Opposition on ethical grounds to legalised properties being holiday rentals

Stephen GrimmerYes, I'd agree with both your comments below. However, the fact still remains that prices/rents here are quite a bit lower than many (if not most) major metropolitan areas in Europe. And that's attractive - whether it's Pont d'Inca or Son Castello, Porreres or Sa Pobla. Though admittedly, those urbanisations you mention are likely to be amongst the least attractive to most northern Europeans. Especially since there's much nicer and less expensive areas to live. Oh, and there have been rent controls for quite some time - I believe it's max 3% increase per year (?). Unfortunately, it's largely ignored and not well enforced. And difficult to enforce especially when it's a "quiet" monthly cash transaction - in that case, often neither the landlord nor the tenant want to step out into the sunlight with that. And there's a lot of that going on.

Morgan WilliamsMorgan, tourists and 2nd home owners are willing to overpay for desirability. I'm sure you will agree, they are not lining up to rent, nor competing to buy 2 bed apartments in residential suburbs like Son Castello or Pont d'Inca. The tourust/residential property markets are completely detached so the real problem is one of price gouging and ineffective rent controls.

The simple fact of the matter is that freedom of movement works both ways. Rich people are able to move to cheaper areas which are nice, and drive up the prices accordingly, because existing owners prefer to sell for a higher rather than lower price. Conversely, people living in poor areas on low wages are free to move to rich areas where wages are higher, thus driving down wages for the existing residents. What's true between Sweden/Greece or Spain/Germany is true on a postcode basis in any major city. It's neither right or wrong, it's just a manifestation of economic supply and demand.

The irony here is that there's no "lack of housing". There's plenty of houses available. The issue is that many can't afford them (or the rent), because the basic net worth and incomes around Europe are much higher than many low income residents here, and therefore, they can afford the purchase (or rental) of properties in this highly desirable region, and that keeps property prices comparatively high. That's not going to change. Legalising these "illegal" properties will only put more properties on the market for those with the means to buy them. It won't make them less expensive - they'll just continue to be bought up by more affluent buyers. That genie is already out of the bottle, and there's little that can be done about that, other than to build low-income housing projects to serve the demand for those that otherwise can't afford it. Having said that, there is a very good reason for concern about legalising properties that were built or added on without proper permission: safety and quality. I suggest that before these "illegal" properties can be "legalised", they should be subject to meeting the very same standards of building codes and safety as any fully legal structure. Especially if they are going to be able to be licenced as tourist lets. That's what the focus should be; Quality, safety. You want fewer tourists? The best way to achieve that is to focus on attracting the desirable ones and making it less attractive to the less desirable ones. To attract a better quality of tourist, it is essential to provide safe and high standard accommodation. After all, it is the increasing quality of accommodations here that are now increasingly attracting the more desirable tourist profiles, while making it less attractive to the downmarket, more problematic tourist profiles. That's already happening, so it's wise to continue on that course.