United We Can has registered in Congress amendments to the law for the right to housing, in which it proposes, among other things, to oblige the Management Company of Assets Proceeding from Bank Restructuring (SAREB) to allocate a minimum of 75% of their homes to social rental and set a maximum number of tourist accommodation places of up to 2% of the number of inhabitants in a district or neighborhood.
In addition, to mobilize social housing, the confederal group wants oblige large homeowners to allocate a minimum of 30% of all homes that is owned by social rent, a percentage that would be increased if it has public capital, as is the case of Sareb, the so-called ‘bad bank’, which this week the State has come to control through the FROB .
The alternative to this social rental is that the large holders can cede in favor of the competent administrations for their management.
Likewise, to prevent residents from having to travel “due to an excess of tourist accommodation”, a limit is set by districts or neighborhoods, so that tourist homes may not account for “more than 2% of the number of inhabitants in an urban environment “.
Eviction limits and rent regulation
But there are also amendments to tighten the limits on evictions and on rent regulationin addition to introducing sanctions for non-compliance with the rule.
Regarding rents, the United We Can proposal goes through lower the price increase threshold contemplated in the regulation of the Government to declare a stressed area and to be able to apply price controls.
If in the current wording a stressed zone can be declared in cases of a price increase of 5 points above the CPI in an autonomous community in the previous five years, United We Can propose leaving it only two points above.
On the other hand, the confederal group wants prevent any demand for eviction by large holders without having offered their tenants a social rentin the case of persons or family units or cohabitation at risk of exclusion.
Likewise, it also proposes prevent cuts to drinking water, gas and electricity supplies when the affected person is “likely to be in risk of residential or social exclusion“, considering any unjustified interruption as “real estate harassment” and, therefore, subject to sanction.
Likewise, it proposes to ensure that real estate management and contract formalization expenses are always at the expense of the owner who rents his home.
–
–
