6 ms·

No. It doesn't matter whether it is a primary residence, secondary residence, or an investment property. It is the property of someone else. Without permissi

by toss1 2y ago

No. It doesn't matter whether it is a primary residence, secondary residence, or an investment property. It is the property of someone else. Without permission, opening the door or window and going into it is breaking and entering. And do not try to argue that breaking, entering, and squatting somehow reduces the housing shortage — the effect is the exact opposite. With insecure property access and rights, people will be LESS likely to invest in fixing up unliveable places. Just think for a second: with solid property rights, it can be an enjoyable practice to invest in and improve a run-down property to a rent-able or sell-able state. But if you are 50% likely to lose your investment and get a massive headache, you'll just go do something else, and let it rot, so no one can use it. Multiply this 100k times, and you have 100k fewer units on the market, just falling into dust.

jddj 2y ago
There is a genuine difference though, as in, the law in Spain treats the two scenarios differently. I'm not sure where the GP's situation took place but given the article is about Spain the person you're replying to could probably be forgiven for thinking it was there
- toss1 2y ago
  Yup, if there is such a difference under Spanish law, then that law is extremely myopic, passed by a herd of idiots. It will certainly lead to LESS housing, not more. Yikes
petsfed 2y ago
Or the owners of those 100k units that are just left to rot can accept that their "investment" can't (and shouldn't) make them money faster than inflation, and lower the asking price. The scenario you describe only exists because the number of "investors" buying up properties to flip and turn a profit vastly outnumbers the number people looking to buy their personal residence, and have the skills and disposition to fix it up themselves. And judging by the build quality of a lot of flipped properties, the investors don't have the skills or disposition either.
- toss1 2y ago
  I think we are conflating Private Equity, small-time house-fixer-flippers, and vacation homes. I think we agree that the PE crowd can rot in hell — they're buying properties to standardize, corner the market, and charge extractive artificially-inflated 'market' rents. They won't be idle long, and I don't think squatting is the fix for that. I'm quite sure that the PE companies are the primary driver here, not small-time fix-and-flip investors. PE firms are taking the houses off the market for good. The small-time fix-&-flip people take houses off the market for only a short time, and upgrade the property. If they take too long, they WILL lose money, which is also why even if squatters do zero damage (never heard of it happening), the mere delay can cause it to be unprofitable. Getting PE out of the market WILL reduce the competition and bring down prices. The same is not true for small time fix-&-flip investors. The small-time fixer-flippers are taking a risk. Their properties may or may not increase in value at all, even with improvements. The goal is to add value greater than the cost of the improvements. From the people I know who have done it, this is mostly accomplished by sweat equity, i.e., they do a lot of the work themselves, hiring trades only where necessary, as if it is all full-price trade work, it will NOT be profitable. If you think that individual enterprising people adding value, including bringing non-viable housing stock back to market viability —AT THEIR OWN RISK— is somehow bad, we should make a regulatory or tax policy against it. Making random people subject to arbitrary effective confiscation at the whims of random squatters is not fair to anyone. Same for vacation homes. If you think it bad policy that they exist, then enact new tax or regulatory schemes. Making random people subject to random confiscation and expense will not get the results you want. It will get people even more strongly motivated to be angry at squatters.
  - petsfed 2y ago
    Don't misunderstand me, I think squatting is a bad thing. But its worth understanding why it happens, and a major factor is that home costs, to buy or rent, are out of control, which lowers the perceived ethical barrier to doing so. There will always be that weird self-interested-self-described-"anarchist" who has convinced themselves that "property is oppression" because they don't want to pay for stuff. I'm not proposing anything to address that guy. I'm saying we should do what we can to prevent people from agreeing with that guy in the first place. And one of the ways to dissuade people from agreeing with the professional squatter is by discouraging the PE-driven fix-and-flip (which is distinct from the small-time fix-and-flip, but only early in the development of that business. Eventually, you're successful enough that it makes more sense to buy cheap, in cash and without financing, hire others to fix at your leisure, and rent. That's the transition from labor-class to capital-holding class).
burnished 2y ago
You can upgrade from trespassing to B&E by gently pushing an unlocked door to gain access so I think the term is a little loaded here, considering you are trying to claim moral equivalence between 1) entering someones home for burglary or to actively displace the residents and 2) squatting a vacant and unused building
- toss1 2y ago
  For 2), how do you tell the difference between a building that is truly abandoned, and one that has just been bought and the new owner is in the process of arranging to repair and upgrade it? Unless you are going to setup surveillance and track every footprint, there is a LOT of process before the hammers start swinging.
  - burnished 2y ago
    I didn't say abandoned, I said vacant and unused. The biggest difference between the two examples is that one included home invasion. Not any qualification for authentic, artisanal squatting
    - toss1 2y ago
      This is still the same issue. Simply saying a building is "vacant and unused" and is therefor qualified for confiscation (which is effectively what squatting is), would be a travesty. I owned a house that was "vacant and unused" for many months before I could sell it. I moved in with my wife-to-be, and it turned out to be right at the housing market crash. Sale fell through, zero interest for months, so we took it off the market and invested in some upgrades. There were many months where there was zero activity, except for intermittently mowing the lawn or clearing the snow. Eventually, we made some upgrades, put it back on the market and sold it. Had someone squatted in that house, especially with the typical trashing of the place, we would have lost both houses and been affected for decades. Yet you are saying this would be OK for someone to just move in because we're having a hard time getting it sold? Seriously? (if so, my response to your lack of knowledge about how things actually work and your lack of ethics is unprintable in polite society)
makeitdouble 2y ago
> people will be LESS likely to invest in fixing up unliveable places. Someone's still paying for the house flipping. By definition the flipper makes a margin between what they paid, the repairs, and the price they get at the end. So why should we encourage house flipping instead of having howners buy the damaged property and pay for a renovation company ? Housing wise the end result is the same, minus the flipping. If your argument is that the buyer converted a 4 person house into a 20 doors appartment, that's a better proposition, but they're also in a much more protected position and won't be bogged down by squating laws.
- toss1 2y ago
  >>Someone's still paying for the house flipping. Of course they are - even in the case of 'flipping', they are at least working to add value. Barring complete incompetence, the repaired and upgraded place is MORE valuable. >>By definition the flipper makes a margin between what they paid, the repairs, and the price they get at the end. NO; there is nothing 'by definition' about it. While investors all desire to make a profit, many actually lose money, either due to poor planning and/or execution of upgrades or just ill-timed market downturns. The RISK of loss is reason to justify a profit. Moreover, SQUATTERS ADD ANOTHER RISK that almost guarantees a loss — even if they do zero damage and somehow the costly eviction process is free, the loss of time itself costs money. >>So why should we encourage house flipping instead of having howners buy the damaged property and pay for a renovation company ? Housing wise the end result is the same, minus the flipping. YES, I agree, this would be better. However, the result is not necessarily the same. While many flippers have poor or overly trendy tastes so that their upgrades don't add value, individual homeowners are even more unskilled. Plus, people upgrading buildings for a first or second living bring advantages and economies of scale, including buying materials at trade and/or bulk prices vs retail prices, ability to employ workers more efficiently across multiple properties at once, etc. OTOH, the homeowners have the advantage of caring more because they'll live there. But notice, BOTH of these are ONLY MADE WORSE option by squatters. An investor may take a loss on one of a bunch of properties due to a squatter. But a homeowner who buys a run-down home to upgrade and move into, can be bankrupted by a squatter. Now, you have two homeless families, no just one. There is simply no justification for giving people the right to steal other's property just by breaking and entering. If we want to make a process, perhaps akin to found valuables, whereby someone can claim a property, and the previous owner must show that s/he is actively working to upgrade it, I could support that. I might even support some kind of people can move in, but must cause no damage and move out when caught; a kind of 'no harm — no foul' rule could be reasonable. But, just "gee that looks empty, let's move in, and we have rights greater than the owner!", is a hard NO.

by toss1 2y ago

jddj 2y ago

There is a genuine difference though, as in, the law in Spain treats the two scenarios differently. I'm not sure where the GP's situation took place but given the article is about Spain the person you're replying to could probably be forgiven for thinking it was there

toss1 2y ago
Yup, if there is such a difference under Spanish law, then that law is extremely myopic, passed by a herd of idiots. It will certainly lead to LESS housing, not more. Yikes

petsfed 2y ago

Or the owners of those 100k units that are just left to rot can accept that their "investment" can't (and shouldn't) make them money faster than inflation, and lower the asking price. The scenario you describe only exists because the number of "investors" buying up properties to flip and turn a profit vastly outnumbers the number people looking to buy their personal residence, and have the skills and disposition to fix it up themselves. And judging by the build quality of a lot of flipped properties, the investors don't have the skills or disposition either.

toss1 2y ago
I think we are conflating Private Equity, small-time house-fixer-flippers, and vacation homes. I think we agree that the PE crowd can rot in hell — they're buying properties to standardize, corner the market, and charge extractive artificially-inflated 'market' rents. They won't be idle long, and I don't think squatting is the fix for that. I'm quite sure that the PE companies are the primary driver here, not small-time fix-and-flip investors. PE firms are taking the houses off the market for good. The small-time fix-&-flip people take houses off the market for only a short time, and upgrade the property. If they take too long, they WILL lose money, which is also why even if squatters do zero damage (never heard of it happening), the mere delay can cause it to be unprofitable. Getting PE out of the market WILL reduce the competition and bring down prices. The same is not true for small time fix-&-flip investors. The small-time fixer-flippers are taking a risk. Their properties may or may not increase in value at all, even with improvements. The goal is to add value greater than the cost of the improvements. From the people I know who have done it, this is mostly accomplished by sweat equity, i.e., they do a lot of the work themselves, hiring trades only where necessary, as if it is all full-price trade work, it will NOT be profitable. If you think that individual enterprising people adding value, including bringing non-viable housing stock back to market viability —AT THEIR OWN RISK— is somehow bad, we should make a regulatory or tax policy against it. Making random people subject to arbitrary effective confiscation at the whims of random squatters is not fair to anyone. Same for vacation homes. If you think it bad policy that they exist, then enact new tax or regulatory schemes. Making random people subject to random confiscation and expense will not get the results you want. It will get people even more strongly motivated to be angry at squatters.
- petsfed 2y ago
  Don't misunderstand me, I think squatting is a bad thing. But its worth understanding why it happens, and a major factor is that home costs, to buy or rent, are out of control, which lowers the perceived ethical barrier to doing so. There will always be that weird self-interested-self-described-"anarchist" who has convinced themselves that "property is oppression" because they don't want to pay for stuff. I'm not proposing anything to address that guy. I'm saying we should do what we can to prevent people from agreeing with that guy in the first place. And one of the ways to dissuade people from agreeing with the professional squatter is by discouraging the PE-driven fix-and-flip (which is distinct from the small-time fix-and-flip, but only early in the development of that business. Eventually, you're successful enough that it makes more sense to buy cheap, in cash and without financing, hire others to fix at your leisure, and rent. That's the transition from labor-class to capital-holding class).

burnished 2y ago

You can upgrade from trespassing to B&E by gently pushing an unlocked door to gain access so I think the term is a little loaded here, considering you are trying to claim moral equivalence between 1) entering someones home for burglary or to actively displace the residents and 2) squatting a vacant and unused building

toss1 2y ago
For 2), how do you tell the difference between a building that is truly abandoned, and one that has just been bought and the new owner is in the process of arranging to repair and upgrade it? Unless you are going to setup surveillance and track every footprint, there is a LOT of process before the hammers start swinging.
- burnished 2y ago
  I didn't say abandoned, I said vacant and unused. The biggest difference between the two examples is that one included home invasion. Not any qualification for authentic, artisanal squatting
  - toss1 2y ago
    This is still the same issue. Simply saying a building is "vacant and unused" and is therefor qualified for confiscation (which is effectively what squatting is), would be a travesty. I owned a house that was "vacant and unused" for many months before I could sell it. I moved in with my wife-to-be, and it turned out to be right at the housing market crash. Sale fell through, zero interest for months, so we took it off the market and invested in some upgrades. There were many months where there was zero activity, except for intermittently mowing the lawn or clearing the snow. Eventually, we made some upgrades, put it back on the market and sold it. Had someone squatted in that house, especially with the typical trashing of the place, we would have lost both houses and been affected for decades. Yet you are saying this would be OK for someone to just move in because we're having a hard time getting it sold? Seriously? (if so, my response to your lack of knowledge about how things actually work and your lack of ethics is unprintable in polite society)

makeitdouble 2y ago

> people will be LESS likely to invest in fixing up unliveable places. Someone's still paying for the house flipping. By definition the flipper makes a margin between what they paid, the repairs, and the price they get at the end. So why should we encourage house flipping instead of having howners buy the damaged property and pay for a renovation company ? Housing wise the end result is the same, minus the flipping. If your argument is that the buyer converted a 4 person house into a 20 doors appartment, that's a better proposition, but they're also in a much more protected position and won't be bogged down by squating laws.

toss1 2y ago
>>Someone's still paying for the house flipping. Of course they are - even in the case of 'flipping', they are at least working to add value. Barring complete incompetence, the repaired and upgraded place is MORE valuable. >>By definition the flipper makes a margin between what they paid, the repairs, and the price they get at the end. NO; there is nothing 'by definition' about it. While investors all desire to make a profit, many actually lose money, either due to poor planning and/or execution of upgrades or just ill-timed market downturns. The RISK of loss is reason to justify a profit. Moreover, SQUATTERS ADD ANOTHER RISK that almost guarantees a loss — even if they do zero damage and somehow the costly eviction process is free, the loss of time itself costs money. >>So why should we encourage house flipping instead of having howners buy the damaged property and pay for a renovation company ? Housing wise the end result is the same, minus the flipping. YES, I agree, this would be better. However, the result is not necessarily the same. While many flippers have poor or overly trendy tastes so that their upgrades don't add value, individual homeowners are even more unskilled. Plus, people upgrading buildings for a first or second living bring advantages and economies of scale, including buying materials at trade and/or bulk prices vs retail prices, ability to employ workers more efficiently across multiple properties at once, etc. OTOH, the homeowners have the advantage of caring more because they'll live there. But notice, BOTH of these are ONLY MADE WORSE option by squatters. An investor may take a loss on one of a bunch of properties due to a squatter. But a homeowner who buys a run-down home to upgrade and move into, can be bankrupted by a squatter. Now, you have two homeless families, no just one. There is simply no justification for giving people the right to steal other's property just by breaking and entering. If we want to make a process, perhaps akin to found valuables, whereby someone can claim a property, and the previous owner must show that s/he is actively working to upgrade it, I could support that. I might even support some kind of people can move in, but must cause no damage and move out when caught; a kind of 'no harm — no foul' rule could be reasonable. But, just "gee that looks empty, let's move in, and we have rights greater than the owner!", is a hard NO.