It shouldn't be but it's a reality that is not offered better solutions as far as this article explains.

The problem is greed not owning a house you don't live in.

I can go to my country's capital, point to a window and guess, with a fair degree of confidence, that, if rented, the property has an exploitative rent value. And next I can guess if the property is privately owned or is property of a company.

My grandparents, like many people of their generation, owned their house and another flat in the same building, which they rented for decades to the same family. The rent was updated, yearly, and in accordance to legal impositions. It allowed for my parents to slightly supplement their meager retirement and the other couple to live in decent conditions until they both passed away.

In the exact same building, another person bought an empty flat, renovated it and put it up for rent by nearly six times the value my grandparents charged, needlessly. Needlessly to say, the house had a very high turn rate, with the average tennant being there less than one year. And often leaving the property less than well maintained.

The problem is taxation. Who owns has to be adequately taxed by their income and property. That money needs to be syphoned back into social services, like healthcare, public transportation, education and, yes, even public housing. It must not be allowed to pile and be used to amass assets to further enrich those who already have more than enough.

There will always be people who are uninterested in owning. Like students away from home, people and professionals that move constantly or tjose who can't be bothered by having to deal with property taxes and other expenses related to owning and maintaning a house. And those houses have to be maintained by someone. The state is not and should not be expected to maintain all that property because that property is a source of income for the state itself. What the state should and must do is curb the unchecked amassing of wealth.

Don't be silly, this is not about unoccupied homes. This is about two things:

• corporations buying out properties with tenants and kicking them out to turn them into AirBnB or demolish and build more expensive apartments
• people that stop paying rent

First case is a somewhat valid reason for eviction ban. Second is abuse oce is talking about.

In both cases it will lead to lowering the number of properties on the market because investors will back out and less homes will be built and home owners will simply remove their properties from market not to risk paying the bills of someone living in their property for free. This already happened in Catalonia and Pais Vasco - they put limits on rents and people removed their apartments from the market.

There are some reasonable things in the those bills but the eviction ban is not one of them.

Sometimes people own 1-2 houses. They rent when on work contract expecting to come home to live in that place 1yr later.

Or they inherited, the kid is only 16, so they’re renting for 2-4 yrs until the kid is old enough to take possession.

Or, they’re like, maybe I can make a dent in my monthlies with this new house, rents being $500-$1k over mortgage for a $400k house back when interest rates were good.

You act like everyone who chooses to rent space to someone needing a place to live is an asshole. You don’t know that. Many are just working class who lucked into an extra house. Life isn’t charity. That house could be inheritance money in the shape of a house.

You are in no way entitled to someone else’s inheritance money.

Saying stuff like this is punching your neighbors instead of punching up. Which is easier, but not cool to do. People just trying to get by here, maybe get ahead by half a step, and lack of houses isn’t a working class responsibility, that responsibility rests at a higher level.

Quick summary: of you live legally, you have papers that say under what conditions you must leave. If you enter illegally, there's nothing so you need to go to court, which is slow. And during that time, you can't do anything (not even stop the electricity contract) as the ones living there are "innocent until proven guilty of living there without permission"

Yes but this is incredibly rare issue and it's just talked about because it sounds bad. Most cases are simply people unable to pay the rent for whatever reason. Some people take advantage of the eviction bans and simply stop paying but I don't know that the % is. Probably also tiny.

They should bring those amendments at the same time if they have ideas to prevent a collapse of offer.

If there is no guarantee that they can recover their investment, people will not invest to build homes anymore and their will be less or worse homes to live in.

You don't need for it to happen a lot for it to be a problem. It just needs to be common enough.

It only needs to happen once in a town, the next day of the news breaking, the home security guys make bank by selling home alarms. Because once they're in for a relatively short period of time, it's basically impossible to throw them out. So it's worth it to pay a subscription in order to go on vacation and have the assurance that you'll have a home when you come back.

A single instance of a break in generates millions of economic damage on just alarm subscriptions.

That being said. It's a different problem.

It's not the same kicking a person from a home they've been legally living in for years, and kicking someone that illegally broke into another person's house for a few days.

Different problems can have different solutions

Saw a report on TV. There are even specialized companies now who remove the occupiers. If there's a business, it's probably a big enough problem for the Spaniards.