The sentence that obliges the Barcelona City Council to authorize 120 tourist apartments in the same block has generated a major surprise, since it was assumed that the Catalan capital had shielded itself against the new rental licenses for tourist housing. And indeed that was how it should be, in theory, because in practice the ownership of the property in question observed a legal loophole for which to continue battling, until a court has finally agreed with him. The judicial decision can generate, in addition to astonishment, rejection and indignation – a response that in pre-electoral times the opposition groups in the consistory exploited opportunely – but what cannot be questioned about it is its legality. And here is the bottom of the matter, that at the time the population was sold a perception of regulatory forcefulness that was not such. The City Council came to the fore yesterday demanding that the Generalitat open the door so that the licenses for tourist apartments can be revoked, a way of transferring the solution to the mess to another administration.
In all honesty, it can be said that the Barcelona Special Accommodation Plan for Tourist Use (Peuat) intended to bring order after the expansion of the tourist apartment market (in three years, they went from 1,000 licenses to 9,000, without counting the illegal tourist flats). It intended to fulfill one of the main promises of the government team of Ada Colau. But its poor preparation or lack of foresight have taken its toll. Between the first Peuat of 2017 (knocked down by the TSJC in 2019 due to a form defect) and the second Peuat of 2022, now in force, a fork was opened that Inmobiliaria Gallardo took advantage of to request 120 tourist apartment licenses. It is unknown if there are other similar cases pending judicial resolution, something about which the City Council incomprehensibly does not have information, but even if it is a unique case, it is serious enough to highlight the consequences of governing when you are more aware of the speech that is transmitted in the street than by the real effectiveness of legislative and government action.
It is not the first time that citizens have attended undesirable side effects of laws. The case has coincided with the approval of a housing law that could trigger results opposite to what is intended to be legislated. Limiting the prices of housing rentals, for example, carries the risk that the owners of said homes allocate it to other uses (sale, vacation rental…), which would have the perverse effect of reducing the rental offer, harming those whom in principle it is intended to defend. To avoid this effect, Unidas Podemos also proposes to limit tourist rentals in the so-called stressed areas. In any case, in the processing of said law, the contributions of the rest of the groups must be taken into account, without settling on watchtowers or ideological vetoes. Something complicated in a year loaded with electoral appointments, but essential if solutions are sought to a problem, that of access to housing (and its derivative, the sustainable fit of tourism in densely populated areas) that are stable and capable of withstanding any onslaught judicial.