Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajay-b | Hacker News Reader

It amazes me that the law would allow someone to simply claim someone else's dwelling as their own. I understand on one side we must have tenant protections, but the definition of a tenant should be updated to one that is legally entitled to be within the dwelling by the say of the owner. Because in many American states, it is a perfect formula for extortion.

View on HN

Clearly there is potential on both ends for abuse. To me this story highlights that there are a surprising number of unoccupied/rarely occupied apartments and homes. To me it's surprising that it wouldn't be in the interests of the owners to be renting them instead of leaving them empty (obviously that's a bit different when we're talking about a cottage on the beach or in the mountains, but why leave a flat in town empty?) My instinct is there must be a combination of perverse incentives that makes having paying tenants actually less appealing than letting dust gather. In a better world the flats wouldn't be empty to be squatted in by crooks or desperate people?

It's not surprising at all when you understand that these laws and regulations are so stringent that they cause massive costs to landlord who want to rent, so much so that it is almost financial suicide to try and do it.

My parents own some apartments and offices, and having seen the issues they have had with them, despite having for the most part good faith tenants, i know for a fact that when they pass and i inherit their assets i will liquidate them all and never get involved in any form of real estate in Portugal.

I do this not because I don't want to, but because the ever changing laws, confiscatory taxes and public ill-will on landlords makes it a stupid proposition.

Good intentions generally have terrible results.

> these laws and regulations are so stringent that they cause massive costs to landlord who want to rent

I would argue that the laws and regulations are sort've working as intended in that they deter renters. Unfortunately it also isn't working as intended in that it's not encouraging primary residency. So you end up with the worst of both worlds: neither renters nor homeowners.

Personally, I am strongly of the opinion that renting for more than a temporary amount of time should be very strongly discouraged; that people should own their place of residence; and the correlation that there should be very few landlords over renters. But I can see how that can be bad for some types of economies...

Would you also be opposed to a group of pensioners getting together and buying an apartment block, and renting it out to young people who have no savings? That way the pensioners have an income to live on — without slowly draining their savings — and the young people have a place to live without having to take out a huge loan.

> Would you also be opposed to a group of pensioners getting together and buying an apartment block, and renting it out to young people who have no savings?

Yes. Why should anyone have free income? That idea is backwards to a functioning economy.

> That way the pensioners have an income to live on — without slowly draining their savings — and the young people have a place to live without having to take out a huge loan.

Here's a better solution: group of pensioners getting together and buying an apartment block. Then instead of renting it out, they rent-to-own. Renting there builds equity. Moving out means an opportunity to sell the equity, with a guaranteed floor that the landowners would buy back. At some point the equity means you own your unit.

> but why leave a flat in town empty?

In places with rapidly rising housing prices and strict rent control, it would be better for a speculator to hold the property empty rather than rent it. If you rent it, you lock in the rental price, even if prices go up a lot. If you keep it empty, you can wait until it appreciates the amount you want, and then rent or sell it.

it's the same tenants protection laws that keeps these apartments empty. someone can move in, pay rent for a month or two and then stop. good luck getting them to leave.

That's breach of contract and you can sue them. Have it say something like "The obligation is terminated only after the tenant has moved out and returned the keys". If they stay, you can sue them for not paying rent since they're still a tenant. If they return the keys, immediately change the lock and enable the alarm. If they break in, you can sue them for damaging your property and they also get criminally charged with B&E.

There's a thing called being judgement proof. These people don't have the money to give you even if you win a judgement.

I don't understand why it would be easier to sue and remove a delinquint tenant than a squatter.

not sure if you're talking hypothetically or from experience, but (depending on jurisdiction) trying to "sue a tennant" is really, really hard. In Canada most of the laws protect the tennant, making trying to evict someone next to impossible. It can take months to years, and they will most likely do thousands of dollars of damage to your property.

> breach of contract and you can sue them

Spain isn't known for its efficient court system.

If they pay month for a month that seems better than them paying rent for no months using the squatting path?

Letting good property sit empty when there's affordability crises because it's an "investment" and you're just waiting for the ability to charge more, say, is tragic.

I agree it's tragic, but there's more than the speculator's side to this:

I'm currently in the market for a home (SFBAY), one that could also house my aging parents in the future, so that they're not forced to move away to a LCOL location if they don't want to. Because of this, I'm looking at purchasing a duplex or a home with an in-law unit.

Due to extremely powerful tenant protection laws in the city I'm looking to buy in, I am not considering purchasing units that are tenant occupied, and am willing to pay a significant premium for a vacant unit vs an occupied one.

This isn't a comment on tenant protection laws themselves, but a note that both sides value a vacant unit over an occupied one in highly regulated markets.

Exactly.

I knew a realtor in the Bay Area who specialized in selling homes with existing tenants. He had a lawyer who specializes in owner move-in evictions.

He could find buyers properties at a substantial discount and then guide them though the eviction process. Buyers, if patient enough, could buy a $1M home for $800k plus $50k in legal costs/buyout funds.

You're claiming that tenant protection laws are the reason apartments are kept empty? That seems like a pretty tall claim. Why would someone even continue to own a space that they feel they can't rent out because they disagree with the laws? Speculation on future prices is the only reason I can think of. Introduce a tax penalty for units/buildings vacant longer than X months. There would be more incentive for property owners to lease out units if it was costly not to do so. Eroding protections for the most vulnerable class of people doesn't seem like the best way to reduce upwards market pressure on something that basically everyone needs to survive.

As I understand it, that is basically how it works in the courts in many US states. The court takes several months to schedule and hold the hearings to determine whether or not the person is, in fact, legally entitled to be in the dwelling. If not, then the landlord can file different orders to get the sheriff or other law enforcement to perform the eviction. By the time all the steps have occurred it's been many months... sometimes 1-2 years. Which is why the advice I see given to landlords is to offer "cash for keys" to get the people out without a court case.

It has been worse recently because of moratoriums on evictions (due to covid). In many cases, that meant that the people occupying the dwelling had no incentive to pay anything at all, and no process existed to remove them.

I cannot imagine in the US it bring more than a simple police call to remove randos from your property. This is very different from evictions where someone had been legally living there.

The problem is, how can the police know who's property it is? Or more specifically, who has a legal right to be there. It becomes a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Granted, if it's a primary residence, you have your driver's license and neighbors to back you up. But what if it's an investment property? What if the squatters have been there long enough to have their ID say the address?

> But what if it's an investment property? What if the squatters have been there long enough to have their ID say the address?

If you own the property, then that's public record and can be easily looked up. Once they verify you own the place, police are going to believe you if you say these people are squatters not renters, and they'll have trouble producing documents otherwise. I'd also love to know what percentage of squatters end up getting IDs with addresses to places they don't own, which also requires btw proof of residence (deed AND other forms like a utility bill with your name on it).

Once they verify you own the place, police are going to believe you if you say these people are squatters not renters

If that were true then land lords could evict someone just by calling them a squatter. More to the point, everything you're saying is about making a judgement based on evidence. Police collect evidence, courts make judgements based on that evidence.

I mean, I just had the local library mail me a postcard so I could get a library card. Post office delivered it no problem and that's enough proof of residency for a lot of things.

I don't need an ID with a to turn on the gas and electric. Or, I haven't anywhere I've been.

I don't think it'd be hard to get an ID anywhere I can pick the mail, to be honest. I don't recall needing a document like a lease to get my last drivers license.

But then, I'm not squatting, and given that I try to keep a reasonable credit record and avoid court, I'm not disposed to start squatting.

The real reason for squatter's rights is to prevent rug-pull scenarios, where someone resides in a place for some period of time under good faith but themselves get scammed or otherwise exploited in the process.

This then runs into obvious problems when the police use it as an excuse to just not bother with short-term situations that obviously don't fall under actual squatter's rights precedents.

I thought the reason for squatters rights, and adverse possession in general was to avoid property being neglected by the owners. Or more specifically to make sure the taxes are being paid.

After living in the US for a few years, the rest in Europe, and having worked there too, it amazes me the disdain for private property and its defense that exists in the latter.

And don't get me wrong: it's mostly hypocrisy IMHO, but real defense, like e.g. making sure laws like this don't pass, it's marginal. It's common, at least in Spain, for leftist politicians and media personalities, which tend to be the ones proposing pro-squatter bills, to have large and/or multiple houses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com