Sumar calls for expropriating Maricarmen's flat, clashing with Spain's PSOE

Sumar wants to expropriate Maricarmen's flat and the PSOE doesn't know where to hide

The third-floor flat of Maricarmen — an evicted tenant — has gone from being an anonymous eviction to becoming political ammunition. Sumar has demanded that the PSOE expropriate the property at the next Council of Ministers, amid a full-blown clash between the coalition partners over housing policy. The move is not a rhetorical whim: it is a litmus test of how far the Government is willing to go to stop an eviction that cannot be halted by decree.

Because, as argued in the debate, the anti-eviction decree was already voted down in Congress, and there lies the first problem. What failed to pass in the chamber is now meant to be resolved via the Council of Ministers, a shortcut that to many looks like a bridge too far for a single property.

What expropriation means and who foots the bill

Expropriation is not confiscation. The State does not get the flat for free: it pays a justiprecio (fair-price compensation), which in practice means the market price. And that is where the paradox several people spot comes in. If the property was bought cheaply by an investment fund and the State now pays it the real value, the deal could end up being, as some participants argue, the deal of the century for the owner it was meant to punish. A neat ending: the fund gets paid, the State keeps the bricks, and the taxpayer covers the difference.

According to one participant, the fund's management company once offered to buy the flat for 250,000 euros, a figure that would already have been below the property's value. The debate also notes that the Ministry of Housing floated the idea of buying it. The fund said no to everything, and that is its right. Just as, it is argued, the Government would be within its rights not to prioritise that fund in future operations or to make things difficult for it through administrative channels.

Why has this become a political problem and not just a legal one?

Because the case has collided with everything else. In parallel, uncomfortable news has emerged for each side: the Supreme Court prosecutor's office has dropped the complaint against Ayuso over the purchase of her penthouse, ruling that it was based on speculative conjecture. And at the same time, it is recalled that in L'Hospitalet de Llobregat — where, according to one participant, the PSOE has governed for more than four decades — a 54-year-old woman took her own life after being evicted from the home she had lived in for over twenty years. Two narratives that each side waves around as it suits them.

The result is a mud-slinging contest with housing as the backdrop. Some argue that expropriating this flat is discriminatory: for the same money, ten homes could be built in poorer neighbourhoods.

The fine print nobody wants to read aloud

Compulsory expropriation requires a declaration of public utility or social interest to justify it, and that is where the labyrinth begins. Without that umbrella, any selective expropriation opens the door to someone else being next tomorrow. The harshest critics warn of legal uncertainty; the most supportive point out that the Constitution itself provides for the figure and that social interest is not an empty phrase.

The awkward detail: if the State buys at market price to rent out below it, the subsidy is not free — it comes out of everyone's pocket. And if it doesn't, the flat is sold, rented out at a high price, and Maricarmen is back to square one, this time with a photo on every news bulletin.

---

In the end, the case is not resolved in a Council of Ministers or a tweet: it is resolved in a fair-price valuation, in a courtroom and in a bank account. The rest is campaigning.