Mallorca to live in

This is the initial name of the new platform that emerged in Mallorca following the proposed law on urgent actions to obtain land, promoted by the government under the pretext of exploiting the social crisis in housing. "Mallorca for living, not for speculation" makes it clear, just from the name itself, that it is a clear denunciation of the proposed land liberalization for the construction of new homes, with a significant increase in profit margins for developers and builders and putting on the table the reclassification of rural land in areas with a population of 20,000 that the Territorial Plan of Mallorca defined as "transition areas." This clearly speculative operation means that today, even though not all municipalities have expressed their intention to implement this possibility, it has already increased the prices of rural land, as the president of the Association of Real Estate Agents acknowledged this week: rural land in transition areas has been revalued.

This is the tragedy of rural land on the Islands, its absolute devaluation as a resource for primary uses, and its speculative valorization for residential, tourism, energy, or real estate purposes. This tragedy is not new, but has worsened rapidly in recent times, and now, with Law 4/2025, which promotes what this government calls "Strategic Residential Projects."

The truth is that analyzing these two years of the Government of the Islands, the words "strategic," "simplification," and "acceleration" frame the Government's key narrative regarding territorial policies. Our interpretation would be: "deregulation," "liberalization," "speculation," and "amnesty," "cancellation of participation" and "total loss of environmental guarantees." All of this for the benefit of private developers. Everything that territorial and urban planning hadn't planned for, but wants to be promoted, is made possible and accelerated by decree laws, simplifying procedures—or even completely eliminating those provided for by current urban and territorial regulations—by calling them strategic. It seems that the adjective strategic gives a nuance of importance, gravity, and political inevitability that appeals to the responsibility of a government that knows what it's doing. But no project can be strategic in and of itself if it doesn't respond to a strategic planning process that takes into account not only solving a specific problem (through the market, like liberal policies), but also addressing, in its diagnosis, the complexity of the problem's structural causes and focusing on strategically defined future scenarios within the framework of a political and social project.

'Strategic' has become synonymous with "making the impossible possible." Doing what regulatory frameworks don't allow, by direct, simplified, and accelerated means, to guarantee (speculative) movements, which reflect a supposed solution, but which we all know will not radically (at the root) impact on the housing problem because they completely ignore the real reasons, moving forward. Water, mobility, urban harmonization, rural land, coexistence, accessibility, urban coherence, territorial model, urban planning... None of this is taken into account. We draw houses like mushrooms with which a few will once again become part of a good cut.

Following the announcement of the creation of the Strategic Projects Accelerator Unit (UAPE) to promote, assist, and accompany private initiative projects that are eligible for declaration of special strategic interest (PEIE), there is no doubt that the Government has become a promoter and facilitator of new private investment. The more protected the better, the significantly increased its speculative value. It doesn't matter if it's in risk areas (flood, fire, or landslide), it just so happens that they are the most attractive from a scenic point of view. There is only one strategy: the most blatant neoliberal policies that, with the support and complicity of the radical right, promote their agenda: guarantee individual freedoms and private initiative, focus on free market methods, reduce restrictions on business operations, and establish property rights. We must die.