[munk-a]

It'd be really interesting to see some laws like that in Canada - if only by the letter - as a way to discourage buying empty homes for investment.

From reading other points in the thread it seems like owning a home for investment in France is an extremely risky proposition.

[Bayart]

>From reading other points in the thread it seems like owning a home for investment in France is an extremely risky proposition.

The amount of people owning property and the size of the real estate market says otherwise. Squatting is just one of those things with an over-sized media footprint.

[BrandoElFollito]

> The amount of people owning property and the size of the real estate market says otherwise

You usually buy to rent. renting is ultra-complex in France as well but at least you know what you are getting into.

> Squatting is just one of those things with an over-sized media footprint

Right until the moment it hits you. Have you had been squatted? No? So how can you have an opinion on the impact to someone?

[Bayart]

>You usually buy to rent.

Yes, I know. Renting is part of "investing".

>Right until the moment it hits you. Have you had been squatted? No? So how can you have an opinion on the impact to someone?

I'm not talking about personal impact, I'm talking about social and economic impact. Just go look at the numbers for squatting in France. It's statistically irrelevant. By your logic we should all be very concerned about things that nearly never happen. That's not a sane way of living. By the same token people should only be able to discuss things that have personally happened to them. Which is nonsense.

[BrandoElFollito]

> Renting is part of "investing".

And?

> I'm talking about social and economic impact

With this approach we should not invest whatsoever in rare diseases. Or help disabled people because they are less useful for "social and economic impact".

Just look at the number of rare diseases, or disabled people. They are statistically irrelevant. Screw them.