The government has created a single state registry for tourist accommodations. A mandatory registration number. One-stop shop. Digital traceability. And appeals have already been filed with the Supreme Court alleging an overreach of authority. Andalusia and industry associations have challenged it. The autonomous communities are defending their jurisdiction. The central government wants to centralize the data.
The legal debate is intense. The economic one, less so. Is the problem that we don't know how many tourist apartments there are, or that there's a housing shortage?
Spain has around 300,000 properties listed on short-term rental platforms, according to various private studies. In cities like Barcelona and Malaga, their presence is significant. But even if all tourist apartments were to disappear tomorrow, the tension wouldn't vanish.
The registry is based on an implicit premise: if we better organize, identify, and control the market, it will correct itself. The Spanish real estate problem is not one of information. It is one of scarcity in certain areas where demand far exceeds the available supply. Creating a state-run registry number will not add a single apartment to the housing stock.
Registration offers no incentive whatsoever. It merely adds a layer of oversight. Furthermore, the jurisdictional conflict reveals another issue. In housing matters, European, national, regional, and municipal regulations overlap. Local licenses. Regional registries. Now, a national registration number. Potential restrictions imposed by homeowners' associations. Each level adds its own instrument. The result is an increasingly complex regulatory mosaic.
This complexity generates litigation, legal uncertainty, administrative costs, and, above all, uncertainty for investors. In recent years, housing policy has addressed visible symptoms: prices, contracts, buyer profiles, property use, and tourist apartments. Each intervention responds to understandable social pressure. But none resolves the core of the problem without a significant increase in the available housing stock.
Regulating is faster than building. Creating a registry is immediate. Increasing supply requires land, agile planning, financing, public-private partnerships, and long-term regulatory stability. It's less flashy. And politically less profitable.
The debate over state-run housing could end up in the Supreme Court. But even if the state wins, the shortage will remain. Because the root cause isn't a lack of one-stop shops. It's a lack of sufficient housing in the places where people want to live.
As long as that equation remains unchanged, every new administrative tool will be a band-aid. And bands, by definition, don't increase stock. They only exacerbate the shortage.
