Talk about vulture funds, not vulture politicians

Equating BlackRock with Paca, a property owner in Cádiz who rents out her flat to pay another rent, is absurd: one vulnerable person becomes two. The housing decree squeezes the small landlord, not the big player, who can afford to leave a flat empty.

## BlackRock is not Paca
**BlackRock** is a global asset manager. **Paca** is the name used to illustrate the story of a property owner in **Cádiz** whose company relocates her to Almería. She rents out her flat to pay for another rental. She is not a vulture fund: she is a person with a mortgage and a payslip.

The Spanish housing decree treats BlackRock and Paca, a small landlord, the same way. It lumps together someone who can afford to leave a flat empty and someone who needs the rent to live. It does not protect the vulnerable tenant: it pits them against someone who is also vulnerable.

## A default that swallows two homes
If **Paca** has a mortgage and the tenant stops paying for months, **Paca** does not only lose that home. The bank can seize other properties, often her parents'. One vulnerable person becomes **2**. The bank gets paid either way and the property ends up in a subsidiary and then on the rental market.

That change of hands does not create more housing. It only changes who collects and who is liable. Talking only about vulture funds and not vulture politicians leaves out those who make the rules. The decree squeezes the small landlord because the big player has companies, advisers and time. In the event of a default, it is advisable to consult a lawyer.