Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 332 posts

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#251

Post by AlunAlun »

otherme123 wrote: post #233

A lot of text, but didn't read the obvious: Spain is having three elections in the next month. This is an electoral stunt with no reality behind. The statistics show that Barcelona (and Madrid) are at a historical minimum of empty houses available, yet the spanish population is migrating from smaller cities to the big ones. This is pushing the rents up, and the politicians are obligated to "do something". Colau, Barc…

> The statistics show that Barcelona (and Madrid) are at a historical minimum of empty houses available, yet the spanish population is migrating from smaller cities to the big ones

Sources, please?

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#252

Post by logseman »

jonfw wrote: post #95
baddox wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, it seems like this only works if they conspire or if there are large property holders. Maybe it’s the latter? If I own two houses and left one empty it certainly wouldn’t change the total supply enough to comeback out ahead.

Or, this doesn't work. Such a conspiracy would easily be covered by anti-monopoly laws in the US, I'm sure that there would be some equivalent law in Spain. The real reason buildings would stay vacant is either ownership attempting to charge above market for rent, or land speculators who are looking to hold and flip, without developing it enough so it can be used in the meantime.

There doesn't have to be a "conspiracy" when the incentives of several powerful institutions with a lot of real estate property (banks, Church, big families with relatives in the Town Hall, regional and national parliament) align like that.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#253

Post by mcv »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #245
mcv wrote: post #242

In Amsterdam, any property that has been empty for over a year can be legally squatted, and once in, legal squatters may be hard to get out. For this reason, landlords tend to rent out their empty properties cheaply as "anti-kraak" (anti-squat), on the condition that the tenant moves out when the landlord needs the property again. This is quite popular for students because you often get a ridiculous amount of space f…

Its "had" isnt it? Squatting was made illegal in 2010 if i recall correctly.

That's possible. I admit I haven't been keeping up, and my knowledge of squatting stems mostly from the 1990s, when I was a student.

I still think it's a very pragmatic way to fight real estate speculation. But my impression is that Amsterdam doesn't have a big problem with buildings sitting empty, so if squatting is illegal again, I guess they've found a different way to prevent it? I have no idea what that is, though.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#254

Post by icebraining »

AlunAlun wrote: post #251
otherme123 wrote: post #233

A lot of text, but didn't read the obvious: Spain is having three elections in the next month. This is an electoral stunt with no reality behind. The statistics show that Barcelona (and Madrid) are at a historical minimum of empty houses available, yet the spanish population is migrating from smaller cities to the big ones. This is pushing the rents up, and the politicians are obligated to "do something". Colau, Barc…

> The statistics show that Barcelona (and Madrid) are at a historical minimum of empty houses available, yet the spanish population is migrating from smaller cities to the big ones Sources, please?

The historical minimum seems to check out, only 1.52% of houses are empty (13k compared to 80k in 2011): https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/3299445/0/barcelona-detecta...

Also, less than 500 in 237657 were illegal touristic lodgings, so it seems Airbnb and such can't be blamed either.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#255

Post by coldtea »

StreamBright wrote: post #249
mcv wrote: post #242

In Amsterdam, any property that has been empty for over a year can be legally squatted, and once in, legal squatters may be hard to get out. For this reason, landlords tend to rent out their empty properties cheaply as "anti-kraak" (anti-squat), on the condition that the tenant moves out when the landlord needs the property again. This is quite popular for students because you often get a ridiculous amount of space f…

>> Many squatters are ideologically driven and improve the neighbourhoods they're squatting in. How did you quantify the improvement?

Not sure about the Netherlands, but from other places I know, if the empty building was dirty and falling apart, with broken windows and such, with junkies and other such people frequenting it, and the squatters painting it, made repairs, started doing community stuff (from soup kitchens to concerts), allowing some homeless/poor people to stay in, and so on, I'd qualify it as improvement over an idle building sitting there...

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#256

Post by mcv »

StreamBright wrote: post #249
mcv wrote: post #242

In Amsterdam, any property that has been empty for over a year can be legally squatted, and once in, legal squatters may be hard to get out. For this reason, landlords tend to rent out their empty properties cheaply as "anti-kraak" (anti-squat), on the condition that the tenant moves out when the landlord needs the property again. This is quite popular for students because you often get a ridiculous amount of space f…

>> Many squatters are ideologically driven and improve the neighbourhoods they're squatting in. How did you quantify the improvement?

I don't, but I can qualify it. Some squatters run neighbourhood projects or cultural projects of some sort, workshops, art-related stuff, community center, information meetings, that kind of thing.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#257

Post by emptyfile »

mcv wrote: post #253
cf141q5325 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its "had" isnt it? Squatting was made illegal in 2010 if i recall correctly.

That's possible. I admit I haven't been keeping up, and my knowledge of squatting stems mostly from the 1990s, when I was a student. I still think it's a very pragmatic way to fight real estate speculation. But my impression is that Amsterdam doesn't have a big problem with buildings sitting empty, so if squatting is illegal again, I guess they've found a different way to prevent it? I have no idea what that is, thou…

Wow, so every word of your post is probably wrong.

Do you not see the problem with the most upvoted and seemingly informative comment on the thread being, at the very least, 20-30 years out of date?

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#258

Post by cf141q5325 »

emptyfile wrote: post #257
mcv wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's possible. I admit I haven't been keeping up, and my knowledge of squatting stems mostly from the 1990s, when I was a student. I still think it's a very pragmatic way to fight real estate speculation. But my impression is that Amsterdam doesn't have a big problem with buildings sitting empty, so if squatting is illegal again, I guess they've found a different way to prevent it? I have no idea what that is, thou…

Wow, so every word of your post is probably wrong. Do you not see the problem with the most upvoted and seemingly informative comment on the thread being, at the very least, 20-30 years out of date?

Not wrong and not 30 years but 9 years out of date.

I still think its noteworthy, that Amsterdam had such a rule for a long time until very recently. It shows that there are precedents for how to deal with empty buildings.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#259

Post by gadders »

mcv wrote: post #242

In Amsterdam, any property that has been empty for over a year can be legally squatted, and once in, legal squatters may be hard to get out. For this reason, landlords tend to rent out their empty properties cheaply as "anti-kraak" (anti-squat), on the condition that the tenant moves out when the landlord needs the property again. This is quite popular for students because you often get a ridiculous amount of space f…

I've never understood the pro-squatting arguments. It's theft, no?

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#260

Post by icebraining »

jacques_chester wrote: post #23
deepsun wrote: post #13

It's kinda easy to make it look like a building is occupied and avoid the fine. It's kinda hard for authorities to prove otherwise.

If it's "occupied" there will be tax due on rents.

That's fine, they'll just rent it to a cousin or nephew for a symbolic price.
Post reply on HN