14 ms·

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 fo

by 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.
  - bramblerose 2y ago
    So what happens when the law requires a contract yet the landlord doesn't offer a contract and simply collects the rent?
    - giantg2 2y ago
      It's an illegal operation. Under that sort of restriction, any building occupied would either need to be occupied by the registered owner or have a registered lease. If those aren't found, the people are evicted. The point is to ensure that everyone knows that you need to have a registered document to stay somewhere so nobody takes those deals. Then on the landlord side, you need to enforce substantial fines for any that have offered unofficial leases and surveillance for property owners that have repeat offenses - both to protect the owner from repeated squating and also to catch any owner bypassing the law.
      - skitout 2y ago
        I am volunteering in an housing rights organization in France, and I am and have been tenant in a city with high price and housing shortage. There will always be many people taking "illegal deal" as sometime you have no other other solution, or other solution are even worse. And many many landlords are doing illegal things, including public housing. Tenant don't have the same bargaining power / freedom / agency than landlord. Fighting illegal stuff that do landlord is long (usually longer than kicking out a squatter) and difficult. And you have little incentive to do it as a tenant : being in a fight with your landlord = being sure to have problem down the line My feeling is that your comment ignores this asymmetry.
        giantg2 2y ago
        "My feeling is that your comment ignores this asymmetry." These are enforcement problems, not squatter problems. As you've said, the things the landlords are doing are already illegal. In the US we have Attorney General offices that will handle housing cases on behalf of tenants. Both parties can benefit from better enforcement and written and recorded leases. Penalties for landlords leasing without recorded agreements may be more easily enforced that under the current system.
- hichamdoe 2y ago
  +1
vvillena 2y ago
No. If someone enters your home, as in, you live there, the city has you registered into that address, and/or your ID card states that's your address, it's not squatting. That's trespassing, and the police will happily assist.
- AlunAlun 2y ago
  This reply is very true and should be higher up. Squatting occurs almost exclusively in second residences, abandoned properties, and places reclaimed by the banks, etc. If you can prove that the house is your primary residence, the police will oust the squatters promptly. As a result, squatters will not target a house that is clearly 'lived in'.
StevenHarlow 2y ago
I live in Spain (Valencia) and see lots of okupas around the city. In reality they occupy buildings that aren't being occupied. Property taxes are incredibly low here and many people who own empty buildings are fine with letting them sit, fall apart, and eat the property tax than do anything with them. These are the buildings that are prone to Okupas. I've never seen nor heard of it happening to actively used buildings. That said, I do think there are better solutions to allowing this to happen. It's a complicated issue here as housing is definitely viewed more as a right than in the USA, and honestly I'm really glad that the streets aren't full of homeless camps like they were when I lived in Oakland and SF.
- panarky 2y ago
  What's madness is the state allowing property owners to leave vacant, dilapidated buildings to blight the neighborhood. Owners should be required to maintain their structures and keep them occupied, or forfeit the property.
  - abduhl 2y ago
    The government should tell property owners that they are required to keep their property occupied otherwise the government should seize their property? This is an extremist view. Who defines what “maintained” means? Beyond safety concerns about the structure (and even then, they shouldn’t be able to tell me anything as long as I post a danger unsafe structure keep out sign and lock the doors), why would the government have any right to tell me what to do with my building?
    - asoneth 2y ago
      > tell property owners that they are required to keep their property occupied otherwise the government should seize their property? I suspect it would make more sense to do so via tax policy, i.e. high property taxes (or LVT) with a deduction for each occupant. > why would the government have any right to tell me what to do with my building? For one thing, governments have a vested interest in not being overthrown. If a sufficiently large percentage of the population believes that their living standards are declining (including not having a place to live) then an increasing number of people will arrive at the conclusion that revolution or terrorism has a positive risk/reward ratio. I've worked in a country where the previous government had allowed this to occur; apparently it happened gradually and then suddenly. Beyond a certain point you can only consider something "my building" if you have the means to defend it against anyone who might wish to make it their building. In that case, the possession of a piece of paper which you once used to outsource the enforcement of your property rights to the previous government isn't very useful. (Edit: To be clear, I think allowing squatting is a poor solution to the problem of reducing homelessness and better tax and housing policies are more sustainable and equitable, I'm just explaining why the government has a substantial interest in what private landowners do with their properties.)
prmoustache 2y ago
In reality most cases of squatting are financial assets that property owners have no plan to rent to anyone. In an area where housing space that people can afford are very few and far between, nbuying properties for the sole purpose of speculation can be seen on a similar level of unethicality as occupying a space you don't own.
- lottin 2y ago
  Absolute nonsense. Why would a "speculator" refuse to rent out their property and make a profit out of it?
  - amunozo 2y ago
    To be able to sell it in the future a higher price without worrying about people living there, or having to pay money to mantain a building that is not in condition to be rented.
    - lottin 2y ago
      Right, because a run-down building sells for the same price as one in good shape.
      - orthecreedence 2y ago
        You're just making the bet that real estate value increases faster than the building deteriorates with minimal maintenance. That's often a really good bet.
        lottin 2y ago
        I don't think that this is the bet. The bet is that the market will not discount the extra repair/maintenance costs that the buyer will have to incur, which is a ridiculous proposition. Speculators gain nothing from letting the property they own rot away.
  - 2y ago
spaniard89277 2y ago
This problem will only grow because there's an increasingly large number of people in Spain unable to rent. At this very moment the profile of squatters is diverse, but with such large pockets of spaniards staying just above of the poverty line, many people will be forced between squatting or just become homeless. Just for reference, I live in a flat in a building from the 50s. Very poor insulation, 5º with no elevator, etc. I pay 475€ for it (small sized city), I've been living here for +5 years. The guys in the 3rd floor came in recently. They pay 1100€ for basically the same flat. The modal income in this city is 16k. I work on IT and I'm barely above 20k (well, was, as I'm now unemployed). I go for the listings and there's almost nothing listed and everything is > 800€/month. If I increase the range to 1h from any potential job location it goes down to ~500 for shitty places. Also, not precisely a lot to choose from, so probably wouldn't be able to rent neither. Can anyone tell me how is exactly this going to work out? Not to mention all the "expats" and "digital nomads" that are willing to pay whatever the landlord says because they really really want to live here without thinking about the consequences, but that's another story. Of course buying is totally out of the question with the current prices, and that's me that I got lucky, with the new prices no one will be able to save anymore.
- diggan 2y ago
  > Can anyone tell me how is exactly this going to work out? Not to mention all the "expats" and "digital nomads" that are willing to pay whatever the landlord says because they really really want to live here without thinking about the consequences, but that's another story. Slowly, more regulation is added to get the problem somewhat under control. Rents capped by index, annual rent increases cap, introduction of "tense housing markets", new upkeep for vacant properties, bonuses for renting out to younger people and more are being introduced, at least here in Catalunya. Unsure exactly what of those things are on the national level but guessing something similar is being introduced elsewhere in the country if it isn't already.
  - spaniard89277 2y ago
    I don't think that helps honestly. What would help IMO is a lot of new housing close to jobs where foreigners can't apply. Because no matter how much you build, if someone from overseas is going to say "I pay double of whatever you've been offered" I can't compete. And I know that's happening because my Gf has to work with this sort of people, sadly.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
fasouto 2y ago
Unless is your main residence, then you can just call the police and the squatters will be evicted, no need to go to court.
rightbyte 2y ago
The laws are written in such a way to protect tenants from landlords. A shady landlord will just claim the tenants are squatters.
- tomjakubowski 2y ago
  tenants with a signed lease, a record of rent payments, correspondence with the shady landlord, etc. can simply show them in court and prove otherwise?
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    Yes, but not if you are evicted by the police in 48h?
pnut 2y ago
I don't get it. You have keys to the place. There's no written contract, no money changing hands. Show up with some muscle, chuck the losers out on the street and change the locks. What are they going to do, take you to court?
- southerntofu 2y ago
  From a legal standpoint, assaulting people is illegal. Assaulting them in their residence (trespassing) could be even more illegal. They definitely could take you to court. From a moral standpoint, do you realize you're advocating for the mafia here? That's exactly what private mafia companies have been doing for years. Rightful owners enjoying their property are already well protected by the law and the police (too much actually), at least in western Europe, as explained by other commenters.
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    The okupas are the ones running the extortion racket. If anyone is acting like the Mafia, it's the people illegally occupying the house and demanding money to leave. What happens in the US is that the land owner hires people to squat in the house. They don't lay a finger on the real squatters. They just take up all the rooms and generally make it annoying to live there until they leave. Then they get paid by the landowner and move out. This has resulted in lots of funny videos where squatters get angry at other squatters for squatting. The hypocrisy is astounding.
    - southerntofu 2y ago
      > If anyone is acting like the Mafia, it's the people illegally occupying the house and demanding money to leave. People demand housing, not money. It's not a racket that people are homeless and need a place to live. It's funny how you go into conspirational thinking that quick. It's more concerning that you think it's better to pay the anti-squat mafia tons of cash, rather than give the same amount to the squatters to leave the place so they can find another home. > This has resulted in lots of funny videos where squatters get angry at other squatters for squatting. Just because you live in a squat doesn't mean anyone can come and live there. It's your residence, not a public space. There's enough empty dwellings to house everyone decently. That doesn't make it a moral obligation if you are struggling and squat a home to house every single homeless person that comes by. I mean, you don't have a greater moral obligation for that than someone who rents or owns their home. It's not hypocrisy to get angry at assholes trying to ruin your life when you're already low on cash and living in precarious housing. It's cruel that you would find human misery "funny".
ricardobayes 2y ago
No, not for your primary residence. You can report that anytime and they will act immediately.
dghughes 2y ago
Madness is the story I just saw of a woman who bought land in Hawaii and someone else built a house on it. Then squatters arrived. Then the developer sued her. What a mess.
the_gipsy 2y ago
Not your home. Never. 2nd apartment/house, yes.

by ssijak 2y ago

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.
- bramblerose 2y ago
  So what happens when the law requires a contract yet the landlord doesn't offer a contract and simply collects the rent?
  - giantg2 2y ago
    It's an illegal operation. Under that sort of restriction, any building occupied would either need to be occupied by the registered owner or have a registered lease. If those aren't found, the people are evicted. The point is to ensure that everyone knows that you need to have a registered document to stay somewhere so nobody takes those deals. Then on the landlord side, you need to enforce substantial fines for any that have offered unofficial leases and surveillance for property owners that have repeat offenses - both to protect the owner from repeated squating and also to catch any owner bypassing the law.
    - skitout 2y ago
      I am volunteering in an housing rights organization in France, and I am and have been tenant in a city with high price and housing shortage. There will always be many people taking "illegal deal" as sometime you have no other other solution, or other solution are even worse. And many many landlords are doing illegal things, including public housing. Tenant don't have the same bargaining power / freedom / agency than landlord. Fighting illegal stuff that do landlord is long (usually longer than kicking out a squatter) and difficult. And you have little incentive to do it as a tenant : being in a fight with your landlord = being sure to have problem down the line My feeling is that your comment ignores this asymmetry.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        "My feeling is that your comment ignores this asymmetry." These are enforcement problems, not squatter problems. As you've said, the things the landlords are doing are already illegal. In the US we have Attorney General offices that will handle housing cases on behalf of tenants. Both parties can benefit from better enforcement and written and recorded leases. Penalties for landlords leasing without recorded agreements may be more easily enforced that under the current system.
hichamdoe 2y ago
+1

vvillena 2y ago

No. If someone enters your home, as in, you live there, the city has you registered into that address, and/or your ID card states that's your address, it's not squatting. That's trespassing, and the police will happily assist.

AlunAlun 2y ago
This reply is very true and should be higher up. Squatting occurs almost exclusively in second residences, abandoned properties, and places reclaimed by the banks, etc. If you can prove that the house is your primary residence, the police will oust the squatters promptly. As a result, squatters will not target a house that is clearly 'lived in'.

StevenHarlow 2y ago

I live in Spain (Valencia) and see lots of okupas around the city. In reality they occupy buildings that aren't being occupied. Property taxes are incredibly low here and many people who own empty buildings are fine with letting them sit, fall apart, and eat the property tax than do anything with them. These are the buildings that are prone to Okupas. I've never seen nor heard of it happening to actively used buildings. That said, I do think there are better solutions to allowing this to happen. It's a complicated issue here as housing is definitely viewed more as a right than in the USA, and honestly I'm really glad that the streets aren't full of homeless camps like they were when I lived in Oakland and SF.

panarky 2y ago
What's madness is the state allowing property owners to leave vacant, dilapidated buildings to blight the neighborhood. Owners should be required to maintain their structures and keep them occupied, or forfeit the property.
- abduhl 2y ago
  The government should tell property owners that they are required to keep their property occupied otherwise the government should seize their property? This is an extremist view. Who defines what “maintained” means? Beyond safety concerns about the structure (and even then, they shouldn’t be able to tell me anything as long as I post a danger unsafe structure keep out sign and lock the doors), why would the government have any right to tell me what to do with my building?
  - asoneth 2y ago
    > tell property owners that they are required to keep their property occupied otherwise the government should seize their property? I suspect it would make more sense to do so via tax policy, i.e. high property taxes (or LVT) with a deduction for each occupant. > why would the government have any right to tell me what to do with my building? For one thing, governments have a vested interest in not being overthrown. If a sufficiently large percentage of the population believes that their living standards are declining (including not having a place to live) then an increasing number of people will arrive at the conclusion that revolution or terrorism has a positive risk/reward ratio. I've worked in a country where the previous government had allowed this to occur; apparently it happened gradually and then suddenly. Beyond a certain point you can only consider something "my building" if you have the means to defend it against anyone who might wish to make it their building. In that case, the possession of a piece of paper which you once used to outsource the enforcement of your property rights to the previous government isn't very useful. (Edit: To be clear, I think allowing squatting is a poor solution to the problem of reducing homelessness and better tax and housing policies are more sustainable and equitable, I'm just explaining why the government has a substantial interest in what private landowners do with their properties.)

prmoustache 2y ago

In reality most cases of squatting are financial assets that property owners have no plan to rent to anyone. In an area where housing space that people can afford are very few and far between, nbuying properties for the sole purpose of speculation can be seen on a similar level of unethicality as occupying a space you don't own.

lottin 2y ago
Absolute nonsense. Why would a "speculator" refuse to rent out their property and make a profit out of it?
- amunozo 2y ago
  To be able to sell it in the future a higher price without worrying about people living there, or having to pay money to mantain a building that is not in condition to be rented.
  - lottin 2y ago
    Right, because a run-down building sells for the same price as one in good shape.
    - orthecreedence 2y ago
      You're just making the bet that real estate value increases faster than the building deteriorates with minimal maintenance. That's often a really good bet.
      - lottin 2y ago
        I don't think that this is the bet. The bet is that the market will not discount the extra repair/maintenance costs that the buyer will have to incur, which is a ridiculous proposition. Speculators gain nothing from letting the property they own rot away.
- 2y ago

spaniard89277 2y ago

This problem will only grow because there's an increasingly large number of people in Spain unable to rent. At this very moment the profile of squatters is diverse, but with such large pockets of spaniards staying just above of the poverty line, many people will be forced between squatting or just become homeless. Just for reference, I live in a flat in a building from the 50s. Very poor insulation, 5º with no elevator, etc. I pay 475€ for it (small sized city), I've been living here for +5 years. The guys in the 3rd floor came in recently. They pay 1100€ for basically the same flat. The modal income in this city is 16k. I work on IT and I'm barely above 20k (well, was, as I'm now unemployed). I go for the listings and there's almost nothing listed and everything is > 800€/month. If I increase the range to 1h from any potential job location it goes down to ~500 for shitty places. Also, not precisely a lot to choose from, so probably wouldn't be able to rent neither. Can anyone tell me how is exactly this going to work out? Not to mention all the "expats" and "digital nomads" that are willing to pay whatever the landlord says because they really really want to live here without thinking about the consequences, but that's another story. Of course buying is totally out of the question with the current prices, and that's me that I got lucky, with the new prices no one will be able to save anymore.

diggan 2y ago
> Can anyone tell me how is exactly this going to work out? Not to mention all the "expats" and "digital nomads" that are willing to pay whatever the landlord says because they really really want to live here without thinking about the consequences, but that's another story. Slowly, more regulation is added to get the problem somewhat under control. Rents capped by index, annual rent increases cap, introduction of "tense housing markets", new upkeep for vacant properties, bonuses for renting out to younger people and more are being introduced, at least here in Catalunya. Unsure exactly what of those things are on the national level but guessing something similar is being introduced elsewhere in the country if it isn't already.
- spaniard89277 2y ago
  I don't think that helps honestly. What would help IMO is a lot of new housing close to jobs where foreigners can't apply. Because no matter how much you build, if someone from overseas is going to say "I pay double of whatever you've been offered" I can't compete. And I know that's happening because my Gf has to work with this sort of people, sadly.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

fasouto 2y ago

Unless is your main residence, then you can just call the police and the squatters will be evicted, no need to go to court.

rightbyte 2y ago

The laws are written in such a way to protect tenants from landlords. A shady landlord will just claim the tenants are squatters.

tomjakubowski 2y ago
tenants with a signed lease, a record of rent payments, correspondence with the shady landlord, etc. can simply show them in court and prove otherwise?
- rightbyte 2y ago
  Yes, but not if you are evicted by the police in 48h?

pnut 2y ago

I don't get it. You have keys to the place. There's no written contract, no money changing hands. Show up with some muscle, chuck the losers out on the street and change the locks. What are they going to do, take you to court?

southerntofu 2y ago
From a legal standpoint, assaulting people is illegal. Assaulting them in their residence (trespassing) could be even more illegal. They definitely could take you to court. From a moral standpoint, do you realize you're advocating for the mafia here? That's exactly what private mafia companies have been doing for years. Rightful owners enjoying their property are already well protected by the law and the police (too much actually), at least in western Europe, as explained by other commenters.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  The okupas are the ones running the extortion racket. If anyone is acting like the Mafia, it's the people illegally occupying the house and demanding money to leave. What happens in the US is that the land owner hires people to squat in the house. They don't lay a finger on the real squatters. They just take up all the rooms and generally make it annoying to live there until they leave. Then they get paid by the landowner and move out. This has resulted in lots of funny videos where squatters get angry at other squatters for squatting. The hypocrisy is astounding.
  - southerntofu 2y ago
    > If anyone is acting like the Mafia, it's the people illegally occupying the house and demanding money to leave. People demand housing, not money. It's not a racket that people are homeless and need a place to live. It's funny how you go into conspirational thinking that quick. It's more concerning that you think it's better to pay the anti-squat mafia tons of cash, rather than give the same amount to the squatters to leave the place so they can find another home. > This has resulted in lots of funny videos where squatters get angry at other squatters for squatting. Just because you live in a squat doesn't mean anyone can come and live there. It's your residence, not a public space. There's enough empty dwellings to house everyone decently. That doesn't make it a moral obligation if you are struggling and squat a home to house every single homeless person that comes by. I mean, you don't have a greater moral obligation for that than someone who rents or owns their home. It's not hypocrisy to get angry at assholes trying to ruin your life when you're already low on cash and living in precarious housing. It's cruel that you would find human misery "funny".

ricardobayes 2y ago

No, not for your primary residence. You can report that anytime and they will act immediately.

dghughes 2y ago

Madness is the story I just saw of a woman who bought land in Hawaii and someone else built a house on it. Then squatters arrived. Then the developer sued her. What a mess.

the_gipsy 2y ago

Not your home. Never. 2nd apartment/house, yes.