The European Commission has already put on the table its new proposal to strengthen the margin of action of the member states, regions, and municipalities in the face of the housing access crisis. The objective is to provide administrations with tools to intervene in a strained market, facilitate access to affordable housing, and establish a common framework that allows action on phenomena such as speculation or the proliferation of tourist accommodations.
A proposal that arrives with several points still open and that must find the balance between increasing supply, protecting citizens, and the capacity of administrations to intervene in the market. Among the issues that are already concentrating part of the debate are the restrictions on certain uses of housing, the regulation of short-term rentals, and the fiscal or incentive measures that may contribute to returning properties to the residential market.
Amid meetings, plenary sessions, and conversations with the different parliamentary groups, the MEP Alicia Homs (1993) speaks to DEMÓCRATA to analyze the keys to the proposal and break down the measures that, in her opinion, should mark the negotiation in the Eurochamber. "If they want to call us interventionists, let them call us. Citizens need answers and we have the political will," she summarizes.
Question. What legal guarantees do you expect or believe this new regulation can provide so that municipalities, or some autonomous communities like Catalonia, can apply restrictions on the purchase of second homes that are not for residential use?
Answer. Well, I think what needs to be valued from what was presented with the Affordable Housing Act is the figure of the strained area, which is what will allow you to carry out all these actions and also to implement policies that are more restrictive to solve the housing crisis.
In the end, and the commissioner said it very clearly in committee, what he wants is to provide legal certainty precisely to those entities — in our case, they would be the municipalities, although depending on the country it could be another institution — so that they can have those legal tools knowing that what they are going to do will be well done, so to speak.
So, I believe that the figure of a tense zone is important because in the end it allows you to act only where it is necessary, because the market is very tense, and in the areas where it is not, not having to apply the measures to the whole country, to the entire autonomous community, or even to an entire city. Maybe it is not necessary, right? And that they are measures, as the commissioner said, in the short term to respond to this crisis.
I also think it is important to highlight that the housing crisis has solutions at three speeds: short, medium, and long term. That does not imply that at the same time you cannot be building housing, which would be the long term, or renovating homes, which would be the medium. We must try to return the residential use to all those homes, prioritizing residents and citizens.
Q. How do you face the criticisms that have come from part of the European Parliament, especially from the Popular Party, which considers that this measure goes against private property or against the internal market? What path do you expect here in the Eurochamber?
A. Well, we have to start negotiating, obviously. The commissioner presented his proposal and now it is our turn to work in the European Parliament.
It is true that the Popular Party was quite against it. The truth is that it surprised me because if we really want to respond to the housing crisis, we have to take measures. As I said, at three speeds.
The problem is that they talk about the housing market and do not perceive that it is a right. Today, President Von der Leyen, in fact, said it in the debate on the state of the Union: "Housing is a right and speculation must end." Mrs. Von der Leyen belongs to the group of the European People's Party.
I believe that we must take into account that it is no longer just a social perception, but there are also data that demonstrate that there is a problem. And I think we must prioritize, as I said before, the residents; that people have the right to stay, which President Von der Leyen has also said. The priority is the citizens who have voted for us to provide answers.
Q. The new regulation establishes quite clear criteria for declaring a tense zone. How does this fit with the State Housing Law that is already being applied in Spain?
R. I believe that the Spanish State Housing Law has served as a model for this European proposal. When we talk about a stressed area, we have a figure that we already have and know perfectly in our country. Then there are those who want to apply it and those who do not, but it exists.
In the end, the European plan would complement those tools that the State Housing Law already provides to local institutions, which is precisely what they have been asking for. And I think it is the most logical thing: who better than a mayor to know the reality of a city or a town and to know what measures are needed.
Local institutions need tools to be able to impose those limitations. All institutions must do what is in their power to provide a solution to the housing crisis, and Europe is doing its part.
P. The impact assessment of the regulation indicates that the regulation of short-term rentals may have effects on SMEs. How is the balance found between guaranteeing housing for residents and respecting business freedom?
R. The issue of short-term rentals is a very broad debate. In fact, the legislative part will focus on what we can act on the most, which is precisely short-term rentals.
As I said, it is important for local entities to have tools to analyze in which areas the market is being stressed the most and in which less. There are places where it is not a problem and others where it is a drama.
That is why the figure of the stressed area, or stress area, as it appears in the document, is fundamental to provide a response in the short term.
Alicia Homs:"If they want to call us interventionists, let them call us. Citizens need answers and we have the political will."
If in the short term we have to do, as in Barcelona, that in 2028 short-term rentals disappear for a period of time and then we will see, then we have to do it. Because the problem we have —and here the right says it well— is a supply problem.
But the fastest way to increase supply is to return homes to the residential market. That is, to act on vacation rentals, on empty apartments, or on homes that are not intended for residential use. That is why the document talks about prioritizing that residential use. That is the key for the short term and for temporary measures.
Q. I commented on the measure from Barcelona to eliminate tourist rental licenses in 2028. Considering the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, does that measure fit within the European regulation?
A. I believe that the measure from Barcelona is precisely an example for this regulation. Barcelona is having good results, for example, with the caps on rent, although we are not exactly talking about that here.
It is taking very brave measures and has taken the short term very seriously to provide a solution to the crisis. And it is yielding positive results.
I think that Commissioner Jørgensen has tried to gather those good practices and apply them. Barcelona is practically already doing many of the things that the regulation proposes, and what this provides are legal tools.
I want to remind you that Jaume Collboni came to the European Parliament with the initiative Mayors for Housing to precisely ask for tools. And that is what is being done with this proposal, which we now have to work on and improve from the Parliament.
Whoever wants to come and destroy it will find us head-on.
Alicia Homs:"There is a supply problem, yes. We need to build, yes. That is the long term and I will not deny it to the right. But people need housing now."
Q. What will be the red line in that negotiation?
A. We will have to see the proposals that come from the right and the far right, but obviously we cannot accept measures that increase speculation or that do not solve the problem. There is a supply problem, yes. We need to build, yes. That is the long term and I will not deny it to the right. But people need housing now.
We need to take brave measures. If they want to call us interventionists, let them call us. Citizens need answers and we have the political will. Others will have to explain whether they have it or not.
Q. The regulation is accompanied by a recommendation sheet, including a maximum period of 60 days to grant building permits. Will the Socialist Party defend the application of these deadlines?
A. We are in favor of simplifying bureaucratic procedures, especially in a matter like housing, which needs agility and speed. But we cannot allow that to imply deregulation or that environmental standards and other regulations are not met.
It is important that, whether it is 60 days or any other deadline, we are aware of that reality. We agree to make things easier for citizens, as long as it does not involve deregulation. There are procedures that are repeated two or three times and that is absurd. We understand that. What we do not accept is that it is used as an excuse to deregulate all the work done over so many years.
Q. Another of the recommendations suggests reviewing the taxation of vacant homes. How does your group assess this measure?
A. I believe it is important to return vacant homes to the market and to their residential use. Many of them could be available practically immediately and would help to ease the market. If we work to ease it and to ensure that everyone has a decent and affordable home, then we can analyze other issues.
But it cannot be that there are vacant homes used for speculation, especially by large holders or investment funds. If the idea is to end speculation, we must also act on that part. In any case, the housing crisis cannot be solved with a single measure; many must be applied.
Q. Europe does not have direct competencies in housing, but we are seeing how it acts through this regulation and other initiatives. How do you justify this European action?
A. European action is more than justified in housing matters. During the 2024 electoral campaign, people continuously asked us what Europe was going to do in this area.
Europe is another institution that can contribute and has the obligation to do so. We are responding to a demand from citizens and we must make things easier. I always give the same example: during the pandemic, we also did not have direct competencies in health and we responded to a crisis.
Housing is a housing emergency that many people in Europe are suffering from. We are losing talent because there are young people who cannot go live in the city where they want to study because their families cannot afford it. A person's ability to prosper cannot depend on family income. That causes us to lose talent as countries and as the European Union. I believe we must be brave. It is an opportunity and we cannot let it slip away.