Hacker News Reader

Comment by hawk_ | Hacker News Reader

it's the same tenants protection laws that keeps these apartments empty. someone can move in, pay rent for a month or two and then stop. good luck getting them to leave.

View on HN

That's breach of contract and you can sue them. Have it say something like "The obligation is terminated only after the tenant has moved out and returned the keys". If they stay, you can sue them for not paying rent since they're still a tenant. If they return the keys, immediately change the lock and enable the alarm. If they break in, you can sue them for damaging your property and they also get criminally charged with B&E.

not sure if you're talking hypothetically or from experience, but (depending on jurisdiction) trying to "sue a tennant" is really, really hard. In Canada most of the laws protect the tennant, making trying to evict someone next to impossible. It can take months to years, and they will most likely do thousands of dollars of damage to your property.

I don't understand why it would be easier to sue and remove a delinquint tenant than a squatter.

There's a thing called being judgement proof. These people don't have the money to give you even if you win a judgement.

> breach of contract and you can sue them

Spain isn't known for its efficient court system.

If they pay month for a month that seems better than them paying rent for no months using the squatting path?

Letting good property sit empty when there's affordability crises because it's an "investment" and you're just waiting for the ability to charge more, say, is tragic.

I agree it's tragic, but there's more than the speculator's side to this:

I'm currently in the market for a home (SFBAY), one that could also house my aging parents in the future, so that they're not forced to move away to a LCOL location if they don't want to. Because of this, I'm looking at purchasing a duplex or a home with an in-law unit.

Due to extremely powerful tenant protection laws in the city I'm looking to buy in, I am not considering purchasing units that are tenant occupied, and am willing to pay a significant premium for a vacant unit vs an occupied one.

This isn't a comment on tenant protection laws themselves, but a note that both sides value a vacant unit over an occupied one in highly regulated markets.

Exactly.

I knew a realtor in the Bay Area who specialized in selling homes with existing tenants. He had a lawyer who specializes in owner move-in evictions.

He could find buyers properties at a substantial discount and then guide them though the eviction process. Buyers, if patient enough, could buy a $1M home for $800k plus $50k in legal costs/buyout funds.

You're claiming that tenant protection laws are the reason apartments are kept empty? That seems like a pretty tall claim. Why would someone even continue to own a space that they feel they can't rent out because they disagree with the laws? Speculation on future prices is the only reason I can think of. Introduce a tax penalty for units/buildings vacant longer than X months. There would be more incentive for property owners to lease out units if it was costly not to do so. Eroding protections for the most vulnerable class of people doesn't seem like the best way to reduce upwards market pressure on something that basically everyone needs to survive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com