Subscribe
In discussions about housing in Spain, blame is often placed on landlords, investment funds, holiday flats, and foreign purchasers, but this rarely increases the number of homes being built. For young workers who want to move out, the actual requirement is straightforward: they need a cheap place to live close to where they work; a place where to raise a family.
Brussels has again turned its attention to the key issues. The European Commission’s most recent recommendation on housing states that planning restrictions, slow approval processes, and insufficient administrative resources prevent new homes from being built. Although limiting non-primary residential uses may provide some short-term relief, the real problem is the gap between supply and demand. Viewing the issue in this way is more useful than seeing it as a conflict between the public good and private interests.
Pedro Sánchez finds this statement difficult since it does not require him to abandon his social objectives. To regard housing as a genuine social right involves coming to terms with the practical obstacles which prevent people from securing homes. A government cannot rely on regulations alone when there are not enough homes available.
The Council’s July proposal on Spain clearly sets out the problem. Supply is restricted by the limited amount of land available for building and by slow administrative and permitting processes, especially in areas where demand is greatest. The proposal also points out a serious institutional shortcoming: social housing makes up less than 2 per cent of Spain’s total housing stock, compared with an EU average of about 7 per cent. As part of its recommendations, it suggests expanding supply, simplifying permits, improving land availability, and providing more affordable social rental housing.
These objectives are closely related. Spain needs a housing market that can accommodate more people, along with a social sector to support those left out by the market. Viewing these aims as opposing only makes progress harder. Just as private housing does, public housing also requires land, permits, infrastructure and builders. A sensible government should make it easier to build, buy, or rent a home. Private investment and the wish to own property should be at the heart of housing policy. The government’s role is to set clear rules, provide the necessary infrastructure, and remove unnecessary obstacles for all.
Fairly speaking, Sánchez does acknowledge some of these problems. The housing plan his government drew up for 2026 to 2030 provides €7 billion from both the central and regional governments, 40 per cent of which is allocated to the construction or purchase of additional public housing. The plan also includes provisions for renovations and household assistance. Because these measures are important, it is not correct to say the government has no supply policy.
A greater concern is how these promises align with the government’s primary objectives. At a housing event on 7 September, Sánchez acknowledged that good laws alone are not enough and that Spain needs more affordable housing. Yet he claimed that opposition to his housing law was helping speculators and justified his intervention by citing market failure. In this way, complicated policy issues are reduced to a simple choice between sides.
The real test is whether people looking for a home can actually find one. Current tenants, new renters, buyers, and people awaiting allocation to social housing all experience policy impacts in different ways. It is important to protect those who already have a home, but that does not imply that others have better access.
Rent regulation should not be assessed based on changes in contract prices. Instead, policymakers should consider availability, the rate at which properties become available again, waiting times, who is selected as a tenant, and how occupants move between different types of rentals. Although lower rents benefit those who receive them, it is also important to understand what happens to those left out.
This implies that we must assess policies rather than assume each intervention will succeed. Outcomes depend on how policies are designed and enforced, and on local circumstances. A confident government should be willing to thoroughly examine all these areas, particularly the effects of policies on young people with no family money, no steady jobs, and no helpful connections.
We ought to examine the supply problems just as closely. The Bank of Spain’s most recent report describes housing supply problems as structural, highlighting the difficulty of getting land ready for building and the complexity of planning and land management. The report also states that the various levels of government need to co-operate. These are problems that exist within Spain’s own institutions, as the central bank points out.
The idea that more land is required might seem simplistic, particularly in a country with memories of previous property booms. However, merely altering the label of land on a map isn’t enough to make it usable. A decent neighbourhood needs transport, water, electricity, schools, and jobs nearby. Although announcing land that is not well connected might sound appealing, it does not address the actual problem of affordability.
We should aim to build more houses where people can have a good quality of life; this might involve providing more housing near transport links, redeveloping land in the city, or converting existing buildings where appropriate. Environmental protection must inform these decisions, but it should not be mistaken for additional administrative procedures that only lead to delays.
Delays have real consequences; while a project is stalled, people continue to pay high rents, live in poor conditions, or delay their own move. These expenses do not appear in the official budgets. Therefore, although the administration may consider itself careful and thorough, it is in fact making life more difficult for those with little influence over the process.
A genuine reform plan should make these burdens clear by having the relevant authorities reveal how long each process takes, indicate where applications get stuck, and clearly state who is responsible for resolving any problems. Online applications are only useful if the entire process is improved; simply putting a slow, repetitive system online does not address the issue.
Spain ought to have a clear plan to reduce red tape: this should involve fewer overlapping approvals, simpler planning regulations, and fixed deadlines for decisions. Each rule must have a clear public benefit, and any rules that increase costs and delays without making things safer, improving infrastructure, or protecting the environment should be abolished.
The political right should also be held accountable. Regional and local governments play a key role in housing and planning. If a mayor opposes new homes but complains about high prices, that’s a contradiction. Regional governments that support business should be judged by whether their rules let good projects move forward. Conservatives should remember that helping working people own homes gives families more independence and a real stake in their communities. Protecting property means making ownership possible for the next generation, even if it means building more homes in areas where current residents might not want change.
Sánchez cannot approve every building permit himself, but he can ensure co-operation is a national priority, set clear funding rules, and flag delays—even when his own party is to blame. For a housing plan to be effective, it has to have standards that last regardless of which party is in power.
The social housing shortage makes consistency even more crucial. If there is a robust and affordable rental sector, people will have more choices when private rents are too high. The security and access it provides over time should judge the success of such a sector, which means efforts should focus on upkeep, management, and the fair distribution of properties, not merely the initial investment.
It is also important to consider the details since purchasing an existing house to provide social housing can make a real difference to the new tenant. Constructing a new house boosts the total number of homes available. While both approaches are valuable, they are not identical. Public reports should make these differences clear, just as they should distinguish between funding promises, construction starts, completed homes, and those that are actually occupied.
The same principle should apply to investment funds. Since financing the construction of new houses or using vacant properties increases the number of housing options, purchasing large numbers of existing homes does not necessarily have the same effect. The government should keep it legal for institutions to invest but remove the special advantages associated with bulk acquisitions and consider targeted fiscal disincentives when such purchases concentrate ownership or keep habitable homes out of the sale and long-term rental markets. The rules must encourage greater supply and productive use, with proper provisions for refurbishment and normal turnover.
Each stage represents progress; each leaves different work unfinished. Announcing money is easier than assembling a site. Assembling a site is easier than delivering a neighbourhood. A transparent programme will help, but support is still needed because people experiencing difficulty cannot afford to wait for a long construction programme to mature. Targeted aid and tenant protections can provide some security. However, aid should be combined with an increase in available housing, or public money may end up helping households compete for a housing supply that remains firmly restricted. Otherwise, public money risks helping households compete for a supply that remains stubbornly constrained.
Similarly, it can be defended to regulate tourist accommodation when visitor demand takes over residential use. It is acceptable to take action against illegal activities. The issue then becomes how much effect each measure has locally and what should come next. Each intervention should be accompanied by a reasonable explanation of how it enhances access, not just because the target is popular.
From a political point of view, the problem is that durable housing reform brings fewer immediate successes than disputes do. Simply improving staffing in a planning office results in a plain old speech. When neighbouring municipalities reach an agreement, it usually doesn’t lead to a memorable slogan. Nevertheless, these ordinary administrative accomplishments decide whether an ambitious housing budget eventually turns into a situation where people can actually live.
Brussels has diagnosed Spain’s crisis better because its recommendations connect affordability to the capacity to provide housing. They leave room for protection, public investment and regulation while insisting that the shortage itself must be addressed. A common-sense housing policy would clear the path for construction, make ownership more attainable and encourage owners to bring homes onto the market. Sánchez should be judged by whether ordinary families gain have access to those opportunities. Secure property rights, simpler rules and targeted public support would give the promise of affordable housing a much more practical foundation. One which Spain desperately needs.