I don't agree with squatting on the whole, but this distinction clearly does matter. If someone squats a property that you were planning to rent out then you lose the income that you could have gained thereby. That's not nearly as bad as losing access to the home you currently live in.
It can be worse, as you are losing rental income, which can have larger impacts on your budget and life.
I have family in California that had to deal with squatters on a rental property. It cost them ~400k, which included their kids college funds and retirement.
Costs were 3 years of lost rent while they paid the mortgage 250k damages done by the squatters, plus legal fees.
But if "empty living space", space that's reserved but unused, is immoral would you extend it to any such reserved but unused living space?
Is an empty room in your house immoral? Or massively oversized rooms even if you live in them? In the end you're still blocking a lot of "empty space" that someone else could use if only there were smaller but more living units. Same applies when you live in a detached house and "blocking" any potential living space that could have existed on higher floors of a tall apartment building. Zoning laws can also be an issue but the question stands.
To put in in practical terms, one person having two 50sqm/550sqft apartments is immoral. One person having one 150sqm/1500sqft apartment is fine? Where is the line and how arbitrary do you want it to be?
Is your car sitting in your driveway right now? Someone else could be driving it, it's immoral that you don't leave the keys sitting on the roof.
Is your bed or couch empty right now? Someone else could be sleeping there right now.
Do you have money in your checking account? Someone else could be buying the things they need with that money, you should put the cash outside for them to take.
A house sitting empty while the owners renovate, look for tenants, try to sell, etc is a normal and necessary part of a functioning society.
The solution to housing shortages is to build more housing. That's it, that's the whole solution.
Buying a car and purposefully not using it 24 hours a day as an Uber is immoral. I'll take yours when you leave it parked, okay? You can have it back when I'm done with it, probably when it needs major repairs because I'm not putting any money into it. As the owner of record, that's your problem.
Media reports have been instrumental in shaping the narrative around squatting, with stories of 'okupas' sometimes being sensationalised to highlight conflicts and drama.
This is the approach of the class privileged enough to own the media (literally or figuratively): shape, to their favor, the public's opinion & perspective of an issue that affects most people relatively little, if at all, via sensational media.
Homelessness is a problem, even having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live is a problem. Squatting is just a strategy to fight an inherently oppressive private property norm.
I'm curious how would you expect housing to stock to grow or even stay stable if nobody had to pay rent?
Would all housing be used owned by the state and assigned to individuals based on certain criteria (with huge amounts of inefficiency and corruption that such a system creates)?
I would like to know what the limits of your application of this idea is because if I were to extend your argument that "even having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live is a problem.", this is what I get to:
I am currently buying a house, every month I pay money to the bank, this is very similar to having to pay rent. From my understanding of your logic, this would be a problem.
Further from that, I am building a house. I have to make payments to the builder(s) in order to have a place to live. Is this a problem?
Unoccupied (for x or more months) second homes should be rented out, otherwise squatted in or burned to the ground, period. It doesn't matter if you disagree, Might Makes Right.
Be careful: Meme Magic works in both directions, and it is often difficult to detect its presence.
Which helps who exactly? Even squatting means that those houses will no longer be maintained and fall apart sooner or later which is how you end up having even more expensive housing long-term because of lower supply.
Higher taxation for uninhabited housing seems like an infinitely more sensible option...
foldr|1 year ago
s1artibartfast|1 year ago
I have family in California that had to deal with squatters on a rental property. It cost them ~400k, which included their kids college funds and retirement.
Costs were 3 years of lost rent while they paid the mortgage 250k damages done by the squatters, plus legal fees.
madeofpalk|1 year ago
close04|1 year ago
Is an empty room in your house immoral? Or massively oversized rooms even if you live in them? In the end you're still blocking a lot of "empty space" that someone else could use if only there were smaller but more living units. Same applies when you live in a detached house and "blocking" any potential living space that could have existed on higher floors of a tall apartment building. Zoning laws can also be an issue but the question stands.
To put in in practical terms, one person having two 50sqm/550sqft apartments is immoral. One person having one 150sqm/1500sqft apartment is fine? Where is the line and how arbitrary do you want it to be?
singleshot_|1 year ago
next_xibalba|1 year ago
s1artibartfast|1 year ago
floor2|1 year ago
Is your car sitting in your driveway right now? Someone else could be driving it, it's immoral that you don't leave the keys sitting on the roof.
Is your bed or couch empty right now? Someone else could be sleeping there right now.
Do you have money in your checking account? Someone else could be buying the things they need with that money, you should put the cash outside for them to take.
A house sitting empty while the owners renovate, look for tenants, try to sell, etc is a normal and necessary part of a functioning society.
The solution to housing shortages is to build more housing. That's it, that's the whole solution.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
onlypassingthru|1 year ago
hyperliner|1 year ago
[deleted]
chous|1 year ago
dfxm12|1 year ago
Media reports have been instrumental in shaping the narrative around squatting, with stories of 'okupas' sometimes being sensationalised to highlight conflicts and drama.
This is the approach of the class privileged enough to own the media (literally or figuratively): shape, to their favor, the public's opinion & perspective of an issue that affects most people relatively little, if at all, via sensational media.
zxspectrum1982|1 year ago
TotalCrackpot|1 year ago
Wytwwww|1 year ago
I'm curious how would you expect housing to stock to grow or even stay stable if nobody had to pay rent?
Would all housing be used owned by the state and assigned to individuals based on certain criteria (with huge amounts of inefficiency and corruption that such a system creates)?
themaninthedark|1 year ago
I am currently buying a house, every month I pay money to the bank, this is very similar to having to pay rent. From my understanding of your logic, this would be a problem.
Further from that, I am building a house. I have to make payments to the builder(s) in order to have a place to live. Is this a problem?
ImJamal|1 year ago
There are homeless shelters where people can have shelter without paying rent.
mistermann|1 year ago
Be careful: Meme Magic works in both directions, and it is often difficult to detect its presence.
Wytwwww|1 year ago
Which helps who exactly? Even squatting means that those houses will no longer be maintained and fall apart sooner or later which is how you end up having even more expensive housing long-term because of lower supply.
Higher taxation for uninhabited housing seems like an infinitely more sensible option...