The law benefits squatters in otherwise empty homes because evicting them means making them homeless.
As much as it sucks to lose access to your property the other side is losing access to a home which is way worse.
As much as it sucks to lose access to your property the other side is losing access to a home which is way worse.
Your confusion is understandable. The framing of both situations in the article is "homeowner returned to discover squatters" but even their own facts don't line up with that narrative.
I suspect both situations are probably much more mundane tenant disputes and the article is pushing an agenda.