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

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

idealista.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 930 posts

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

#861

Post by zxspectrum1982 »

jjav wrote: post #846
zxspectrum1982 wrote: post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Spain, that would put you (the rightful owner) in jail and the judge would tell you to give the keys to the squatter. Yes, it's that crazy.

If the squatter is allowed to break in while you're not home and change the locks, why can't the owner wait for them to be out and also break in and change the locks? Does the law specifically say that breaking in is allowed by anyone except the legitimate owner?

Essentially, yes, that's how stupid law is in Spain. But if a third squatter would break in, they'd be safe. See eg https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.antena3.com/programas/espej...

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

#862

Post by dragonwriter »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #817
roca wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tax on empty properties can't be passed onto renters.

It is when its passed onto their landlord when a new landlord buys it to rent it out.

No, its not. And if you think about the effect of the tax on supply and demand you’ll see why pretty quickly, I would think.

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

#863

Post by toss1 »

burnished wrote: post #853
toss1 wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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)

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

#864

Post by nephanth »

lottin wrote: post #142
nephanth wrote: post #106

I mean from a justice standpoint, squatting is wrong But from a societal standpoint, the laws being this way have a bunch of positive externalities 1. It provides shelter to the homeless, with all the advantages we know that has 2. It provides an incentive to not leave property vacant. Very important in a country with high vacancy rates 1nd a hiusing crisis. Note also that this is done at the expense of investors. Wh…

If investing in housing is made less profitable, there will be less investing and consequently less supply in the long run, thus making the housing problem worse.

Except in this case, what is less profitable is investing in land/infrastructure that could serve as housing but leaving it vacant. That is not investment in housing, simply speculation on land and buildings.

Investment in housing (ie actively rented places) are unaffected, so there is no reason there woukd be less investing on that front

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

#865

Post by diggan »

jjav wrote: post #845
diggan wrote: post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is it about this issue that makes so many people wish to treat landlords harshly? Compassion. They see someone without a roof over their head, while at the same time seeing agencies/owners owning multiple properties just to enrich themselves. It's not hard to understand why people are more compassionate towards the people with nothing, compared to how they see the people with a lot .

> > What is it about this issue that makes so many people wish to treat landlords harshly? > Compassion. I don't feel like that's the true motivation. Where is the compassion for the middle class worker who can just barely afford some house, just to have it stolen (see parallel threads in this discussion for accounts of that happening) then? If it was actually compassion, we'd be advocating for the government to prov…

> I don't feel like that's the true motivation. Where is the compassion for the middle class worker who can just barely afford some house, just to have it stolen (see parallel threads in this discussion for accounts of that happening) then?

If you have someone trying to break into the house you live and stay in, you don't call them "okupas", it's trespassing/breaking and entering. One quick police call and you'll get help to have them thrown out.

The squatting/"okupas" thing is about occupying otherwise vacant properties.

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

#866

Post by RestlessMind »

kerkeslager wrote: post #695
RestlessMind wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That logic also applies to demand. Why would you buy a house if someone can waltz in and... The clear answer is you'd buy one if you know how to handle squatters. In other words, you are well connected and have enough capital to take preventive measures described in the article. In other words, rich can get richer by having lengthy security apparatus to protect their property. Middle class investors, who might want…

> Why would you build new housing when someone can waltz in and change the locks and youre shit out of luck? The clear answer is you'd build one when you know how to handle squatters. > If so, let's pull that ladder away from everyone including the rich Yes! > not everyone can be a homeowner Why?

> > not everyone can be a homeowner

> Why?

Criminals who were behind the bars for 20 years, just came out and have nothing to buy a house with.

Families moving to another city for 1-2 years because one of the parents found a lucrative job assignment (I literally have some extended family members in this situation).

People who declared bankruptcy recently and cannot have any assets in their name by definition.

Grad students who are in a university town only for 1-2 years (I was one and I know dozens of my classmates who were in the similar situation).

and on and on. Society is just too complex to make everyone a homeowner. Lot of people need to rent.

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

#867

Post by hgomersall »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #812
hgomersall wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the moral point is that housing shouldn't be an investment class?

Housing is inherently an investment. It take a huge amount of materials and labor to build, and returns value slowly over time. Depending on the inputs and returns, this can either create positive or negative value.

Of course we should invest in actual property building, I meant investment class as in asset class - a thing you buy with the hope of capital increase. This is clearly quite different from investing in building houses that results in a new house.

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

#868

Post by themaninthedark »

gen220 wrote: post #860
themaninthedark wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I personally like the idea of someone working with a builder to build your house. I also like the idea of only ever buying something rather than financing it. I also think that if that was only the option, housing prices would rise rather than fall. Cash up front, I assume in an escrow so that buyer can't cheat builder and builder can't run away with the money. This means that a someone who wants to build/buy a h…

Not necessarily, you just might not build 100% of your eventual home immediately. It used to be (i.e. prior to the postwar expansion of credit to the American consumer) pretty common to build a "starter home" that was intended to be expanded. You start with the basics (basement, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom) and expand modularly from there as your prosperity and needs allow. In the midwest, they would start by building…

My ~150k is for a starter home. That is what a ranch 3 bedroom, 2 bath with kitchen/dining and living room, no basement goes for in my area, based on 1990's code.

Current code is more stringent.

I know that people used to add on, that is however going to be more costly in the long term. Think about heating and A/C system, rather than buy the system once and keep it for 15 years as you expand you need to keep redoing duct work and adding capacity.

You will end up with insulation and vapor barriers between two interior walls.

Plumbing and electrical will become interesting as well.

I grew up in the kinds of homes you are describing, I like them but the building style does have challenges.

I also like the idea of people putting down roots, however this in turn limits people's opportunities.

This also limits the type of housing, what would be required in order to build a duplex or townhouse? A condo/apartment building?

Part of the current green movement talks about getting rid of suburbia and condensing into more urban areas. This would be a direct opposition to that as you would need to buy a lot size that guarantees that you can grow.

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

#869

Post by orthecreedence »

atlantic wrote: post #824
orthecreedence wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But squatting contributes nothing to solving this problem. Hang on, it actually does solve the housing problem by one important metric: an empty house has someone living in it now. I understand there are other metrics (cost to the owner) but it does do something to solve part of the problem, and I'd argue that the more a property is used as an invesment vehicle (sitting there collecting dust) the more it solves the…

Your metrics are wrong. The measure is not so much how many houses are occupied, as how many houses are occupied by local working people (as opposed to tourists / hippies / anarchists).

My metrics aren't wrong. You just don't agree with them. That's fine.

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

#870

Post by Dylan16807 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #721
Dylan16807 wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I like to be productive and crate value. You can create value in the 99% of the world that isn't attached to your house. Also a more conservative set of rules, like the limits I was talking about, would still let you own a house and upgrade it a lot in a way that you fully own. > There are so many better ways to solve this problem than putting a cap on value creation. Does "value creation" here specifically mean ad…

Lets assume this rule is only about living spaces, and not other assets and infrastructure. I like building and improving houses. I have one in the bay area I work to improve. I have built a mountain home in the Sierra Nevada, and am working on a desert home in Nevada. These take nothing away from anyone. They were empty land surrounded by more empty parcels before I did something with them. There is no shortage of l…

There could be an exception for houses in the middle of nowhere.

But also in economic terms, if that house is in a zero-demand area and won't be on the market for decades, then it would be better if you don't build it, and instead either spend that money elsewhere or invest it.

Post reply on HN