For there to be squatters, the landlords had to have this property open and unrented for a while. The only way that happens is if the rent is too high.
What kind of landlord can afford to have a rental property vacant for a significant period of time and not accept a lower rent? Ones who own lots of property and would prefer to lose income rather than reduce the average rent price in the area.
In the industry, withholding housing from people because you want to make more money, when you can clearly afford to get no income from it, is called “a dick move”.
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.
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.
The only way that happens is if the rent is too high.
That’s not the only way. It’s not even very likely. If they are looking for too much rent and can’t get it they will lower their ask rather than sit there month after month getting nothing. Too high rent is the most easily fixable situation conceivable.
Other explanations include things like: it’s owned by someone who is elderly and due to their health or other problem they simply aren’t managing it actively or are even incapacitated and can’t make major decisions. Perhaps the owner died and the property is in the probate courts, which can take years.
Also, the presence of squatters doesn’t necessarily indicate it has been vacant for a long time.
In theory. Long term vacancy is not in any corporate landlord’s plan, though. They will adjust rather than seek impossible rent forever. And aside from large apartment buildings, most residences (75% of 1-4 unit buildings) are owned by small landlords who don’t give a shit about network effects.
Squatters could move in the day after the property becomes empty. Really it depends on when it is noticed the house is unoccupied.
Sometimes houses can’t be sold for months because of legal BS (happened with my moms house).
I’m not seeing it.
For there to be squatters, the landlords had to have this property open and unrented for a while. The only way that happens is if the rent is too high.
What kind of landlord can afford to have a rental property vacant for a significant period of time and not accept a lower rent? Ones who own lots of property and would prefer to lose income rather than reduce the average rent price in the area.
In the industry, withholding housing from people because you want to make more money, when you can clearly afford to get no income from it, is called “a dick move”.
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.
If that’s true, we would all do it. No?
Are you asking why isn’t everybody stealing each other’s property?
If there’s little repercussion and everyone is broke, yes.
I think you either a) underestimate people’s desires to not be absolute assholes; or b) underestimate how often this happens.
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.
That’s not the only way. It’s not even very likely. If they are looking for too much rent and can’t get it they will lower their ask rather than sit there month after month getting nothing. Too high rent is the most easily fixable situation conceivable.
Other explanations include things like: it’s owned by someone who is elderly and due to their health or other problem they simply aren’t managing it actively or are even incapacitated and can’t make major decisions. Perhaps the owner died and the property is in the probate courts, which can take years.
Also, the presence of squatters doesn’t necessarily indicate it has been vacant for a long time.
Corporate landlords lose more by drops in real estate price and lowering of rent averages than a handful of empty properties. They have scale.
In theory. Long term vacancy is not in any corporate landlord’s plan, though. They will adjust rather than seek impossible rent forever. And aside from large apartment buildings, most residences (75% of 1-4 unit buildings) are owned by small landlords who don’t give a shit about network effects.
Squatters could move in the day after the property becomes empty. Really it depends on when it is noticed the house is unoccupied.
Sometimes houses can’t be sold for months because of legal BS (happened with my moms house).
Yes, there are always edge cases. Wouldn’t it be great if there were no corporate landlords and the problem was small enough to worry about those?
Huh? A squatter is most commonly simply a former renter who stops paying without moving out. The property is not vacant at any point.
You’re describing holdover tenants. Those are not the same as squatters. Holdover tenants have more rights in California.
Edit: worded that wrong.