laws don't govern natural order, just how societies of humans want to function, so if they decide they want to prioritize one over the other it's their right. With all that in mind, I can definitely see the world where people's right to have a roof over their head is more important than someone's right to extract rent from multiple properties. Not sure what's the benefit for the whole society to have people not doing anything productive anyway. As far as I can tell, people living in their homes are protected and anybody trespassing will be promptly evicted, so the "little guy" or "normal people" are covered.
• icar 2y ago
  Oh right, another right wing campaign, now in HN. We have enough if it in our TVs. The real issue is empty houses, landlords and investment companies. Hopefully all of them get all speculative properties with okupas.
• 5040 2y ago
  To make a bold analogy, claiming that squatters should be allowed to seize unoccupied buildings is like claiming that hackers should be allowed to seize inactive servers.
• BrandoElFollito 2y ago
  We have exactly the same problem in France. This leads people to hate squatters because the visible ones are the ones who will steal property and then it takes agreed to get rid of them. You never know about the ones who squatt abandoned buildings or the points nobody cares about. On top of that you have active and noisy associations that help them so this raises the hatred even more. You must not get rid of them by force because of the law. I have a friend of a friend who decided to come in force, there were 10 of them and just squatted the squatters making their life unbearable (including destroying their property, "by mistake") They left after a few days and went to the police to complain.