> people will be LESS likely to invest in fixing up unliveable places.
Someone's still paying for the house flipping. By definition the flipper makes a margin between what they paid, the repairs, and the price they get at the end.
So why should we encourage house flipping instead of having howners buy the damaged property and pay for a renovation company ? Housing wise the end result is the same, minus the flipping.
If your argument is that the buyer converted a 4 person house into a 20 doors appartment, that's a better proposition, but they're also in a much more protected position and won't be bogged down by squating laws.
Of course they are - even in the case of 'flipping', they are at least working to add value. Barring complete incompetence, the repaired and upgraded place is MORE valuable.
>>By definition the flipper makes a margin between what they paid, the repairs, and the price they get at the end.
NO; there is nothing 'by definition' about it. While investors all desire to make a profit, many actually lose money, either due to poor planning and/or execution of upgrades or just ill-timed market downturns. The RISK of loss is reason to justify a profit. Moreover, SQUATTERS ADD ANOTHER RISK that almost guarantees a loss — even if they do zero damage and somehow the costly eviction process is free, the loss of time itself costs money.
>>So why should we encourage house flipping instead of having howners buy the damaged property and pay for a renovation company ? Housing wise the end result is the same, minus the flipping.
YES, I agree, this would be better. However, the result is not necessarily the same. While many flippers have poor or overly trendy tastes so that their upgrades don't add value, individual homeowners are even more unskilled. Plus, people upgrading buildings for a first or second living bring advantages and economies of scale, including buying materials at trade and/or bulk prices vs retail prices, ability to employ workers more efficiently across multiple properties at once, etc. OTOH, the homeowners have the advantage of caring more because they'll live there.
But notice, BOTH of these are ONLY MADE WORSE option by squatters. An investor may take a loss on one of a bunch of properties due to a squatter. But a homeowner who buys a run-down home to upgrade and move into, can be bankrupted by a squatter. Now, you have two homeless families, no just one.
There is simply no justification for giving people the right to steal other's property just by breaking and entering.
If we want to make a process, perhaps akin to found valuables, whereby someone can claim a property, and the previous owner must show that s/he is actively working to upgrade it, I could support that.
I might even support some kind of people can move in, but must cause no damage and move out when caught; a kind of 'no harm — no foul' rule could be reasonable. But, just "gee that looks empty, let's move in, and we have rights greater than the owner!", is a hard NO.
> economies of scale, including buying materials at trade and/or bulk prices vs retail prices, ability to employ workers more efficiently across multiple properties at once, etc.
You're arguing for having professional home renovators, that works the same if the house is flipped or not. So let's choose not.
> squatters
You're protected from squatters when it's your primary residency. You make it sound like you'd go buy some groceries and when you're back at home your house is occupied with no recourse. No.
It only becomes a legal quagmire when you're flipping properties, it was your winter vacation house, or you're actually spending your life in the Bahamas. Nobody's having issues while their house is actively renovated and they move in as soon as it's finished.
>>you're flipping properties, it was your winter vacation house, or you're actually spending your life in the Bahamas
So, you are saying that people who do any of those things should be subject to arbitrary confiscation of their property or rights to it?
NO, that is absurd and obscene. Everyone who has a second property is not wealthy to the point where it doesn't matter. I know many people who have remote properties that they visit intermittently or seasonally, who struggled to earn and invest enough to make it possible and have spent decades working on and improving the property. In some cases, the value has increased greatly, and in others, it's still just a remote camp on a remote wild spot.
Under what ethical reasoning should they be deprived of their property? Particularly, that they should be deprived of it randomly and at the whim of squatters? (e.g., if society decides that no one should be allowed to own a second property, then we should pass laws to outlaw and/or tax them out of existence in an organized way; there's no justification for arbitrary taking)
EDIT, add:
>>You're arguing for having professional home renovators,
No, this does not necessarily mean professionals, it means anyone doing it repeatedly or at scale, including a lot of semi-pros. Professionals and trades are often involved. And once you do it a few times (I know people who have done some), you do get economies, efficiencies, and knowledge that makes things both more economical and have better outcomes than the average homeowner/first-timer can do. I still don't see the argument against flipping a house (except for bad jobs, which homeowners can also do), and certainly none that says anyone should be subject to arbitrary confiscation by squatters
> Under what ethical reasoning should they be deprived of their property ?
Ask the Spanish government ?
Otherwise most countries have adverse possession laws, the only difference being how drastic the requirements are. Spain just decided to lower the bar that much.
Someone's still paying for the house flipping. By definition the flipper makes a margin between what they paid, the repairs, and the price they get at the end.
So why should we encourage house flipping instead of having howners buy the damaged property and pay for a renovation company ? Housing wise the end result is the same, minus the flipping.
If your argument is that the buyer converted a 4 person house into a 20 doors appartment, that's a better proposition, but they're also in a much more protected position and won't be bogged down by squating laws.