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

301–310 of 332 posts

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#301

Post by cf141q5325 »

cptaj wrote: post #291
emptyfile wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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the problem with the most upvoted and seemingly informative comment on the thread being, at the very least, 20-30 years out of date?

Hah, I do see one heck of a problem. Specially how he describes squatting in such a positive light. You're fucking stealing. Its not positive. Housing policy can be fixed without normalizing stealing.

Thats as helpful for a general discussion as a communist calling private property theft or a libertarian calling taxes theft.

We currently have rules in quite a few countries that allow nationalisation as well as expropriation under certain conditions. Not using your plot of land could get you expropriated in the Netherlands, just as you can get expropriated if the government wants to build something important enough on your plot of land. You know, like a border wall. You might get some compensation, you might not. Depends on the country and the laws of that region as well as the circumstances.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#302

Post by neekburm »

DrJokepu wrote: post #52
kradroy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US fines are not tax deductible, so that's one fiscal difference between taxes and fines. I have no idea if Spain considers fines to be tax deductible or not.

On the other hand, in the United States the Eighth Amendment forbids imposing excessive fines, and a very good argument could be made that some of these fines could be classified as “excessive”.

It is exceedingly rare for a fine to be struck down as a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The standard as articulated by Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 (1909) is that the fine must be "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law."

That case was about a $5000 a day antitrust fine, which had accumulated to $1.6 million, but had not forced compliance with the law. The Supremes concluded that the fine was not excessive, because the business was doing well enough not to comply despite the fines.

The fine would have to be grossly in excess of what it would take to force compliance by a reasonable business. A fine that amounts to a doubling of the property tax would almost certainly not be a violation of the Eighth amendment.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#303

Post by cf141q5325 »

cies wrote: post #250
cf141q5325 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Municipalities can still kind of "allow" it on case by case basis. Nation wide legal basis (loop hole) is gone now indeed.

Thats likely with buildings owned by the municipalities? We have something similarly with a few decade old squats in Germany.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#304

Post by mcv »

winterismute wrote: post #286
narcindin wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its noteworthy, but in the opposite manner. Amsterdam tried such a rule and then got rid of it. What do the Dutch know about the costs of this rule that isn't in this conversation?

Well, this is not always how it works: many factors can lead to a reverse of legislation, such as stonger lobbying, backfire from a government held together by strong opposite ideas, or simply the measure might have solved the problem and a different rule might have been adopted (btw, assuming you are from the US, I think the idea of undoing medicare is a good example). I have lived in the NL just when the change in…

It was mostly the right-wing parties (CDA and VVD) that wanted to ban squatting. No idea why they didn't succeed in banning it during the 1980s. From what I read about the history, I can't find anything about a law that explicitly allowed it; it seems it was simply the high court that didn't consider it breaking and entering when it was in a building that wasn't being used, presumably considered a building unused when it hadn't been in use for a year, and anyone living in a house for some time got the same legal protection as a legal tenant.

Conservative parties considered this a loophole in the law, progressive parties probably thought this worked quite well to prevent housing speculation.

But it appears it may have originated from a legal accident rather than explicit legislation. Still, during the 1990s it was explicit policy at least in Amsterdam to tolerate squatting within these conditions.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#305

Post by clydethefrog »

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.

There are manuals out there called "It's still possible" in the Dutch squatting community.

Houses still get squated, but less often and the squatters have to leave much quicker.

A quick translation of a Dutch article explaining how squatting is still possible:

>Today, squatting is illegal. This means that if a building is squatted and the owner makes a declaration, a procedure is started by the Public Prosecution Service that can result in evacuation. The squatters must be informed in time, so that they have the opportunity to institute summary proceedings. That does not mean that the squatters can just be removed from a building once they live there. That is only possible if they seriously misbehave, break house peace, get in the way of the activities of a company, or are at risk because the building is in poor condition.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#306

Post by winterismute »

mcv wrote: post #304
winterismute wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this is not always how it works: many factors can lead to a reverse of legislation, such as stonger lobbying, backfire from a government held together by strong opposite ideas, or simply the measure might have solved the problem and a different rule might have been adopted (btw, assuming you are from the US, I think the idea of undoing medicare is a good example). I have lived in the NL just when the change in…

It was mostly the right-wing parties (CDA and VVD) that wanted to ban squatting. No idea why they didn't succeed in banning it during the 1980s. From what I read about the history, I can't find anything about a law that explicitly allowed it; it seems it was simply the high court that didn't consider it breaking and entering when it was in a building that wasn't being used, presumably considered a building unused whe…

> But it appears it may have originated from a legal accident rather than explicit legislation.

See, this is something I never fully understood: people told me the same, but I mean, when somebody is allowed to go to the gemeente (town hall, kind of) and say "hello, I want to register as a legal resident of this address, I don't have a contract or anything and in fact I am squatting the building. Can I?" and the answer is "ok", I consider this somehow "explicit legislation", at least in practice, no?

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#307

Post by rudigergerm »

kradroy wrote: post #10
Scoundreller wrote: post #2

Why is it a fine? Why not a tax? Taxing unused spaces sitting idle makes a lot more sense than income (ie: people’s work).

In the US fines are not tax deductible, so that's one fiscal difference between taxes and fines. I have no idea if Spain considers fines to be tax deductible or not.

But isn't it possible to offset fines with insurance and get insurance payments tax deducted?

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#308

Post by matt-attack »

gadders wrote: post #259
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?

I’ve never understood the pro-tax argument. It’s theft, no?

The answer is yes. To both. And theft is ok sometimes.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#309

Post by mcv »

winterismute wrote: post #306
mcv wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was mostly the right-wing parties (CDA and VVD) that wanted to ban squatting. No idea why they didn't succeed in banning it during the 1980s. From what I read about the history, I can't find anything about a law that explicitly allowed it; it seems it was simply the high court that didn't consider it breaking and entering when it was in a building that wasn't being used, presumably considered a building unused whe…

> But it appears it may have originated from a legal accident rather than explicit legislation. See, this is something I never fully understood: people told me the same, but I mean, when somebody is allowed to go to the gemeente (town hall, kind of) and say "hello, I want to register as a legal resident of this address, I don't have a contract or anything and in fact I am squatting the building. Can I?" and the answe…

There's a difference between legislation and policy. Legislation means there's a law saying so, policy means it's what the executive branch of the government does.

Though I'm sure there are big fuzzy areas between the two.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#310

Post by collyw »

RWildon wrote: post #265

Why is no one asking the biggest question; why are people piling into cities when there are towns and smaller cities that could be developed instead and thereby lower cost of living. It’s a global phenomenon it seems, as much as it doesn’t make any sense regardless. Please save yourself the quality of life arguments. Those are post hoc arguments that only express laziness. What state governments should be doing is “r…

jobs
Post reply on HN