The other 'Maricamarmen' (and the 'other' real estate)

There are other Maricármenes who have been luckier. Elderly people who have been able to stay in their homes because someone, on the other side of a contract, understood that recovering a home did not justify any decision. That "other" real estate also exists: owners and professionals who work, seek profitability, and know they have a responsibility to people. Their stories rarely make headlines. I lived one of them. 

A few years ago, I had to attend the eviction of a home whose owning company I represented as an attorney-in-fact. I wasn't sure what I was going to find. The lawyer handling the procedure greeted me with satisfaction: he had managed to get the judge to rule in favor of the eviction of a man over eighty years old. My response was immediate: "no way." That didn't fit my way of understanding life or my way of practicing the profession.

Then I learned a fundamental detail. The tenant was barely home because he worked from nine in the morning to nine at night at a kiosk on Diputació Street in Barcelona. His absence had led the judge to deduce that he no longer lived in that home. But that man still had his home there.

The following week I went to see him. I wanted to apologize for the bad time we had put him through and tell him to be calm: his lease was still valid, and he could continue in his home.

It wasn't a decision I needed to ponder. I communicated it to my partner, and for me, it was normal. Nor do I tell this story to claim any merit. I tell it because those of us who work in the real estate sector make decisions that affect the lives of other people. And that responsibility does not end where a contractual obligation ends.

How far are we willing to go to recover a home?

Mari Carmen has passed away. That fact makes the question her case poses even more painful: how far are we willing to go to recover a home? Even when there is a legal way to do it, we must assess what consequences it will have on an elderly, vulnerable person without a real alternative. In my opinion, an action can have legal coverage and be, at the same time, morally indecent.

Morality has fewer instruments to enforce itself than the law, but that does not mean it matters less. The problem arises when we only invoke it as it suits us: to judge the adversary, defend our interests, or fuel a controversy.

Meanwhile, there are many other people living with the fear of losing their home. And young people who cannot emancipate themselves, families who barely manage to pay rent, and workers who have been priced out of the neighborhoods where they live. Their difficulties demand more than public indignation.

An action can have legal coverage and be, at the same time, morally indecent.

They also demand that politicians, media, and professionals stop using each case as ammunition. Exaggeration and polarization may yield immediate returns, but they make it harder to reach agreements on an essential matter: how to ensure more housing is available at prices the population can afford.

I believe a fundamental part of the answer lies in cooperation between administrations and the private sector. We need to promote social and protected housing, mobilize land, and facilitate public land tenders that allow private developers to participate in its construction with clear conditions and guarantees of affordable access.

We must also speak realistically about costs. If we want protected housing to be built in the areas where it is most needed, its maximum prices must allow for viable projects. Revising the modules where land and construction are more expensive can contribute to this, always preserving the social purpose of these homes.
Administrations have an irreplaceable responsibility, but the magnitude of the problem requires combining capacities. Developers and owners can be allies. Demonizing the entire private sector hinders this collaboration. And the sector itself must understand that trust is earned with actions, even when it means giving up an economically convenient decision due to its human consequences.

Demonizing the entire private sector hinders this collaboration.

In the same vein, I consider it necessary to fiscally incentivize owners, both individuals and companies, to allocate their homes to stable residential rental. And to improve public transport, especially in Catalunya: expanding the possibilities of living outside the most expensive centers requires reliable connections to work, studies, and services.

None of this will solve tomorrow the difficulties of those who today cannot pay rent. That is why urgent measures are also needed to alleviate the situation, protect vulnerable people, and buy time while lasting solutions arrive. It is necessary to reach out to the less fortunate who, with every reason, are in revolt and protest. Each measure will have to be evaluated by its results and corrected when necessary. Urgency deserves answers, and answers require all parties to do their part, in addition to continuity.

It is necessary to reach out to the less fortunate who, with every reason, are in revolt and protest.

That man from Diputació street was able to stay in his home. Mari Carmen did not have that luck. Between both stories there are concrete decisions, made by concrete people, about which the sector must also reflect. The other Maricármenes exist, and the "other" real estate also. Our responsibility is to ensure that keeping a home stops being a matter of luck.