Maricarmen decree: expropriate homes from tenants over 70

Sumar proposes expropriating homes if the tenant is over 70

The draft of the so-called Maricarmen decree does not have the votes to go ahead. But its leak was enough to reopen the housing war and put tenants over 70 at the centre of the Spanish rental market. The proposal, revealed by Artículo 14, would allow the administration to expropriate the property when the tenant is over that age. On paper it is a shield for older people; in practice, the industry reads it as the final blow to an already strained market.

What the leaked Maricarmen decree says

The text sets an exception to property rights that does not currently exist in state law: if the tenant is over 70, the administration could expropriate the home. The owner would receive market-price compensation, always according to the information published, and the resulting housing stock would end up in the hands of a state real-estate company. The name the draft circulates under —Maricarmen decree— sums up the tone: a rule christened with a first name, as if it were a person and not a law.

The precedent cited does not help. A housing law was already passed that, according to several operators, has pushed small landlords out of the market. The difference is that now expropriation is being discussed, a mechanism the Constitution reserves for reasons of public utility or social interest. That the trigger is the tenant's age is what has set off all the alarms.

Why is age discrimination being alleged?

Article 14 of the Constitution is first on the list. “Spaniards are equal before the law, and no discrimination may prevail on grounds of birth, race, sens, religion, opinion or any other personal or social condition or circumstance,” the text reads. Age does not appear expressly, and that is what the draft clashes with: a 71-year-old tenant would be treated differently from a 69-year-old one.

The contradiction is not minor. If the criterion is to protect the vulnerable, why draw the line at 70 and not at economic situation? No one in the sector has given a clear answer. Meanwhile, analysts recall that the same criterion could be extended to any other group and open a legal loophole that would be hard to close.

The real effect: fewer rentals for people over 70

Here is the knot. The owner's calculation is cold: the legal extension of the contract can reach five years, and seven if the landlord is a large holder. If you add the time an eviction can spend in court, renting to someone who will turn 70 during the contract is equivalent to risking never getting the flat back. Textbook logic says that if you penalise supply, supply disappears.

It is argued that the result will be the opposite of the intended one: older people will find it harder, not easier. And that the bulk of the housing stock will end up in the hands of large funds, the only ones with the structure to assume that risk. Eight out of ten homes in Spain are today in private hands; if those owners withdraw, those who remain will set the price.

Some propose just the opposite: that the State guarantee the tenant before the owner instead of expropriating. With that guarantee, they argue, more would come onto the market in a month than the decree would mobilise in years; there has even been talk of 500.000 homes ready to come to market. A guarantee reduces risk without touching property; an expropriation changes the owner.

The decree does not have the votes: where the process stands

The problem, for its promoters, is not one of substance but of arithmetic. Sumar has promised to force the signing of the rule, even against the deputy prime minister. Junts has already said it will vote against, and not because of the expropriation, but because it considers small owners defenceless against occupation. Without those votes, the decree will not be validated.

The rest is background noise. The Puerta del Sol encampment has decided to continue whatever happens in the Council of Ministers, and along the way the issue has dragged in other fronts, including Ceuta, which is barely discussed. While politics turns up the volume, the middle-class owner asks a simpler question: who do I rent to, and until when?

Voices that portray the problem

“They won't approve it even if Puigdemont comes to Barcelona tomorrow and is made a saint,” sums up the most widespread reading of the process. Others focus on the tenant: “it won't pass, but what we're going to see next year is landlords evicting older people to be on the safe side, even if they are good payers.” And a third view looks at the end of the road, at the fate of the housing stock if small owners withdraw.

If the draft remains just that, a draft, it is likely that no already signed contract will change. But the damage of the announcement may already be done: the next time a landlord has a 68-year-old candidate in front of them, it is very likely they will run the numbers and say no. The rule that claimed to protect older people may end up closing the door on them. It is only a prediction, disputed, but with no data that fully confirms it.