Survey on housing: 68% support limiting prices, even if it lowers landlords' profitability

The price regulation achieves a transversal majority that crosses electorates and even reaches the owners.

7 minutes

fotonoticia 20261001115004 1920

fotonoticia 20261001115004 1920

Add DEMÓCRATA to Google

Ask FREN

Published

Last updated

7 minutes

Most read

The monographic survey by 40dB for El País and Cadena SER shows a broad consensus on a greater intervention in the housing market: 67.5% prefer to limit prices to facilitate access, even if it decreases the profitability of owners, compared to 21.7% who choose to let the market determine them. The position is majority among voters of PSOE, Sumar, and Podemos, but also among those of PP, with 56.5%, and Vox, with 55.2%. 

The survey was conducted through 2,000 online interviews between September 25 and 28, at a time of special intensity in the housing debate: it began two days after the eviction of Maricarmen Abascal and ended before the Council of Ministers approved the two decrees on housing that arrive this Friday at Congress. Therefore, the study does not ask about the final text of those regulations, but about specific policies that in some cases coincide with measures later included in the decrees. 

Two out of three prefer to limit prices rather than let the market act alone

40dB poses a dilemma between limiting prices to make housing more accessible, even if that reduces the profitability of owners, or allowing prices to be set solely by the market even if that may hinder access to housing.

  • 67.5% lean towards the first option.
  • 21.7% prefer the market to determine prices.
  • The rest do not take a position.

The difference, of almost 46 points, makes public intervention the clearly majority option in the question posed by the survey. 

The majority also appears among PP and Vox voters

The distribution by voting intention is one of the most striking data from the study. Among Sumar voters, support for limiting prices reaches 95.8%. Among Podemos voters, it reaches 85.4%, and among PSOE voters, it reaches 82.6%. But the position is also majority in the two main electorates of the right: it is shared by 56.5% of those who would vote for PP and 55.2% of those who would opt for Vox. 

Therefore, there is a clear difference in intensity between blocks, but not in sign. In the five main electorates, more people accept limiting prices than those who prefer to leave price setting exclusively to the market.

Even 56.5% of owners who rent support limiting prices

The division is not automatically reproduced between tenants and landlords. As was to be expected, support for intervention is higher among those who live in rental housing, where it hovers around 77%. But also 56.5% of landlords who rent out some housing are in favor of limiting prices to facilitate access, even though that policy may affect their profitability.  The data suggests that the debate about housing is not exclusively divided between the immediate economic interests of landlords and tenants.

Social housing is the measure with the greatest consensus: 82%

When the survey moves away from the general dilemma and asks about specific policies, even larger majorities appear. The proposal with the most support is to expand the supply of social housing, backed by 82.4% of respondents. Very close are the tax advantages for small landlords who rent their homes at affordable prices, with 79.7%. It also receives around 78% support for the public sector to promote the construction of private housing. 

These results introduce an important nuance: society does not seem to be betting solely on regulating prices. There is also very broad support for increasing supply and using tax incentives to incorporate housing into the market.

Regulating rents, setting caps, and postponing evictions exceed 70%

Measures directly related to rental housing also gather broad majorities.

  • 74% support postponing evictions of vulnerable people while an alternative housing solution is found.
  • 73% agree with setting a limit on the annual increase of rents.
  • 72% directly support regulating the price of rents. 

Furthermore, according to the study, these measures receive more support than rejection not only among progressive electorates and tenants but also among voters of PP and Vox and among landlords, although with smaller margins. 

Almost seven out of ten would prohibit tourist apartments in residential buildings

67.9% agree with preventing tourist apartments from existing within residential buildings. The proposal is not limited to a single political space. The intensity is again greater among left-wing voters, but support also exceeds rejection within right-wing electorates. The data is relevant because the decrees that now arrive at Congress contain measures on tourist housing, although their specific scope partly depends on the existence of areas declared as tense by the autonomous communities. 

Raising taxes on vacant homes divides more

Consensus decreases when the measures directly enter the taxation of property. 51% support increasing taxes on owners of vacant homes. It remains a majority, but by a considerably smaller margin than in previous proposals.  Here, a clearer political division appears. The measure has greater acceptance among left-wing voters and tenants, while it provokes majority rejection among owners and voters of PP and Vox. It is one of the points where the transversal consensus that exists, for example, around expanding social housing or fiscally incentivizing affordable rental disappears.

Only one measure does not reach 50%: limiting how many homes a person can own

The least supported proposal is to establish a limit on the number of homes that one person can have: 48% support it. It is the only one of the 12 policies proposed by 40dB that does not manage to exceed 50%.  Although it receives more support than rejection among PSOE, Sumar, and Podemos voters, it does not achieve sufficient consensus among the general population. Furthermore, this measure is not part of the decrees that will be voted on this Friday in Congress.

Almost two out of three defend limiting prices in tense areas

The survey also asks about one of the main tools of the 2023 Housing Law: limiting prices in those areas declared as tense residential markets. Almost two-thirds of Spaniards consider this measure necessary. Support is again majority among left-wing voters, but also exceeds 50% among those who support right-wing parties.  The effective scope of this mechanism depends, however, on the autonomous communities. Some measures of the new decree will only be applied in territories that have declared tense areas. 

The Maricarmen case has reached 93% of Spaniards

The survey also measures the impact of the eviction of Maricarmen Abascal. More than 93% claim to have heard about the case. It is an extraordinarily high level of informational penetration and helps to understand the context in which the study was conducted. 61.8% believe that an elderly person should not be evicted from their home without having an alternative housing option. Approximately 32% prioritize the owner's right to dispose of their property in that scenario.  Here, a more visible political gap appears: left-wing voters largely lean towards the protection of the vulnerable resident, while among PP and Vox voters, the owner's right weighs more.

Almost two-thirds support peaceful resistance to evictions

The study also asks about mobilizations aimed at preventing an eviction. Almost two out of three citizens consider peaceful resistance legitimate in an attempt to stop an eviction. The support is overwhelmingly majority among progressive voters. Among PP and Vox electorates, however, the issue is practically divided in half. 

69% view negatively that Congress rejected previous housing measures

Almost 70% view negatively that Congress rejected the previous package of measures promoted by the Government to postpone certain evictions and adopt other housing actions.  The negative assessment is more intense among left-wing voters and tenants; however, even among PP and Vox voters and among the owners themselves, more people view that rejection negatively than those who see it positively. This data becomes particularly relevant because this Friday, two decrees on housing return to Congress, and Junts has announced that it will vote against both. 

43% primarily blame the central Government

The broad support for public intervention does not exempt the Government from responsibility for the current situation. When 40dB asks which administration should primarily take on the solution to the problem, 43.3% point to the central Government. 19.3% point to the autonomous communities and only 5.3% to the municipalities. Another part believes that the responsibility belongs equally to all.  This is particularly important data because housing policy is distributed among different administrative levels, but citizens concentrate their demand for solutions fundamentally on the state Executive.

The PSOE appears first in capacity to manage housing, but “none” wins

When asked which party is most capable of addressing the problem, the PSOE occupies the first position among the political formations, with 18.5%. PP and Vox tie with 14.4%. But the most chosen response is “none,” with 22.6%.  The result fits with a survey in which there is broad agreement on the seriousness of the problem and on many of its possible solutions, but a much more limited confidence in the ability of the parties to solve it.

The housing measures with the most and least support

What housing measures do Spaniards support the most, according to 40dB

The 40dB survey for El País and Cadena SER shows favorable majorities for almost all proposed measures. The greatest consensus occurs around social housing and incentives for small landlords, while limiting the number of homes a person can own is the only proposal that does not exceed 50%.

Measure Support
Expand the supply of social housing 82.4%
Tax advantages for small landlords who rent at affordable prices 79.7%
Promote private housing construction from the public sector ≈78%
Postpone evictions of vulnerable people until an alternative is found ≈74%
Non-payment insurance and legal assistance for landlords ≈73%
Set a cap on the annual increase of rents ≈73%
Regulate rental prices ≈72%
Do not allow tourist apartments in residential buildings 67.9%
Prohibit evictions of vulnerable people ≈65%
Monthly aid to pay rent ≈64%
Increase taxes on owners of vacant homes ≈51%
Limit the number of homes a person can own ≈48%

Source: monographic survey by 40dB for El País and Cadena SER. Fieldwork conducted between September 25 and 28, 2026, through 2,000 online interviews.

More key points, information and questions with FREN

AI-GENERATED CONTENT

What parliamentary procedures must housing decrees debated in Congress undergo?

The “housing decrees” to be debated in Congress are, in practice, royal decree-laws issued by the Government on housing matters. Once approved by the Council of Ministers and published in the Official State Gazette (BOE), they must obligatorily undergo Congress control within a maximum period of thirty days to be validated or repealed, and Congress may also decide that they be processed as a bill through the urgent procedure.

1. Publication and entry into force
  • The Government approves the Royal Decree-Law (for example, on housing matters) in the Council of Ministers.
  • The text is published in the BOE. From that moment it has the force of law and can come into effect immediately (often the same day of its publication or the following day).
  • That publication is a condition for it to be included in the Congress agenda: the Regulations indicate that the decree-law can be debated as soon as it has been published in the BOE.
2. Scheduling the debate in Congress
  • The Presidency of Congress and the Board, in agreement with the Spokespersons' Board, schedule in the Plenary agenda the debate and vote on validation or repeal.
  • That debate must take place before 30 days have passed since the promulgation of the royal decree-law, according to article 86.2 of the Constitution and article 151 of the Congress Regulations.
  • If Congress is dissolved or outside ordinary session periods, the competence may fall to the Permanent Deputation, which assumes the Chamber's powers regarding decree-laws.
3. Development of the validation or repeal debate

The parliamentary procedure for the housing decree-law is the same as for any other decree-law:

  • In the Plenary, a Government member (usually the minister responsible for housing or transport-urban planning) presents the reasons of urgency and necessity justifying the use of the decree-law.
  • Then a general debate takes place, with interventions from parliamentary groups following the turns established in the Regulations (usually a first turn of the groups, possible replies and counter-replies).
  • This debate is not about specific amendments, but about the political and constitutional appropriateness of the decree-law itself (its content and the use of the urgency figure).
4. Vote on validation or repeal
  • Once the debate is concluded, a single vote is held in the Plenary.
  • Affirmative votes are understood as favorable to the validation of the royal decree-law; negative votes, favorable to its repeal.
  • A simple majority of the deputies present is required (more votes in favor than against); it is not a qualified majority.
  • The agreement of validation or repeal is again published in the BOE, officially recording the result.
5. Decision on its processing as a bill

If the housing royal decree-law is validated, a second strictly parliamentary decision opens:

  • The Presidency of Congress asks in the Plenary if any Parliamentary Group wishes the decree-law to be processed as a bill.
  • If at least one group requests it, that request is submitted to a vote of the Chamber.
  • If the Plenary votes in favor, the text becomes a bill processed through the urgent procedure.
  • The urgent procedure implies shorter deadlines in Committee and Plenary than in the ordinary procedure.
  • At this stage, amendments to the articles may be submitted by the groups, but the Regulations exclude total return amendments (it is not possible to return the text to the Government, because it is already in force).
6. Role of the Permanent Deputation

When the decree-law is issued between legislatures (Congress dissolution) or outside session periods:

  • The Permanent Deputation exercises the powers of Congress regarding decree-laws: it can validate or repeal them and decide their processing as a bill by urgency.
  • Once the new Congress is constituted, the Deputation reports to the Plenary on the decisions taken.

In summary, the housing decree-laws that reach Congress must, at a minimum, undergo the debate and vote on validation or repeal in Plenary (or in the Permanent Deputation) within 30 days from their promulgation, and may also begin a process as a bill through the urgent procedure if so agreed by the Chamber, from which point the real parliamentary negotiation through amendments opens.

Can you explain in more detail what the urgent procedure applied to those bills derived from housing decree-laws consists of? What exact role do the Board of Congress and the Spokespersons' Board play in scheduling the validation debate of a housing decree-law? What constitutional limits do decree-laws on housing have and in what cases could the Constitutional Court annul one?

What are the powers of the Council of Ministers in approving housing measures in Spain?

The Council of Ministers is the Government body that makes key state decisions on housing, but it does so within a very limited constitutional framework and in co-governance with the autonomous communities. The Constitution (articles 97, 82, and 86) and Law 50/1997, on the Government, assign it the direction of domestic policy and the power to approve bills, royal decree-laws, royal legislative decrees, and regulations; housing, however, is a predominantly autonomous competence, so the Council mainly acts by setting bases, common frameworks, and state promotion measures.

Basic legal framework

According to the Constitution, the Government directs domestic and foreign policy (art. 97) and can issue:

  • Delegated law (legislative decrees) when the Cortes grant it express delegation (art. 82 CE).
  • Decree-law in cases of extraordinary and urgent necessity, with the force of law but provisional in nature and subject to validation by Congress within 30 days (art. 86 CE).

Law 50/1997 specifies these powers for the Council of Ministers. Generally, it assigns it, among others, the functions of:

  • Approving bills and submitting them to Congress or, if applicable, to the Senate.
  • Approving royal decree-laws and royal legislative decrees.
  • Approving regulations and other general provisions for the development and execution of laws.
  • Adopting binding programs, plans, and guidelines for all bodies of the General State Administration.
  • Adopting agreements that do not require the form of royal decree but guide the actions of the state public sector.

These decision forms are reflected in practice: for example, recent royal decree-laws have included housing measure packages (shield against evictions, regulation of seasonal rentals, restrictions on purchases by certain funds, tax incentives, etc.), approved precisely in the Council of Ministers and then sent to Congress for validation.

What the Council of Ministers can do in housing

Applied to the housing field, the Council of Ministers can:

  • Promote state housing laws: approves the preliminary draft and the bill (for example, the 2023 Right to Housing Law) and submits it to the General Courts, which have the final say on its content and approval.
  • Approve urgent measure decree-laws: this is the route used for quick responses to housing crises (eviction moratoriums, extraordinary rental extensions, measures on investment funds or tourist flats). They come into effect after publication but only remain if Congress validates them.
  • Regulate laws through regulations: through royal decrees it can create or modify state housing plans, regulate aid, rehabilitation programs, access requirements to certain subsidies, or coordination instruments with autonomous communities.
  • Approve state plans and programs: by agreement or royal decree it sets the State Housing Plans, determines fund distribution criteria, and defines strategic lines (for example, increasing the public affordable rental stock).
  • Decide on the use of state assets for housing: through agreements and royal decrees it can allocate state-owned land and housing to affordable rental policies, channeling them to entities such as SEPES or specific programs.
  • Incorporate budgetary and fiscal measures linked to housing, always within the framework of tax and budget legislation approved by the Cortes (for example, tax breaks conditioned on affordable rental or extraordinary allocations for housing plans).

Relationship with the General Courts and competence limits

The Council of Ministers does not legislate alone: its normative capacity in housing is subject to double control:

  • Parliamentary control: the bills it approves are debated, modified, and voted on in Congress and Senate; decree-laws must be validated or repealed by Congress within 30 days, and may then be processed as bills to introduce amendments.
  • Constitutional control and territorial distribution: housing and urban planning are among the matters broadly assumed by the Statutes of Autonomy. The State mainly acts by setting bases, basic equality conditions, or general economic order measures. The Constitutional Court has reiterated that state housing plans and their regulations must respect that distribution, fitting as promotion and coordination measures, not as substitution of autonomous competence.

Summary

In short, the Council of Ministers is the Government's decision center for state housing measures: it chooses the instrument (law, decree-law, regulation, plan), approves the text, and sets the political and budgetary strategy. But its decisions are:

  • Limited by the Constitution and the Government Law in form and procedure.
  • Conditioned by the competence distribution that reserves to autonomous communities the regulation and ordinary management of housing and urban planning.
  • Subject to Congress control and, ultimately, to the Constitutional Court.

Housing policy in Spain, therefore, is built on a balance: the Council of Ministers promotes and articulates major state measures, while autonomous communities develop and execute most material competences on housing and land.

Could you explain with recent concrete examples which housing decree-laws the Council of Ministers has approved and what measures they included? How is a State Housing Plan approved by the Council of Ministers coordinated with the housing programs of the autonomous communities? What differences are there between what a state housing law can regulate and what only autonomous communities can decide in this matter?

What requirements must autonomous communities meet to declare an area as a tense residential market according to the 2023 Housing Law?

According to Law 12/2023, on the right to housing, autonomous communities (and, where applicable, other housing-competent administrations) can declare a territorial area as a tense residential market zone when certain material requirements (thresholds of effort and prices) are met and a specific procedure based on objective data is followed.

1. General concept of “tense residential market zone”

The law defines these zones as territorial areas where there is a special risk of insufficient housing supply for the population, so that access to decent housing under market conditions is not affordable. The declaration thus has an instrumental purpose: to guide public housing policies and activate the rent containment and supply reinforcement measures provided by the law itself.

2. Territorial scope that can be declared

Article 18 of Law 12/2023 allows great territorial flexibility. The competent administrations can declare tense:

  • A whole municipality (for example, Bilbao, Vitoria, or Pasaia, as has already been done in practice).
  • A group of municipalities within the same functional area.
  • A neighborhood, urban district, or other intramunicipal delimitation when access problems are concentrated in parts of the city.
  • Metropolitan or regional areas sharing the same residential market.

What matters is that the area makes sense as a housing market unit and that the delimitation is motivated by data.

3. Material requirements (tension thresholds)

For a territory to be declared tense, at least one of these two criteria must be met (both are not necessary):

  • Residential effort criterion (30%): that the average burden of rent or mortgage, plus basic housing expenses and utilities, exceeds 30% of the average household income or the average income of residents in the area.
  • Price evolution criterion (+3 points over CPI): that the purchase or rental price of housing in that area has experienced, in the five years prior to the declaration, an accumulated increase of at least three percentage points above the accumulated growth percentage of the CPI of the corresponding autonomous community.

These two criteria aim to measure, on one hand, the real effort households bear to access and maintain housing and, on the other, whether prices have detached from the general price evolution in the territory.

4. Procedural and justification requirements

The declaration cannot be made arbitrarily. The Housing Law requires a set of guarantees:

  • Preparatory information procedure: a prior file must be opened to obtain and analyze information on the residential market situation in the area, including:
    • Indicators of rental and sale prices and their evolution.
    • Data on household income and disposable income.
    • Other relevant indicators of housing accessibility.
  • Justifying report: the law requires a report justifying the declaration with objective data and technical grounds, explaining which criterion is met (30% effort or +3 points over CPI) and how it was calculated.
  • Public information procedure: the declaration must be subject to a public information procedure, so that citizens and affected agents can know the data used and the proposed delimitation of the area.
  • Definition of “large holder” in the area: the report must establish what is considered a large housing holder in that specific area (starting from the state definition but allowing modulation), since some additional collaboration obligations and rent limits depend on it.
  • Communication to the State and publicity: once approved by the autonomous community, the declaration must be communicated to the Ministry competent in housing, which publishes quarterly in the BOE the list of current tense zones so that state measures are enforceable and applicable.
5. Duration and extension of the declaration

Law 12/2023 establishes that the declaration of an area as a tense residential market zone has an initial validity of three years. After that period:

  • It can be extended annually if it is proven that the circumstances that justified its declaration persist.
  • Each extension must follow the same procedural scheme: data update, justifying report, and motivated decision.

Overall, therefore, the requirements combine clear quantitative thresholds (30% effort or +3 points over CPI in five years) with a procedure of analysis and justification that obliges autonomous communities to base the declaration on verifiable data and review it periodically.

Play

Test your knowledge with FREN!

How much do you know about this topic? Answer the following 3 questions.

What is the housing measure with the greatest consensus according to the 40dB survey?

Question 1 of 3

What percentage of landlords who rent are in favor of limiting rental prices according to the survey?

Question 2 of 3

Which measure is the only one among the 12 proposals that does not exceed 50% support in the survey?

Question 3 of 3