The politicization of housing

When talking about housing, the focus is usually on quantity - that is, how much housing is needed in relation to the number of people who need housing. Thus, the price of housing is determined by the relationship between the supply of housing and the demand for housing: if supply is insufficient and demand is high, the price will be high, and conversely, if supply exceeds demand, the price will be low.

It seems simple and obvious, but this is not how the real estate market actually works. There can be situations where housing supply is plentiful and prices rise, as was the case during the real estate boom, because the price functions based on the logic of a financial asset with expectations of the future that always predict''price appreciation. There may be demand stimulated by public authorities (tax deductions, purchase guarantees, public spending on sheltered housing in order to privatize it) or by financial agents providing mortgages to those unable to repay.

There is also a natural supply constraint, determined by the availability of land and its location, usually related to the place of work (or determined by physical constraints such as on an island), which helps to ensure the rentier's profit. There may be a demand that does not seek to buy for residence but seeks speculation or tourist rentals, which drives up prices.

In any case, the political objective of all these measures is always''remains the same: to ensure profitability in the sale of housing. Instead of looking for housing affordability, the necessary mechanisms are sought to alleviate the debt of citizens in order to maintain prices. The state regulates prices, but to maintain them by making insolvent demand solvent.

This model no longer works, however. It doesn't work because it becomes impossible to continue to squander public money to support demand, and because massive loans to citizens without the ability to pay to access unsustainable housing are no longer offered. So now what?

Now we have, as a result of decades of policies designed to drive up housing prices, no public housing stock and no affordable housing for''rent.

According to Fotocasa, 10 years ago with 30% of the salary it was possible to rent a house of 70 square meters in Madrid, but now the size has decreased to 39 square meters, and for 70% of tenants who have been able to rent in the last twelve months, high prices have become the main problem when looking for rent. The majority of supply is due to market demand associated with the lack of social housing related policies.

What happens when a country that has spent such multiple public resources to expand property ownership and increase house prices (which means no investment in other productive sectors) is faced with the structural impossibility of continuing this pattern? We have what we are already seeing: a wave of evictions, the collapse of the''emancipation (in Spain's richest region, Madrid, only 15 out of 100 young people under 30 can leave their parents' home), the financial strain of paying for housing (prevalent among renters but increasing among mortgagees).

And what is the solution proposed by the Partido Popular de Madrid to address this situation? The same as it always has. The same phrase is always heard from the real estate sector: it is necessary to free up land in order to increase supply and thus lower prices.

The urban model, like public health, cannot remain in the hands of private interests. The Partido Popular de Madrid calls this a 'successful model' - achieving the status of the region with the highest purchase and rental prices in Spain, being at the tail end of Europe in terms of public housing, the falling rate of emancipation and the use of Madrid residents' money to attract speculative investments that raise housing prices. This housing model is''a threat to the Madrid people's wallet, to their freedom of choice and to their health.

It robs the purse of Madrid's citizens, forcing them to spend most of their money to support rent-seeking and unproductive economies. It destroys freedom of choice because it prevents people from being independent and deciding how they want to live: forced to choose between unapproachable market prices or living with their parents. It is bad for health because when only market instability is offered, people age earlier due to stress, which is not the case when renting is in the public sector and well managed.

To ensure freedom of choice, health and money in the wallet, there needs to be a greater variety of options, peace of mind and''security of tenure as well as affordable prices over the long term.

Only by involving government and community structures in the delivery of housing to the majority of the population can alternatives, safety, health and affordable prices be offered. Housing must become a political issue. Politicized in the sense of begging for, taking into account what is considered normal and natural: why should the market be the primary provider of housing? Why can't state and public bodies, with regulated prices, deliver housing when this is a reality in other parts of Europe? "

It is obvious that something as serious as housing cannot be left to the market, much less use the resources of the state to''market price support. It is up to the institutions, in cooperation with other entities, to provide public and affordable housing for the majority of the population. Then those who are willing and able will be able to buy; that is the model of success. Their model is not working, and Madrid - and Spain - needs a model that has worked for a long time in other European countries.