To pit small landlords and tenants against each other

The years I lived in the United States I witnessed firsthand the existential distress that it means for many people not to have public health coverage as we have in Europe or in Canada itself. Even with a health insurance policy linked to a payroll, the fear of many workers is that, if a cancer or a serious accident comes or they die, they will be ruined, they or their loved ones, because the mutual insurance companies do not always play fair with the fine print. Our distress over housing is looking more and more like the distress of North Americans over health.

At the 15-M movement of 2011 there was a platform for people affected by the mortgage. Now those affected no longer aspire to be owners and are tenants. We all have family, friends, or coworkers who have had to leave the neighborhood or the city because they can no longer afford to live there. They are people of all ages and with incomes that you would never have said would have this problem. Not to mention the young people who have not even had the opportunity to rent anything for themselves and have to live at their parents' house.

Faced with this drama, which cascades over the physical and mental health of society or over the birth rate, there are thousands of people who, saving and playing by the rules, bought an apartment with the idea of supplementing their pension or leaving it to their children. Pitting these two groups against each other is a very bad idea. They are the same people. Not distinguishing between large holders and vulture funds from small holders leads us to an all-or-nothing situation from which not even an agreement can emerge to cushion the blow, which is the least that can be done. Because unfortunately, in the absence of public housing policies, all we are having at these hours is a "scramble for all," with the electoral calculator ready.