Ideal couples who get along very well

Junts said no to the rental extension of Sumar-PSOE and we read in ARA that it is a risky stance, “because according to all the polls, housing is the main problem for citizens”. It is true. Renting or buying a flat is unaffordable, not just for young people. And paying rent or the mortgage too. But what would this extension have fixed?

That tenant who was supposed to leave the flat would have had two years' grace at the same price. This is not very significant, because, in any case, the owner of the flat, by law, could not have increased the price much. This means that, in general, flat owners think it is worth selling them, because the purchase price is not regulated, unlike the rental price. The flat owner might want it for a relative (a child), but knows that the law protects the tenant and if they don't want to leave, there's nothing they can do. What would they have done if the extension had been implemented? Sell. If you look at Idealista (which I do habitually) you will see how many flats are sold with tenants inside.

If the law, in the same way that it obliges owners not to set the price they want, exempted them from many taxes (the equivalent of what is lost by not charging protected rent), perhaps we would be better off. If we protect housing, why don't we also protect the price of cars, given that they are a basic necessity for those who live far from public transport because they cannot afford housing in the city?

The difference between housing and, for example, electricity or heating is that flat owners can be large holders or banks, yes, but also small owners. In the case of electricity or heating, we are only talking about large companies. I don't have the solution, but I know it's not this extension. On the other hand, the tenant who refuses to leave the flat knowing that the law protects them only makes it much more difficult for someone who would not dare to stay as an occupant even though they know the law protects them.