[rozularen]

> This "problem" is just for people with a lot of houses, rentist, that are part of the problem. Or the banks and vulture funds, who had most of the houses and flats in spain.

And the squatting problem in spain is ridiculous small. THe percentage over the poblation is ridiculous. This that, in this article, don't mention at all.

This is a problem that *anyone* with more than 1 property might suffer. FTFY

It's unbelievable the way some people stretch it to defend squatters.

If it's not yours, you should not take it. Full pause.

[diggan]

> This is a problem that anyone with more than 1 property might suffer. FTFY

Yes, "lots" = more than one

Spain is still struggling with higher demand than supply, so people end up homeless. At the same time, Spain struggles with properties in high-demand areas being empty because the owner doesn't want to rent or sell it, so no one uses it at all.

Finally, we're getting "upkeep taxes" added to those places, so they can either be utilized, or the owner "penalized" of sorts.

But up until now, there wasn't anything like that, so the alternative for many is to hole up in a empty building no one cares about, or live on the street. And obviously, many take the first choice. It's hard for me to blame them when the other choice is living on the streets.

[rozularen]

there's a slight difference between one, a couple, a few, several and "lots". It's one of the first things you learn in English.

If I ran out of money it shouldn't be okay for me to rob someone's else money. The same way if I can't afford a house house I shouldn't squat a house.

If one can't afford a house, he or she should: - complain about the government house development policies - search for social housing if available - get a better job - not squat someone's else house - not have children and use them to justify squatting, which is very common - etc