I dont know how prevalent it is now, but 10-20 years ago most artists I knew in London did exactly this to live cheaply in the major city.
this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Economics
1715 readers
1 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
People with second homes, vacation properties(think cabin), and time shares will do this with whatever they aren't using. Often, it comes with taking care of pet fish, reptiles, birds, or even dogs/cats that don't like the other property, are incontinet, or aren't allowed there for whatever reason.
Speculators/Investors will avoid this however they can. They deserve all the squatters, and squatters deserve homes. Very very few people choose squatting over more conventional options; Even they aren't the villains of this story.
That's very true. I happen to live in a rented apartment, and my friend lives in my apartment. That friend only pays bills for that. No profit for me, but it's humane at least
In the Netherlands we have "anti-kraak" (anti-squat). Organisations get hired by empty property owners to fill it with temporary (short or long term) tenants. They don't get paid but they pay well below market rates rent. Some of them are gonna look a bit more like a squat but there's also totally normal houses/apartments.
The laws protect squatters and renters very strongly here so I think that's how it came about.
A friend of mine was paid to live in a huge house for a few months while the family was overseas.
There would be a few interesting legal hurdles to overcome. Effectively you would need tennants who can vacate at the drop of a hat who wouldnt trash the place and dont have location dependent jobs.
… it would never work as a business model.
Maybe such a free market solution just lacks a problem. In other words, maybe squatters aren't really a big deal in the first place.
Its a problem in the sense that it happens rarely but theres some absolute horror stories. I can see why some people might want the house taken care of by a live in caretaker until they can rent it or move in.
The US federal minimum wage for someone for 24hrs 7 days a week is like $1200ish dollars a week, but you're providing housing but not in a traditional sense, but they would be expected to do basic maintenance chores, then who pays the utilities?, etc, etc.
Im just saying that the idea is viable but you would have to do a LOT of legal legwork on a state by state basis to keep everything fair and above board for all parties.
You mean… pay the squatters?!?
What do you mean? House-sitting is a job.
And the most obvious people to fill that job…
Are the squatters themselves. Actually, I’m sure a “if you take care of the place, keep it ready for showings, maintain the lawn well let you stay there for free,” would save the companies way more money.
That they don’t try this… suggests a lot about the companies in question,
I think the difficulty is having people leave.