Santaolalla proposes expropriating homes of the evicted

Expropriating evicted people's homes: Santaolalla's proposal

The case of Maricarmen is summarized in an uncomfortable figure: six years of litigation until the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the owner. Building on that outcome, which has become a symbol, a proposal has been put forward that has ignited public debate: "There is only one way: expropriate Maricarmen's apartment and those of all people who have been illegally evicted, and intervene in the market once and for all." The author is Sarah Santaolalla. A single message contains three elements: a specific case, a debatable legal category, and a fundamental economic measure.

What is an "illegal" eviction?

An eviction is executed, by definition, with a court order behind it. The question is not whether a physical eviction occurs without a sentence—it does, and it's rare—but whether the expression "illegally" describes a real scenario or serves to delegitimize the judge who signs it. Those who sympathize with the proposal speak of unjust, abusive, or illegitimate evictions; those who reject it recall that behind every eviction there is a legal procedure and, almost always, years of appeals. Maricarmen's case falls into the latter group.

What the law requires for expropriation

There is a Law of Forced Expropriation which, despite dating back to Franco's era, remains in force, and requires two conditions that the proposal overlooks: a cause of public utility or social interest and compensation to the owner. Reassigning a private individual's apartment to a tenant is not activating a procedure; it is opening the door for any property to be reassigned if the reason is declared of social interest. At this point, the debate ceases to be about housing and becomes about economic models. And here appear the uncomfortable parallels: Venezuela as a warning, collectivization as a slippery slope.

The slippery slope: today an apartment, tomorrow all of them

The most repeated argument does not dispute Maricarmen's plight. It disputes the rule. It argues that if the landlord's apartment is expropriated, tomorrow the apartment of someone with two will be expropriated, and the day after, the one with four rooms for themselves. The objection is not sarracena, it's about incentives: when the effort to accumulate ceases to be rewarded, investment in housing shrinks and the housing stock dwindles. Defenders respond with an equally old argument: the market is already de facto intervened—by funds, by prices, by lack of supply—and all that is being asked is to level the playing field. Neither side yields.

Posturing, smoke screen, or real problem

Part of the debate doesn't discuss legality or economics: it discusses the motive. Some see the proposal as pure posturing, a way to grab headlines at no parliamentary cost, while others suspect the case is being used to cover up other issues. At the opposite extreme, it is argued that the uproar demonstrates the exact opposite: that housing has become the sustancia ilegal through which all discontent seeps in. What no one disputes is that the rental issue can no longer afford delays.

How many evictions are on the table

Behind the specific case lies the volume. A calculation circulating in the debate itself estimates around 4,000 evictions executed so far this year and anticipates that figure will multiply to tens of thousands by 2027. If the trickle becomes a torrent, Maricarmen's symbol will cease to be an exception and will become routine. And the question will again be the same as always: what to do with thousands of homeless people and a housing stock that doesn't move.

With these numbers, expropriation stops sounding like a slogan and starts sounding like a problem that someone will have to manage sooner or later. The word is more frightening than descriptive. The core issue remains unresolved.