“I’d much rather make a squatter homeless than have a landlord lose property,” James added.

Keeping it classy.

wanted to say the same thing. what a dickhead, simping for landlords.

Hear me out: I don’t blame landlords for wanting to protect their investments. But, I do have a problem with them (and guys like James here) who do it at the expense of the downtrodden. Being a landlord should not have to be mutually exclusive with helping people.

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.