Squatting in Spain: Understanding Spain's "okupas" problem • Hacker News Board

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

#501

Post by redeeman » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 5:21 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #358

rudnevr wrote: post #264

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. Eve…

> 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. I had a friend who bought a house that needed a lot of work. Before he could get started on the remodel, someone broke in t…

Im amazed your friend didnt come up with a swift solution, and what would the squatters do? call police and say they were squatting? show their rental agreement??

wouldnt have happened to me

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

#502

Post by diggan » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 5:21 PM UTC

Wytwwww wrote: post #438

diggan wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I had a friend who bought a house that needed a lot of work. Before he could get started on the remodel, someone broke in to the empty house, changed the locks, and started occupying it. Was this the person's primary residence that they were planning to live in? Or a property that they intended to flip or rent out? Makes a big difference in how the courts would see it. > Even here on HN there are comments trying to…

> Or a property that they intended to flip or rent out? Makes a big difference in how the courts would see it. Are you implying that there is something morally wrong about purchasing a rundown (apparently barely liveable) property, renovating it and selling or renting it? How do you expect the supply of housing to increase (and prices to go down in turn) if you disincentive such behaviour? Seems rather absurd...

It's besides the point what I think is morally wrong or right.

There is a legal difference between "occupying" someone's primary residence, and occupying other types of properties. The first isn't considered "occupying" here but rather "breaking and entering", and the local police are very quick at acting on those types of crimes, especially if the criminals are still inside the property.

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

#503

Post by gen220 » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 5:21 PM UTC

themaninthedark wrote: post #442

TotalCrackpot wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homelessness is a problem, even having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live is a problem. Squatting is just a strategy to fight an inherently oppressive private property norm.

I would like to know what the limits of your application of this idea is because if I were to extend your argument that "even having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live is a problem.", this is what I get to: I am currently buying a house, every month I pay money to the bank, this is very similar to having to pay rent. From my understanding of your logic, this would be a problem. Further from that, I…

Not endorsing the view, just sharing lines of reasoning I've seen.

Paying money to the bank implies you financed your purchase of a home. This is not necessarily a morally-neutral activity, it's in fact nuanced but we've done a good job of handwaving away the nuance in the last 4-5 generations of Americans.

A small vignette to explain: financing allows people to leverage their credit history and income to make larger purchases than they could otherwise afford. This increases the sticker price of purchasing a home, which prices out people with low credit or income. Anything that increases the price of housing effectively increases the price of rent, which limits peoples' abilities to save to actually purchase a home – it's a nasty cycle. One could argue that by participating in that system of financing, you're perpetuating it, but most people immediately dismiss this idea, ymmv.

Building a house, and paying people to build the house, is not a problem. You're exchanging value for labor and assets. You're de facto increasing the supply of housing.

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

#504

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 5:21 PM UTC

carapace wrote: post #471

s1artibartfast wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who has to build that shelter, and what about their freedom?

> And who has to build that shelter Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter https://www.habitat.org/carter-work-project > what about their freedom? I think they made good use of it. We in the USA are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. We could solve homelessness and hunger tomorrow. I'm not saying that people should lose their property to squatters, that's not the solution. I'm saying that we could build ~300,000 new…

Yes, if you assume people won't destroy the free houses, I totally agree.

I think it is remarkable that people argue for theft from others instead of donating their time, effort, or money to building those houses.

The underlying hypocrisy is that most people argue that others should pay, but won't act individually on their own beliefs

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

#505

Post by TotalCrackpot » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 5:21 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #495

TotalCrackpot wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most of our history humans did not have to pay for a piece of land to put up some yurt or hut and live there. How is the current system not strong taking whatever they can? Private property is just a legitimized theft, because it leaves some people without access to land or natural resources that is required for survival. It's not true that without private property you get state slavery or a strongman situation,…

That is an ahistorical perspective. For most of human history, you could be killed for putting a yurt or hut in someone else's land. Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory. There were breif periods where humans entered virgin land, but these people migrated because other land and resources were spoken for. >Private property is just a legitimized theft, because it leaves some people without access to…

> That is an ahistorical perspective. For most of human history, you could be killed for putting a yurt or hut in someone else's land. Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory.

I don't agree with you, there are books such as The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity that counter your rhetoric. Private property norms did not exist for most of human history.

> Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory.

On the other hand Bonobo is not so territorial and is too one of the species that is the closest to us.

>This is reverse reasoning. people lacking resources doesn't imply it was stolen from them. The alternative is that they simply didn't start with any.

Why then some people usurp land and natural resources and not let others use them?

> Rights don't derive from wants or needs.

From what they derive? If you agree that there is no natural rights, then how do you justify private property rights?

> The zapititistas did not acquire all their land, people, and resources through free choice, nor were people free to stop collaborating if they chose.

Please share your sources for this statement.

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

#506

Post by zrn900 » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 5:21 PM UTC

Wytwwww wrote: post #467

zrn900 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Both of those groups serve the purpose of forcing the real estate owners to actually use their real estate instead of letti…

> use their real estate instead of letting them rot Or not to invest into it in the first places which results in even lower supply of housing long-term. > value appreciation House prices in Spain haven't yet recovered to their pre 2009 levels. If adjusted by inflation they are still 35% lower so I'm not sure if its necessarily the soundest long-term investment.

> Or not to invest into it in the first places which results in even lower supply of housing long-term

Even better - the state can easily construct subsidized housing and make housing even more available. No need to rely on private profiteers for housing.

> House prices in Spain haven't yet recovered to their pre 2009 levels

A lot of things in the world have not recovered to their pre 2008 levels. That doesn't mean that profiteering is not going on.

> I'm not sure if its necessarily the soundest long-term investment.

Hopefully its not, and there will be even less investors. Housing should not be something for profiteering.

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

#507

Post by TotalCrackpot » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 5:23 PM UTC

Wytwwww wrote: post #436

TotalCrackpot wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> A lot of squatters want to abolish the possibility of someone having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live That's exactly how you end up with no new or maintained housing, utilities and other services. How do you imagine system like that working besides a totalitarian government directly taking over all private property and rationing housing? (I assure the housing situation in Spain is not even remo…

Anarchist Catalonia had this type of property norm for about 2 years during Spanish Civil War and it indeed had an economic growth.

>Trying to form logical arguments that refute completely absurd and irrational ones is not particularly productive...

It's not, but my arguments are not absurd and irrational, they are rational.

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

#508

Post by TotalCrackpot » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 5:24 PM UTC

Wytwwww wrote: post #469

TotalCrackpot wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the worst you could say about anarchists is that they smoke weed? That's somewhat funny, please consider that for anarchists implementing their property norm of usufruct is a part of the social revolution through direct action, it's not really meant to me nice to the "middle class" because anarchists are revolutionaries who want to abolish the class society :)

> are revolutionaries who want to abolish the class society Also, apparently the construction of new housing and maintenance of older stock. So that we would be living in abandoned ruins and huts in a few decades if they got their way...

Anarchist Catalonia had an economic growth during it's short existence during the Spanish Civil War and it operated on those types of property norms, so this falsifies your argument.

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

#509

Post by mistermann » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 5:24 PM UTC

Wytwwww wrote: post #459

mistermann wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unoccupied (for x or more months) second homes should be rented out, otherwise squatted in or burned to the ground, period. It doesn't matter if you disagree, Might Makes Right. Be careful: Meme Magic works in both directions, and it is often difficult to detect its presence.

> burned to the ground Which helps who exactly? Even squatting means that those houses will no longer be maintained and fall apart sooner or later which is how you end up having even more expensive housing long-term because of lower supply. Higher taxation for uninhabited housing seems like an infinitely more sensible option...

> Which helps who exactly?

A seemingly simple question, but not really.

> Even squatting means that those houses will no longer be maintained and fall apart sooner or later which is how you end up having even more expensive housing long-term because of lower supply.

I would like for humanity to get together and figure out how to genuinely pursue an optimal experience for all people, but it seems like the most wealthy and powerful among us are "not very (genuinely) interested" in that. Okay then, Plan B it is, I say.

> Higher taxation for uninhabited housing seems like an infinitely more sensible option...

Agreed. That's a bit slow for my liking though, we've been kicking that can down the road for generations. I believe fear to be one of the most substantial motivators in existence, and there are a lot more of us then there are of them.

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

#510

Post by zrn900 » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 5:25 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #386

zrn900 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Both of those groups serve the purpose of forcing the real estate owners to actually use their real estate instead of letti…

> real estate owners to actually use their real estate instead of letting them rot to benefit from value appreciation This is such an obviously false premise that I don’t understand how you even arrived at it. Real estate is expensive to maintain. You don’t let real estate appreciate in value by letting it “rot”. If you think the US housing crisis is due to investors letting houses “rot” then you clearly don’t unders…

> This is such an obviously false premise that I don’t understand how you even arrived at it

I didn't arrive at anything. Its the actual reality of what happens here on the ground. You not being able to imagine something like that because of your cultural bias does not make it any less real.

> Real estate is expensive to maintain

Not as much as the value appreciation.

> If you think the US housing crisis is due to investors letting houses “rot” then you clearly don’t understand the situation at all.

Speak for yourself.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/housing-crisis-u-flipped-upsi...