It is evident that citizens’ access to housing is a serious problem, with prices rising in double digits and a huge shortage of supply, especially in the rental market. But this cannot justify a “anything goes” approach in housing policy. The consequences of public authorities’ inaction over many years cannot be resolved overnight with dubious legality and counterproductive effects. A few months ago, I spoke to you about my huge doubts regarding the prohibition of so-called “speculative housing purchases.” I recall that, since I did not understand either the economics of the measure or its fit within the legal framework, I went to a discussion with Pablo Feu, the promoter of the measure, to see if I was missing something. The brief economic part of the talk showed that the speaker had obvious gaps in his knowledge of the mortgage system, although it must be acknowledged that he himself admitted he did not know much about economics. And when the legal part came, everything I had studied in constitutional law seemed outdated: with a modification of urban planning regulations, an essential element of a fundamental right was intended to be limited.
Read more Cutting off the leg to lose weight
One of those things I thought could only be modified by a law, probably an organic one, in the Parliament of Madrid. To be fair, the speaker also had his doubts, but ended the debate with a “at least it is good that this is being discussed.” In a sector subject to constant regulatory instability, with very negative effects on supply, this argument is unsustainable.
The serious housing problem cannot justify an “anything goes” policy
The opinion of the Consell de Garanties Estatutàries puts these issues in black and white. It admits the legitimacy of the objective of addressing the right to housing, but understands that the chosen instruments invade state competences and violate the constitutional framework. The arguments are, essentially, similar to those put forward in the report by José Manuel Trayter (U. Girona) and Irene Araguàs (UB) or the more recent one by Sergio Nasarre and Héctor Simón (URV).
Read more Stop botching housing projects
This proposal follows in the wake of other “miracle” measures that have skirted or exceeded the limits of current legislation. They are generally justified by their application elsewhere (Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, etc.) with a mix of inferiority complex and appeal to authority. Unfortunately, the justification never mentions their economic impact since, as in the case of the prohibition of speculative purchases in Rotterdam, it is usually negative in terms of the intended objectives. In this case, an additional justification could be added: it is proposed by none other than Trump himself. At the end of January, the President of the United States launched the idea of preventing institutional buyers from purchasing homes (“people live in houses, not corporations”). If it is an idea from Trump, what could go wrong! And when the opinion was made public, a huge sigh was heard from the Palau de la Generalitat.
