In recent months, the handling, approval, and rollout of the city’s anti-begging regulations—promoted with the backing of Vox—have stirred widespread debate across the country and triggered notable consequences. For the city council, the right-leaning bipartisan group that governs Alicante, there is a sense that considerable time and energy were devoted to punishing and criminalizing beggars, pedestrians, the homeless, and sex workers, leading the local police to file sanctions. While many other acts that impact coexistence are overlooked or misunderstood, and while the ordinance is presented as the city’s sole concern, a substantial portion of the current regulations remain punishing and coexistence suffers as a result.
For the city’s mayor, Louis Barcala, the persistent problem in Alicante seems to be poverty itself, from which the entire political, regulatory, enforcement, and police apparatus allegedly originates through this controversial decree, which continues to be defended by arguments that raise questions. Yet the city council has implemented numerous other measures in recent years, with thirty-four different municipal ordinances still in force. Many regulate, organize, or constrain a wide range of daily life, producing unusual and sometimes loud episodes—hundreds of violations and fines—many of which occur simply because people go about their daily routines. The city’s enforcement landscape appears to be a tangle that is not always aligned with actual local needs.
It seems, then, that for this governing team, the only ones punished by misfortune are the poor, while neighborhoods, streets, and buildings—where these ordinances are purportedly violated—continue to be affected and the city’s heritage is alleged to be compromised by ongoing non-compliance with established guidelines for coexistence.
Alongside the different urban regulations, Alicante features the contentious “Civil Coexistence Ordinance in the Alicante municipal district” (often framed as an ordinance targeting begging). The scope touches beaches and coves from the municipal era, advertising placements, and many other items related to the discharge of the municipal sewage system, as well as coordinated action programs, pedestrian and vehicle movement, permits, street cleaning, markets, parks, and gardens, road markings and building numbering, telecom infrastructure, and the design of pedestrian crossings. It also includes provisions for local festivals, consumer services, fire protection, noise and vibration controls, temporary street services, mobility vehicle circulation, parking and taxi allocation, and municipal actions surrounding the sale and consumption of alcohol for people with disabilities and reduced mobility. The regulation also extends to electronic and hygienic-sanitary conditions of public roads, beauty and personal care services, the management of vehicle entries and exits from sidewalks and roads, citizen ID cards, non-resident sales, and demonstrations for commercial purposes, as well as public road restrictions on parking and the management of telecommunications facilities, cemeteries, and the oversight of firework displays. The plan for a Local Waste initiative and other urban actions, coupled with animal welfare measures, are included as part of broader municipal governance.
The regulatory tangle is such that a resident could spend an entire day poring over any of these ordinances, hoping to get the Local Police to enforce the rules on thousands of daily infractions. There are even conversations about whether some of these responsibilities should be governed by different rules altogether.
Naturally, there are core aspects of coexistence and city functioning that must be upheld through objective, approved regulations established through proper procedures. Yet this sprawling network of municipal ordinances, approved for their potential non-compliance, often feels useless and bureaucratic rather than helpful for residents—especially those already struggling the most.
What stands out is that the City Council itself can become a central factor behind many of these ordinances. There, one can imagine streets lined with trees whose presence is questioned for aesthetic purposes, sparse shade offers, and the occasional perception that certain plantings contribute to urban pollution rather than improvement. If the council asked for accountability, it might consider applying the same standards it applies to the public realm to its own actions and the upkeep of city streets and planting choices.