• acockworkorange@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    Counterpoint: some people would rent an Airbnb and stay after the two weeks they rented, effectively preventing the homeowner to return to their homes after a vacation. There’s little legal recourse to speedily remove them, as two weeks of occupation requires a lengthy judicial process to evict them (IIRC in California).

    I dislike rent seekers too, but it happens to people with only one home as well. They think they could put their home to use while they’re not there (effectively reducing the problem of real estate under occupation), only to be exploited.

    • ecvanalog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      The thing is, what you describe is incredibly rare, to the point of being a statistical anomaly.

      Also, if you take the “low income” piece out of it, abusing others and cheating the system to save money is “just good business.” Ask all the millionaires doing immoral but TECHNICALLY legal things on their taxes.

      • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        You’re mistaken, sadly. It doesn’t happen more often because people got smart to it and no longer put their houses for rent for longer periods.

        And I don’t get your whatabout millionaires comment. My comment was that not all squatting hurts landlords, some hurt regular people. I don’t need to ask millionaires about it because it’s not about them, it’s about middle class people.

          • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            I think you either a) underestimate people’s desires to not be absolute assholes; or b) underestimate how often this happens.

            • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              Very possibly. But the train of thought loses me.

              If squatters were a very big problem, and most squatters come from overstaying rentals, fewer people would be landlords because of the high risk. There would be squatter insurance for landlords.

              I don’t see that. So in our current situation, either squatters are not really that big of a problem, or the insurance industry is not being greedy enough? You can see why I think it’s the former.

              And it also wouldn’t explain the high vacancy rate.

              But here’s an idea that fits what we see more closely. You have a bunch of unrentable units because they’re not up to code. The owner doesn’t want to fix it. They’re just sitting on the property hoping it goes up in value so they can sell it. Squatters see that and move in because they don’t care if it’s up to code. The owners freak out because squatters reduce the property value.