Protected from what?

There are political decisions that can be explained impeccably with the wording of a law, but, nevertheless, they are incomprehensible from common sense. The recent approval of the Balearic Government's Omnibus Law has, among its controversial points, the possibility for legal entities, that is, companies and investment funds, to acquire protected housing at a fixed price. Precisely the most affordable modality within protected housing.

It is difficult to understand, because if there is a scale of public protection, what is most accessible should be reserved for those who need protection the most. It is almost childish logic, but it seems we have reached a point where the market, nor the Government, no longer accept even this obviousness.

It is said that nothing happens because the price is fixed and, therefore, speculation is not possible. Perhaps it is true. Or perhaps it is true today. But experience has taught us that, when it comes to housing, loopholes eventually appear. Years ago it was unthinkable that there would be people who would pay for elderly people without heirs who have houses susceptible to entering the market to be reported. It was also unimaginable to buy occupied housing or to advance a lot of money to secure future operations. The creativity of the real estate business is proportional to the profitability that is foreseen.

In a context of housing emergency like the current one, everything is of interest. Everything can become an opportunity. Also protected housing at a fixed price. And it can be repeated that individuals and companies will compete on equal terms. This is not true. Those who need a roof over their heads do not compete on equal terms with those who have structures, advisors, and financial capacity. Nor do those who have to fill out the papers alone access many subsidies on equal terms with those who have managers who know the requirements and how to justify them. It is a formal equality that hides a profound inequality.

It is also true that it is too convenient to make investment funds the sole villains of this story. They do what they are supposed to do: seek profitability. Perhaps what we should ask ourselves is why we, as a society, have accepted that a basic necessity be governed by this logic. Why have we normalized housing being an asset before a home.

Perhaps the responsibility is shared: by the governments that legislate, by the market that pressures, and also by a society that for too long has considered owning homes to be a safe and enviable investment. But, in any case, a most significant point is when even the cheapest of protected housing ceases to be designed first for the most vulnerable, because then something essential has been turned upside down. Because we are no longer just discussing a law, but about what idea of community we want to defend. If we are not capable of accepting that there are rights that must weigh more than business opportunities, public protection ends up being just another tool to protect the strongest.