> That is to say: it is a problem (the 500 - 1000 cases per year nationwide of occupation of people's homes is clearly problematic) but it's not a really widespread problem for most middle-class people (the vast majority of people even in the middle classes do not own totally unused property).
I don’t understand the point of trying to downplay or diminish this problem.
Is dividing the victims along arbitrary class lines and arguing that most victims are not “middle class” supposed to make it better? It’s a problem regardless of who owns the property.
> Is dividing the victims along arbitrary class lines and arguing that most victims are not “middle class” supposed to make it better?
That was in reply to the parent comment, arguing this is a serious problem primarily for the "not-so-rich middle class" that is being ignored because we falsely imagine it's mainly a problem for banks and rich people.
In fact, the data suggests this really is primarily a problem for commercial landlords and property speculators, and the risks for typical homeowners is very low.
This is in sharp contrast to most media coverage, and the parent comment, which paint a picture of substantial risks that your personal home will be taken over by squatters. That is not true. The real level of risk to the average Spaniard is very roughly 2x the risk that they'll be murdered this year - not absolutely zero, but not very far from something you'd worry about day-to-day in Spain.
Neither huge amount of somewhat legit cases of 'unused', nor media coverage doesn't make it right.
I also wouldn't easily compare the murder count (which are hardly underreported) and occupation count (which most likely are, because legal way is way more expensive and lengthy).
> I also wouldn't easily compare the murder count (which are hardly underreported) and occupation count (which most likely are, because legal way is way more expensive and lengthy).
The legal process is definitely lengthy for actual occupation (usurpación) where the average eviction time is now but for people breaking & entering into your personal residence (allanamiento) it's not at all. If you can demonstrate this (easy enough: show you're the owner & empadronado, ask the neighbours to vouch for you, or show the utility bills all have your name on them) then it's clear allanamiento and that means there's no judicial order or further investigation required and the police can (and do) forcibly remove & arrest people _immediately_. It's a very nice clear-cut crime.
Basically the strong legal protections for personal dwellings cut both ways: they protect okupas who make somebody's empty property their legal residence, but they'll also strongly protect you & your own home if it's your legal residence.
Given all that, I'd be quite surprised if allanamiento is underreported at all.
> Neither huge amount of somewhat legit cases of 'unused', nor media coverage doesn't make it right.
I'm not saying it's right, or that the problem doesn't exist. There are a small number of real cases of individual's homes being invaded. Even in other cases, property ownership does need to function reliably for commercial properties, and although owning empty properties may be problematic this is not a very good solution to that at all. I would be very happy to see usurpación cases resolved much quicker, and to increase property taxes on empty properties to reduce speculation instead.
That said, I do think that:
* The media hype about it is overblown, and for most people who worry about it (and some people worry about this a lot!) it's really not a serious risk.
* Political discussion & action related to it is frequently overblown for political advantage, and that's why some people think losing your home and being unable to recover it is far more common than it is.
* The victims here are generally large business and property speculators. The law should definitely protect those groups too, yes, but the strictness & speed of legal & police procedures should be proportional to the damage to the victims, and an empty shop being used by okupas is clearly less problematic than having somebody take over your actual home.
* Media hype (and political discussion) is overblown from both sides. That's partially what keeps the left in the news because otherwise they don't have much to offer against capitalism unless maybe Hamas puts some show. And carefully calculated policies and solving problems is not rock-n-roll enough.
* The victims here are everyone who okupas can reach, the limit is not some imaginary moral boundary of the trespasser, but a sheer cost/reward balance. And it's not obvious where you should draw the line. Is a small shop worth it less than a relatively well off private citizen? How small a shop should be to be protected?
Arguably in the countries where the banks are protected the private citizens look even more protected, but I'm not going into that.
> Is dividing the victims along arbitrary class lines and arguing that most victims are not “middle class” supposed to make it better?
The class lines aren't arbitrary: a squatter in someone's unused third vacation property or whatever is causing much less harm than a squatter claiming someone's only residence while they're out of town.
So yes, the dynamics of who it happens to can make it better or worse. The only reason that wouldn't be the case is if what you consider bad about it is a violation of abstract property owner rights, rather than the potential material harms.
I don’t understand the point of trying to downplay or diminish this problem.
Is dividing the victims along arbitrary class lines and arguing that most victims are not “middle class” supposed to make it better? It’s a problem regardless of who owns the property.