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

871–880 of 930 posts

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

#871

Post by burnished »

toss1 wrote: post #863
burnished wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 of…

Please re-read the last couple comments, I feel that I was quite specific and clear about the distinction I made to the point that I am having trouble reading you as acting in good faith.

My prior point was about emotionally manipulative language, which is what I see on display here with you trying to hold me accountable for a hypothetical. Please do not do that, it is very frustrating, I don't ask you why you beat your wife so don't ask me to justify squatting as morally acceptable.

Or, to put it another way, I'm literally saying that we shouldn't use the same language to describe home invasion (behavior that can get you lawfully killed in some places), to describe squatting, because it is emotionally and intellectually dishonest.

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

#872

Post by burnished »

danlugo92 wrote: post #790
petsfed wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By incentivizing people renovating, then living in, the rundown house they bought, instead of seeing that option as equally valuable as just selling/renting the house? Its one thing to produce more housing, its another to somehow magically produce more housing in such a way that does not devalue the other resources. Step 1 is to disincentivize speculative/rent-seeking home purchases. Its been said a couple times in s…

Work hard and get your own.

Hard like the people that got it cheap? Or hard like the people that inherited such things?

I guess you can fuck off to the sticks, but I'm not sure that works as a defense for a society that has made an element of participation contingent on absurd expense or debt. Does 'work hard' feel good when the thing you purchase with your labor is expensive in order to service the desires of the wealthy?

I'm not going to say our current setup is indentured servitude or serfdom, it clearly isn't and social mobility and changing your station are possible and even commonplace. I will say that our current system has resulted in a large class of people whose productive excess is routinely paid to a small group for the benefit of being allowed access to a residence (they don't provide other services or benefits, they don't actually labor to produce the house as a finished good).

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

#873

Post by toss1 »

burnished wrote: post #871
toss1 wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 of…

Please re-read the last couple comments, I feel that I was quite specific and clear about the distinction I made to the point that I am having trouble reading you as acting in good faith. My prior point was about emotionally manipulative language, which is what I see on display here with you trying to hold me accountable for a hypothetical. Please do not do that, it is very frustrating, I don't ask you why you beat y…

I agree that we may be having a problem of definitions, and we may be like the blind men discussing different parts of the elephant.

I am definitely discussing in good faith, as I'm seeing situations where relatively ordinary people have second homes, are in transition, or indeed are trying to add value to a property to resell, and are entirely unfairly losing the right to enjoy their property, and being saddled with the costs of evicting a squatter and repairing their damage.

In particular, at what point is a building "vacant" and at what point is it "unused"? More specifically, at what point do these get to the level where they should be subject to what is effectively confiscation by squatting?

Would you consider that the house I moved out of, but didn't sell during a market downturn and before making upgrades, which was vacant for more than a half year, be "unused" enough that I should have been subject to the whims of squatters? What about if that caused my wife and I to also lose our newer primary residence?

What about seasonal vacation homes? I know people who have them, purchased long ago, with kit houses, and are closed and inaccessible during the winter, but are used extensively other seasons, when extended families and friends travel from across the continent to use the places. Are those sufficiently vacant and unused?

I'll agree that a case may be made for places that are truly abandoned and unused. I might even agree that a 'no-harm-no-foul' rule could work, as in if the squatters may enjoy it and must leave when asked and leave no trace of their presence, it'd be OK/legal.

But I certainly disagree that granting squatters rights to either of the owners-in-transition or seasonal-homes examples is reasonable.

So, please provide more clarity on exactly what you think should be the boundaries.

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

#874

Post by Vegenoid »

tiborsaas wrote: post #756
Vegenoid wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without making judgement myself, this is exactly what squatters, and those who support them, would consider a success story: 1. The house has wealthy owners who treat it as an investment 2. The house remains empty almost all of the time 3. Squatters occupy the residence and get more utility out of it than the owners 4. As a result, the owners sell the residence, maybe to someone who will live in it or rent it (but ma…

I did not dot share this story to gain sympathy, this is simply what happened. I'd be caution against shifting over to victim blaming, like he asked for it. Rings a bell?

Frankly, I think jumping straight to comparing me to rape apologists is a terrible way to respond to this. Don't do that if you want to have constructive discussions.

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

#875

Post by makeitdouble »

toss1 wrote: post #847
makeitdouble wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You're arguing for having professional home renovators, that works the same if the house is flipped or not. So let's choose not. > squatters You're protected from squatters when it's your primary residency. You make it sound like you'd go bu…

>>you're flipping properties, it was your winter vacation house, or you're actually spending your life in the Bahamas So, you are saying that people who do any of those things should be subject to arbitrary confiscation of their property or rights to it? NO, that is absurd and obscene. Everyone who has a second property is not wealthy to the point where it doesn't matter. I know many people who have remote properties…

> Under what ethical reasoning should they be deprived of their property ?

Ask the Spanish government ?

Otherwise most countries have adverse possession laws, the only difference being how drastic the requirements are. Spain just decided to lower the bar that much.

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

#876

Post by skyyler »

nec4b wrote: post #852
skyyler wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

small cabin in the woods is whatever renting out property you own as a means of income is the upper middle class part.

I know a lot of people who inherited some small place from a relative and they rent it out to supplement their income and aren't anywhere near upper middle class. What is you definition of upper middle class?

I don't believe "middle class" is anything but a psychological game.

You either have to sell your labour to someone else or you don't.

The concept of a "middle class" seems to just make half of the working class think they're better than the other half.

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

#877

Post by sheepdestroyer »

noduerme wrote: post #685
burnished wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft is a violation of property laws. If you recognize that property laws are in some senses arbitrary/designed to fit a purpose (which you seem to, since you are proposing changes to them) then I think you should also recognize that treating theft as a purely black and white topic does not make sense. Not advocating for the burglary higher up the thread, still a shit thing to do so someone

Based on your definition, theft of indigenous land would be fine since there were no property laws to violate. Yet it was not fine. That's because theft is a violation of universal moral laws. Everyone knows it is wrong. Justifying it is an immoral barbarism.

"La propriété, c'est le vol." Proudhon : Property is theft.

It's not quite morally universal that a right to unlimited property exists.

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

#878

Post by rightbyte »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #709
rightbyte wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws are written in such a way to protect tenants from landlords. A shady landlord will just claim the tenants are squatters.

tenants with a signed lease, a record of rent payments, correspondence with the shady landlord, etc. can simply show them in court and prove otherwise?

Yes, but not if you are evicted by the police in 48h?

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

#879

Post by toss1 »

makeitdouble wrote: post #875
toss1 wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>you're flipping properties, it was your winter vacation house, or you're actually spending your life in the Bahamas So, you are saying that people who do any of those things should be subject to arbitrary confiscation of their property or rights to it? NO, that is absurd and obscene. Everyone who has a second property is not wealthy to the point where it doesn't matter. I know many people who have remote properties…

> Under what ethical reasoning should they be deprived of their property ? Ask the Spanish government ? Otherwise most countries have adverse possession laws, the only difference being how drastic the requirements are. Spain just decided to lower the bar that much.

Yes, adverse possession laws are nothing like that

Here in the US, it is typically must be "open, notorious, exclusive, and unopposed" for like 20 years before you can try for adverse possession.

You certainly do not get rights just for showing up and camping for days. It's quite a different beast.

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

#880

Post by s1artibartfast »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #858
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then everyone will go sleep in the street, in order to get a free house.

No, they won’t.

Would you sleep in a tent for a year to get a million dollars? I already have a house and would still do it.

Hell, I would do it for 10% of that. No job and drinking and camping for a year sounds like an epic vacation.

Before you doubt me, I was certifiably homeless in San Francisco for 3 months it was a blast. Slept on couches everyday, worked cash jobs, and partied every night.

Post reply on HN