The vultures are them: Tenant Union network linked to pressure campaign to buy homes

A communication sent to the company that owns Maricarmen's house reveals that the Tenant Union and allied cooperatives intended to buy the property, hinting at a price below market value. The network linked to the union has 171 properties, including built homes and projects.

The operation was never closed, but it exposed the mechanism. The company that owns **Maricarmen**'s house received a communication in which the **Tenant Union** and allied cooperatives showed willingness to acquire the property, hinting they would do so below market price. The landlords described the maneuver as anomalous.

## An email that uncovers the operation

The document, to which **theobjective.com** has had access, was not a formal offer as such. The communication arrived after a campaign of social pressure against the property, and in it the willingness to buy the flat assuming a discount on its real value was slipped in. The owners' surprise was enormous: they did not expect that those who were pointing them out in the street would end up proposing to keep the asset.

The episode fits a broader pattern. The acquisition of homes from private owners under social pressure is not an isolated case, according to the information published. Media asphyxiation and the contestation directed against landlords function as a lever to lower the price before sitting down to negotiate.

## 171 properties in the union's network

The balance of the network linked to the union is impressive. They total **81 homes** already built and inhabited. In the short term, another **90** currently in project will be added. In total, a real estate asset of **171 properties**.

To that portfolio they intended to add a piece of big game: the flat in Retiro. The operation, had it been closed on the terms hinted at, would have fattened the network's patrimony at the expense of a private individual subjected to public shaming.

## Market price as an absent variable

The key to the matter is the price. Buying below market value is not illegal in itself: any private negotiation allows discounts. The problem appears when that discount is built on prior social pressure and not on a free negotiation between parties.

The question left in the air is who sets the fair price when one of the parties has been previously singled out. The affected owners maintain that the maneuver is anomalous. The facts, for now, are what they are: a communication, an intention and a patrimony that already totals 171 properties.