11 ms·

> 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-denuncia

> 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).

rudnevr 2y ago
Thanks for the info. It's not that widespread, yes, but due to its gravity it's intoxicating and polarizing the public. From what I observe, the amount of cases could have dropped down because many people choose to not buy or somehow shield their property (sometimes just filling windows with bricks, for example, which looks weird). So I'm not sure it's because the okupas/govt/police somehow changed the direction, it's just like the people get better at protecting themselves. Btw, bying an apartment in Barcelona costs you 10% tax already, that probably discourages most speculation (and the prices have been stagnant for a couple of years).
- rolandog 2y ago
  > Btw, bying an apartment in Barcelona costs you 10% tax already, that probably discourages most speculation (and the prices have been stagnant for a couple of years). I'm not too sure those measures deter those who are filthy-rich. Would you agree that it can be viewed as the cost of doing business... and, worst — that it could price out small competitors (allowing for the formation of cartels of big landlords)?
  - rudnevr 2y ago
    nope, there's no cartels of big landlords in Bcn, that's a leftist fantasy
lazyasciiart 2y ago
In the US, I knew someone who owned a second house in the same city that they had never lived in and planned to rent out in the future. When someone broke in and squatted there early in covid, they reacted as though the squatters were in the house they actually currently lived in - describing their fear and trauma in a way such that people who didn't know the story sometimes literally thought someone had broken into their own residence. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of those empty homes being squatted in are felt as personal attacks and violations by the absentee owner, which would make it feel like a much bigger problem for individuals if you move in circles where people own empty properties.
- solids 2y ago
  Squatting is a problem, period. Doesn’t matter if the house is empty or not.
  - foldr 2y ago
    I don't agree with squatting on the whole, but this distinction clearly does matter. If someone squats a property that you were planning to rent out then you lose the income that you could have gained thereby. That's not nearly as bad as losing access to the home you currently live in.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      It can be worse, as you are losing rental income, which can have larger impacts on your budget and life. I have family in California that had to deal with squatters on a rental property. It cost them ~400k, which included their kids college funds and retirement. Costs were 3 years of lost rent while they paid the mortgage 250k damages done by the squatters, plus legal fees.
      - foldr 2y ago
        It could be worse for some people in some cases, but it’s pretty clear which is going to be worse in general most of the time.
e98cuenc 2y ago
These stats don't account for the much more common case of people that start renting a house and stop paying the rent indefinitely because technically it doesn't fit the definition of "okupas." I've seen estimates of that number being as high as 1% of the people renting, making it ~30K extra people living on a house they don't own and are not paying for.
- pimterry 2y ago
  The only stats I can find are https://www.idealista.com/news/finanzas/economia/2023/03/03/804744-los-desahucios-por-impago-hipotecario-o-del-alquiler-bajan-en-2022-segun-el-cgpj https://www.idealista.com/news/finanzas/economia/2023/03/03/... - that shows 30k people actually evicted from houses they were renting but stopped paying for in 2022. Can't find any numbers on how many people are not paying and indefinitely staying in flats. While I'm sure it's a slow process, personally I'd be surprised if there's that many people in that situation long-term, since there's clearly laws and a working process to remove tenants in this case (30k evictions for non-payment in a year means forcing an eviction is clearly possible). Idealista has some details on the process and how long it takes here: https://www.idealista.com/news/inmobiliario/vivienda/2022/10/14/799638-cuantos-meses-sin-pagar-el-alquiler-se-necesitan-para-un-desahucio https://www.idealista.com/news/inmobiliario/vivienda/2022/10... and suggests that 7-8 months is typical (really interesting how effectively Idealista dominates as the source for info on all these topics, superb example of content marketing).
- ghostDancer 2y ago
  That's interesting , where can I see those stats? And legally as you say it's not the same as squatting, it's quite different.
Aurornis 2y ago
> 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). I don’t understand the point of trying to downplay or diminish this problem. Is dividing the victims along arbitrary class lines and arguing that most victims are not “middle class” supposed to make it better? It’s a problem regardless of who owns the property.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  > Is dividing the victims along arbitrary class lines and arguing that most victims are not “middle class” supposed to make it better? The class lines aren't arbitrary: a squatter in someone's unused third vacation property or whatever is causing much less harm than a squatter claiming someone's only residence while they're out of town. So yes, the dynamics of who it happens to can make it better or worse. The only reason that wouldn't be the case is if what you consider bad about it is a violation of abstract property owner rights, rather than the potential material harms.
  - chous 2y ago
    I completely agree.
- pimterry 2y ago
  > Is dividing the victims along arbitrary class lines and arguing that most victims are not “middle class” supposed to make it better? That was in reply to the parent comment, arguing this is a serious problem primarily for the "not-so-rich middle class" that is being ignored because we falsely imagine it's mainly a problem for banks and rich people. In fact, the data suggests this really is primarily a problem for commercial landlords and property speculators, and the risks for typical homeowners is very low. This is in sharp contrast to most media coverage, and the parent comment, which paint a picture of substantial risks that your personal home will be taken over by squatters. That is not true. The real level of risk to the average Spaniard is very roughly 2x the risk that they'll be murdered this year - not absolutely zero, but not very far from something you'd worry about day-to-day in Spain.
santialbo 2y ago
Occupation of bank-owned homes also causes a lot of trouble. 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.
zxspectrum1982 2y ago
Maldita is a joke. Sometimes they don't know how to read data, other times they actively engage into twisting numbers. Every time they debunk something, you can be sure that they debunked is actually true. I remember a case where the claim was something like "there's 300.000 cases of <something>" and they debunked it with "FALSE, bla bla bla bla bla"... and when you read the fine print, it was not 300.000 cases but 298.000 cases. They are 1000% unreliable.

rudnevr 2y ago

Thanks for the info. It's not that widespread, yes, but due to its gravity it's intoxicating and polarizing the public. From what I observe, the amount of cases could have dropped down because many people choose to not buy or somehow shield their property (sometimes just filling windows with bricks, for example, which looks weird). So I'm not sure it's because the okupas/govt/police somehow changed the direction, it's just like the people get better at protecting themselves. Btw, bying an apartment in Barcelona costs you 10% tax already, that probably discourages most speculation (and the prices have been stagnant for a couple of years).

rolandog 2y ago
> Btw, bying an apartment in Barcelona costs you 10% tax already, that probably discourages most speculation (and the prices have been stagnant for a couple of years). I'm not too sure those measures deter those who are filthy-rich. Would you agree that it can be viewed as the cost of doing business... and, worst — that it could price out small competitors (allowing for the formation of cartels of big landlords)?
- rudnevr 2y ago
  nope, there's no cartels of big landlords in Bcn, that's a leftist fantasy

lazyasciiart 2y ago

In the US, I knew someone who owned a second house in the same city that they had never lived in and planned to rent out in the future. When someone broke in and squatted there early in covid, they reacted as though the squatters were in the house they actually currently lived in - describing their fear and trauma in a way such that people who didn't know the story sometimes literally thought someone had broken into their own residence. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of those empty homes being squatted in are felt as personal attacks and violations by the absentee owner, which would make it feel like a much bigger problem for individuals if you move in circles where people own empty properties.

solids 2y ago
Squatting is a problem, period. Doesn’t matter if the house is empty or not.
- foldr 2y ago
  I don't agree with squatting on the whole, but this distinction clearly does matter. If someone squats a property that you were planning to rent out then you lose the income that you could have gained thereby. That's not nearly as bad as losing access to the home you currently live in.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    It can be worse, as you are losing rental income, which can have larger impacts on your budget and life. I have family in California that had to deal with squatters on a rental property. It cost them ~400k, which included their kids college funds and retirement. Costs were 3 years of lost rent while they paid the mortgage 250k damages done by the squatters, plus legal fees.
    - foldr 2y ago
      It could be worse for some people in some cases, but it’s pretty clear which is going to be worse in general most of the time.

e98cuenc 2y ago

These stats don't account for the much more common case of people that start renting a house and stop paying the rent indefinitely because technically it doesn't fit the definition of "okupas." I've seen estimates of that number being as high as 1% of the people renting, making it ~30K extra people living on a house they don't own and are not paying for.

pimterry 2y ago
The only stats I can find are https://www.idealista.com/news/finanzas/economia/2023/03/03/804744-los-desahucios-por-impago-hipotecario-o-del-alquiler-bajan-en-2022-segun-el-cgpj https://www.idealista.com/news/finanzas/economia/2023/03/03/... - that shows 30k people actually evicted from houses they were renting but stopped paying for in 2022. Can't find any numbers on how many people are not paying and indefinitely staying in flats. While I'm sure it's a slow process, personally I'd be surprised if there's that many people in that situation long-term, since there's clearly laws and a working process to remove tenants in this case (30k evictions for non-payment in a year means forcing an eviction is clearly possible). Idealista has some details on the process and how long it takes here: https://www.idealista.com/news/inmobiliario/vivienda/2022/10/14/799638-cuantos-meses-sin-pagar-el-alquiler-se-necesitan-para-un-desahucio https://www.idealista.com/news/inmobiliario/vivienda/2022/10... and suggests that 7-8 months is typical (really interesting how effectively Idealista dominates as the source for info on all these topics, superb example of content marketing).
ghostDancer 2y ago
That's interesting , where can I see those stats? And legally as you say it's not the same as squatting, it's quite different.

Aurornis 2y ago

> 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). I don’t understand the point of trying to downplay or diminish this problem. Is dividing the victims along arbitrary class lines and arguing that most victims are not “middle class” supposed to make it better? It’s a problem regardless of who owns the property.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
> Is dividing the victims along arbitrary class lines and arguing that most victims are not “middle class” supposed to make it better? The class lines aren't arbitrary: a squatter in someone's unused third vacation property or whatever is causing much less harm than a squatter claiming someone's only residence while they're out of town. So yes, the dynamics of who it happens to can make it better or worse. The only reason that wouldn't be the case is if what you consider bad about it is a violation of abstract property owner rights, rather than the potential material harms.
- chous 2y ago
  I completely agree.
pimterry 2y ago
> Is dividing the victims along arbitrary class lines and arguing that most victims are not “middle class” supposed to make it better? That was in reply to the parent comment, arguing this is a serious problem primarily for the "not-so-rich middle class" that is being ignored because we falsely imagine it's mainly a problem for banks and rich people. In fact, the data suggests this really is primarily a problem for commercial landlords and property speculators, and the risks for typical homeowners is very low. This is in sharp contrast to most media coverage, and the parent comment, which paint a picture of substantial risks that your personal home will be taken over by squatters. That is not true. The real level of risk to the average Spaniard is very roughly 2x the risk that they'll be murdered this year - not absolutely zero, but not very far from something you'd worry about day-to-day in Spain.

santialbo 2y ago

Occupation of bank-owned homes also causes a lot of trouble. 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.

zxspectrum1982 2y ago

Maldita is a joke. Sometimes they don't know how to read data, other times they actively engage into twisting numbers. Every time they debunk something, you can be sure that they debunked is actually true. I remember a case where the claim was something like "there's 300.000 cases of <something>" and they debunked it with "FALSE, bla bla bla bla bla"... and when you read the fine print, it was not 300.000 cases but 298.000 cases. They are 1000% unreliable.