EU housing proposal: will it make it harder to act before people lose their homes?
The European Commission’s proposed Affordable Housing Act is intended to help public authorities protect housing affordability and availability. It sets out an EU framework for measures restricting short-term rentals in properties that are not someone’s primary residence, as well as the acquisition of properties for purposes other than a primary residence.
At first glance, this sounds like a useful response to a familiar problem: homes being used for tourism or investment while people struggle to find somewhere they can afford to live. But as FEANTSA warns in its analysis, the proposal may make it harder for authorities to intervene effectively. We like to emphasize that homelessness rarely begins on the day someone ends up sleeping rough. The reality is that it is often the final stage of a longer process of housing exclusion, rising costs, forced moves and shrinking housing options. That’s why policy frameworks should be capable of acting before that process reaches its most severe outcome.
When does housing pressure become serious enough to act?
The proposal states that for an authority to introduce these restrictions, they would first have to show that an area meets the EU definition of “housing stress”. The main measure compares the average purchase price of a home with disposable income per person. This is a regional indicator, not a calculation of what each resident earns or pays for housing. The ratio must reach at least eight, and it must also have risen over the previous ten years. In addition, authorities must then assess whether the pressure will ease over the following three years.
But this measure does not directly tell us whether tenants can afford their rent, whether lower-income residents have been forced to leave, or whether people looking for a home can still live near their work and support networks. A neighbourhood can change dramatically while a broad statistical indicator fails to capture who is being displaced. Housing affordability must be measured through the experiences of the people most at risk of housing exclusion, displacement and homelessness, who are often the first to feel the effects of a tightening housing market.
The proposal would also require authorities to demonstrate that the rental they intend to restrict has significantly harmed housing affordability or availability over at least the previous three years. FEANTSA’s concern makes sense if authorities must prove that harm has already occurred, and assemble evidence that the pressure will continue, they may be prevented from acting early enough to protect residents, or so late that harm has already been caused to the most vulnerable. Yet, preventing housing exclusion is always less costly than responding once people have already lost their homes.
Should primary residences be excluded altogether?
The proposed framework excludes short-term rentals inside a host’s primary residence. Renting out a room or temporarily renting out the home where someone normally lives is different from buying several flats to operate as tourist accommodation. Yet FEANTSA argues that difference does not mean activity can never affect neighbours or the local housing market. HOGAR SÍ agrees with this stance: why should authorities be unable to consider restrictions here if they have evidence that such activity is causing harm?
A more flexible approach already exists. Amsterdam, for example, limits the tourist rental of a resident’s entire home to 30 nights a year, or even 15 nights in certain neighbourhoods. We believe other authorities should be able to adopt this kind of approach: setting annual limits on short-term rentals in primary residences, with stricter rules in neighbourhoods facing greater pressure, and regulating room rentals separately. Excluding primary residences from the proposed EU framework altogether would deny authorities that flexibility.
Homes for living, not just assets for generating returns
Commercial tourist accommodation raises a particularly important issue. When homes are acquired and used primarily to generate economic returns, they are no longer available in the same way to people seeking stable housing. Restrictions on that activity can form part of a response to housing exclusion, provided authorities are able to introduce them when they are needed. Any regulatory framework should start from the principle that homes exist first and foremost to guarantee people’s right to live in dignity and security. X
The Affordable Housing Act is still a proposal. But it does not itself introduce rent controls, prevent evictions or guarantee access to housing for people experiencing homelessness. Those omissions matter when assessing its likely impact.
For HOGAR SÍ, that question must be at the centre of any European housing initiative. A useful framework would let authorities act before residents are displaced or evicted, take account of the people left out of market averages, and support wider policies that protect tenants and their access to stable, affordable housing. Ultimately, housing policy should not be judged by whether it regulates markets more efficiently, but by whether it prevents people from losing their homes and enables everyone to access stable, affordable housing.
Funded by:
