When people talk about housing in Spain, the debate often starts at the wrong point: with the search for someone to blame. In this context, property owners have increasingly become the ideal target – easy to name, politically exploitable, emotionally charged. The only problem is that this does not lead to a solution.
by Elsa Ibanez
Demonising property owners helps no one. On the contrary, it creates tension, unsettles the market and leads to blockages. A housing market characterised by mistrust does not function. If renting is perceived as a risk, flats will not come onto the market. And when supply falls, prices rise. This is not ideology, but simple logic.
Government intervention in the market without a simultaneous expansion of supply will not achieve the desired result either. Rent caps, price limits and additional regulations may be well-intentioned, but they do not create new living space. Without new construction, there will be no relief, only scarcity – an experience that has been confirmed time and again internationally.
The core of the problem lies elsewhere: there is a shortage of housing where people live and work. Not nationwide, but specifically in cities, conurbations and regions in high demand. There is only one realistic answer to this: build.
Creating more living space – both public and private – is not an ideological decision, but a structural necessity. This requires faster approval procedures, the provision of building land and serious public-private cooperation. New construction takes time, yes. But inaction costs society significantly more in the long term.
Legal certainty is equally important. Without clear, reliable rules, there can be no trust among owners or stability for tenants. Protecting vulnerable groups is important, but turning owners into social risk bearers drives housing out of the market. Fear does not create housing.
The confrontation between tenants and landlords also leads to a dead end. Both are part of the same system – and both lose out when it doesn’t work. Tenants lose security and access, landlords lose trust and willingness to rent.
The solution lies not in ideological fronts, but in clearly defined incentives: renting should not be a risk. Rent must remain predictable. Building must become possible again. Public housing construction should complement the market, not replace it.
Housing does not follow political slogans. It follows supply, trust and social reality. And as long as it is not recognised that building is necessary and that assigning blame does not help anyone, the situation will not change – except for the worse.
