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

91–100 of 930 posts

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

#91

Post by skitout »

dgan wrote: post #18

Oh wow I thought only France has squatting problem. here the squatters can legally occupy your place for 48 hours, and if that's your only place and you went away on vacation tough luck buddy, they can shit on the floor and tear the walls down Good luck getting your money/property back

1) If it is where you lived they always could be (and were) kicked out quickly (and it was not that simple in other situations)

2) Now the law changed and it is much easier and faster to kick them out. It was always illegal to squat, now sanction are higher

3) Most squatters are not targeting houses. And all the time squats are mainly building not used for years (as it safer and easier for squatters, and sometimes as a way to "minimize" disturbances)

Please note that in Holland some kind of squat were legals for years (only for building not used for years and with obligation to not damage the property and to give it back quickly). Seems interesting to me

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

#92

Post by giantg2 »

prmoustache wrote: post #82
giantg2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for that info! So why is this such a big problem? Is it just that the government doesn't want to trust it's own records? If people are bypassing the law, I would think it reasonable to allow the consequences to transpire - eg evicted if you don't have a written contract.

You are saying that as if it is never the owner's fault. If your revenue is not enough to pay for an housing under regular contract but a shaddy owner allows you to pay a rent for the place so that he can bypass a number of regulations by pretending he has no tenants, would you choose living in the street or a car or would you accept it, hoping it is a temporary situation? Most people would choose the later hence the…

There needs to be penalties on the landowner side too. The paper requirement should carry penalties enforced against them if they are violating it. This would be better than just a chance of pain from the eviction process. After all, if they are shady landlords they might push people out in other ways to avoid the eviction process currently anyways.

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

#93

Post by pc86 »

prmoustache wrote: post #72
pc86 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well most people aren't criminals so no I don't think "everyone would be squatting houses all the time" is accurate under any realistic scenario. What happens if the police don't respond? You discover them at the beginning of a long holiday weekend? It's a second residence and you discover them as you open the door to let your family stay there? The mental gymnastics people will go through to try to justify someone b…

They are not criminals if the law says they are not. They are definitely delinquents, but calling that a crime is a stretch, no lives are at risks.

I was unaware the definition of a crime is that someone's life is at risk.

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

#95

Post by asoneth »

abduhl wrote: post #88
panarky wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's madness is the state allowing property owners to leave vacant, dilapidated buildings to blight the neighborhood. Owners should be required to maintain their structures and keep them occupied, or forfeit the property.

The government should tell property owners that they are required to keep their property occupied otherwise the government should seize their property? This is an extremist view. Who defines what “maintained” means? Beyond safety concerns about the structure (and even then, they shouldn’t be able to tell me anything as long as I post a danger unsafe structure keep out sign and lock the doors), why would the governmen…

> tell property owners that they are required to keep their property occupied otherwise the government should seize their property?

I suspect it would make more sense to do so via tax policy, i.e. high property taxes (or LVT) with a deduction for each occupant.

> why would the government have any right to tell me what to do with my building?

For one thing, governments have a vested interest in not being overthrown. If a sufficiently large percentage of the population believes that their living standards are declining (including not having a place to live) then an increasing number of people will arrive at the conclusion that revolution or terrorism has a positive risk/reward ratio.

I've worked in a country where the previous government had allowed this to occur; apparently it happened gradually and then suddenly. Beyond a certain point you can only consider something "my building" if you have the means to defend it against anyone who might wish to make it their building. In that case, the possession of a piece of paper which you once used to outsource the enforcement of your property rights to the previous government isn't very useful.

(Edit: To be clear, I think allowing squatting is a poor solution to the problem of reducing homelessness and better tax and housing policies are more sustainable and equitable, I'm just explaining why the government has a substantial interest in what private landowners do with their properties.)

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

#96

Post by violent_answer »

hichamdoe wrote: post #79
violent_answer wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

In Spain it is a mandate from our Constitution ( https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2014-375#:~:text=... .) to ensure and facilitate to citizens their right of roof.

[flagged]

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

#97

Post by skitout »

giantg2 wrote: post #87
bramblerose wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what happens when the law requires a contract yet the landlord doesn't offer a contract and simply collects the rent?

It's an illegal operation. Under that sort of restriction, any building occupied would either need to be occupied by the registered owner or have a registered lease. If those aren't found, the people are evicted. The point is to ensure that everyone knows that you need to have a registered document to stay somewhere so nobody takes those deals. Then on the landlord side, you need to enforce substantial fines for any…

I am volunteering in an housing rights organization in France, and I am and have been tenant in a city with high price and housing shortage.

There will always be many people taking "illegal deal" as sometime you have no other other solution, or other solution are even worse. And many many landlords are doing illegal things, including public housing.

Tenant don't have the same bargaining power / freedom / agency than landlord. Fighting illegal stuff that do landlord is long (usually longer than kicking out a squatter) and difficult. And you have little incentive to do it as a tenant : being in a fight with your landlord = being sure to have problem down the line

My feeling is that your comment ignores this asymmetry.

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

#98

Post by skitout »

abduhl wrote: post #88
panarky wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's madness is the state allowing property owners to leave vacant, dilapidated buildings to blight the neighborhood. Owners should be required to maintain their structures and keep them occupied, or forfeit the property.

The government should tell property owners that they are required to keep their property occupied otherwise the government should seize their property? This is an extremist view. Who defines what “maintained” means? Beyond safety concerns about the structure (and even then, they shouldn’t be able to tell me anything as long as I post a danger unsafe structure keep out sign and lock the doors), why would the governmen…

Even if I am the owner of an apartment, I don't have the right to do a metal concert in my living room some Saturdays at 1 am... or don't have the right to paint my frontage the way I want... cause it creates negative consequences for other people.

Having vacant apartments and houses for long time in places where there is an housing shortage create much bigger negative consequences than few metal concerts...

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

#99

Post by giantg2 »

skitout wrote: post #97
giantg2 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an illegal operation. Under that sort of restriction, any building occupied would either need to be occupied by the registered owner or have a registered lease. If those aren't found, the people are evicted. The point is to ensure that everyone knows that you need to have a registered document to stay somewhere so nobody takes those deals. Then on the landlord side, you need to enforce substantial fines for any…

I am volunteering in an housing rights organization in France, and I am and have been tenant in a city with high price and housing shortage. There will always be many people taking "illegal deal" as sometime you have no other other solution, or other solution are even worse. And many many landlords are doing illegal things, including public housing. Tenant don't have the same bargaining power / freedom / agency than…

"My feeling is that your comment ignores this asymmetry."

These are enforcement problems, not squatter problems. As you've said, the things the landlords are doing are already illegal. In the US we have Attorney General offices that will handle housing cases on behalf of tenants.

Both parties can benefit from better enforcement and written and recorded leases. Penalties for landlords leasing without recorded agreements may be more easily enforced that under the current system.

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

#100

Post by abduhl »

skitout wrote: post #98
abduhl wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government should tell property owners that they are required to keep their property occupied otherwise the government should seize their property? This is an extremist view. Who defines what “maintained” means? Beyond safety concerns about the structure (and even then, they shouldn’t be able to tell me anything as long as I post a danger unsafe structure keep out sign and lock the doors), why would the governmen…

Even if I am the owner of an apartment, I don't have the right to do a metal concert in my living room some Saturdays at 1 am... or don't have the right to paint my frontage the way I want... cause it creates negative consequences for other people. Having vacant apartments and houses for long time in places where there is an housing shortage create much bigger negative consequences than few metal concerts...

You do have a right to do a metal concert in your living room on Saturday at 1AM. You don’t have a right to violate the local noise ordinance or, because your example has you as an apartment owner and not a building owner, the condo association rules.

You do have the right to paint your frontage the way you want with respect to the GOVERNMENT.

But more importantly, the GP wanted the government to TAKE VIA FORFEITURE any building that is merely vacant. Your examples are limits on use, not relinquishment of property. They are not the same.

Post reply on HN