Do we want tenants or owners?
The housing crisis—which isn't unique to us—is so acute and so present in the consciousness and lived experience of Catalans that there's no doubt it will be resolved, since, paradoxically, it's a very solvable problem. The challenge is to ensure the availability of decent housing for a population that continues to grow, but not indefinitely. It's also about providing for the visitors and temporary residents that a dynamic economy demands, while avoiding a disproportionate number of empty homes. It can be done.
In the meantime, we engage in hyperactive regulation that limits social suffering but doesn't solve the underlying problem and often worsens it (buying subsidies that are passed on to the price, disincentives to private investment, etc.). These are distortions that encourage accelerating the inevitable:
1. Rezoning land that isn't currently residential as such. This is being done massively in New York.
2. Increase density in areas of the Barcelona metropolitan region where density is currently comparatively low. This is preferable to sprawling growth. Preserving land is valuable, and the richness of urban life requires a sufficient number of people living in close proximity.
3. Improve commuter rail and bus connections.
The financial structure to support this could be as follows:
The value created by the increased building density should go into a public fund, which would be channeled, at below-market prices, to real estate developers—including social foundations and cooperatives. These developers, duly audited, would commit to maintaining an affordable payment schedule. However, it would need to be structured in a way that attracts the necessary investment. In my opinion, today's construction costs and current interest rates make it possible, sun excluding, to finance a decent home by dedicating less than 30% of two minimum wages.
What are the obstacles slowing us down? There are financial obstacles, such as the need for collateral to secure loans. But these are not things beyond the reach of modern financial practice. In my opinion, the fundamental difficulty is urban planning.
The need to rezone and increase density will entail quite radical modifications to urban planning regulations, and this is not easy because they are very well established. Equally, or perhaps even more importantly, they will clash with citizen platforms that simply do not want more housing. An anecdote: In Beverly Hills, California, the resistance from residents and the municipality to densification has been fierce. California has resolved this by "discovering" an old legal provision that gives developers free rein to build wherever they want if the municipality, as was common practice, failed to meet building commitments agreed upon with the state. In other words, the state has overruled the municipality. Result: now it's being enforced.
Finally, renters or homeowners? Their interests are at odds. The renter voter will be permissive regarding construction and may even fear the city's prosperity due to upward pressure on rents. The homeowner voter will be torn. In the morning, they won't want more houses near theirs for fear of devaluing it. In the afternoon, they'll realize that if the city doesn't prosper, their house will lose value. And that if it does prosper, they'll have to accept more housing. Ultimately, the average homeowner's stance on the city's prosperity will be more positive than the average renter's.
I share the desire to establish a substantial social housing fund for rent. However, I disagree with the idea that, to avoid jeopardizing it, these homes should never become privately owned. On this point, I've changed my mind because I've asked myself: can you imagine the magnitude of the conflict and social unrest we would suffer now if Barcelonans who own their own homes (approximately one in two households) were renting? I believe the fund should be permanent but with contributions and withdrawals. Facilitating homeownership has many advantages: economic stability—especially in retirement and for the next generation—incentivizing savings, and, as I've already mentioned, promoting prosperity policies for the city, calibrated to the level that allows for increased property values without stifling the economy. However, it should also, without going to the extreme of Beverly Hills, foster a municipal approach somewhere between that of the early 20th century—the permissive urban planning that inflated revenues—and the one that is currently growing: passivity out of consideration for residents who don't want more housing.