The 2008 crisis uncovered a long simmering housing problem, surfacing as a growing number of housing emergencies and forced relocations. In many countries, owning a home has long been the preferred form of housing, yet the crisis made ownership unaffordable for newer generations who increasingly relied on renting. Yet this shift did not fully resolve the issue, as rental prices surged to levels that stretched the budgets of many households during periods of high demand.
Constitutional guarantees can anchor a public commitment to housing. In Spain, Article 47 affirms that every citizen has the right to decent and adequate housing, while it calls on public authorities to regulate land use to curb speculation and to lay down norms that help realize this right. Despite this intention, progress has been uneven and the current crisis remains acute. Recent data from Eurostat show that about forty one percent of households allocate more than forty percent of net income to rent, with tens of thousands of evictions recorded in a short span of time. The burden falls heavily on young people seeking to become independent and on families with limited means, pushing some toward poverty or forcing them to accept unaffordable rental arrangements, often described as paying an excessive share of income for a room in a shared dwelling. There is a sense of a lost generation searching for a stable place to live and to build a life.
A European Parliament study on housing policy also maps EU members into four groups. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden stand out with large social housing sectors driven by substantial government involvement, while three southern and southeastern members Portugal, Spain and Greece rely more on owner-occupied housing, with comparatively smaller social rental sectors. In those latter nations, the private market often becomes a space where investors can shape prices, sometimes creating housing that is out of reach for many residents.
What steps could help repair the situation? The housing bill under discussion aims to shield social housing from privatization, set aside a portion of all urban development for subsidized housing, and impose tighter eviction controls. It also contemplates designating pressured areas to trigger temporary measures that encourage vacant homes to enter the rental or sale market, with rent moderation built into the framework. It is noted that tourist apartments receive stricter controls, as their growth tends to push up overall rental costs.
These targeted measures may curb the problem in the near term, yet deeper change is needed for sustained improvement. Two actions stand out as especially critical and contentious. The first calls for the creation of a publicly funded and cumulatively growing social rental housing stock. It is frequently cited that several active EU economies allocate around three percent of their gross domestic product to housing policy, a level that correlates with stronger social housing outcomes.
The second, more challenging idea involves withdrawing housing from the purely speculative market. The aim would be to reduce incentives for profit-driven price spikes and to encourage saving to be directed toward productive investments rather than real estate speculation. In practice, this could be pursued through financial instruments that limit direct ownership leverage over housing while protecting property rights and avoiding disruption to other property rights.
Yet the proposed reform stops short of pursuing these broader goals in full. Critics on the left question the scope of the reform and wonder how far the plan can realistically go given political divisions. The result is a cautious path that seeks incremental gains rather than a sweeping overhaul, leaving fundamental questions about property, risk, and social equity unresolved.