The battle for tourist rentals: neighbors’ rights or government interests?

A recent ruling by the Provincial Court of Madrid has once again brought into the spotlight the growing conflict between owners who rent out homes for tourist use and neighborhood associations that are trying to put a stop to this practice. The court has rejected the request of a community that sought to prohibit the tourist use of two apartments in its building, despite repeated complaints of noise, damage and constant traffic of unknown persons.

What is worrying is not only the judicial resolution, but what it represents: one more crack in a legal system that, far from clearly protecting regular residents, is entangled in contradictions generated by poorly designed regulations or impossible to apply effectively. And it is here where the role of the current government deserves a deeper reflection.

Legislating for whom?

The government has promoted a battery of reforms with which it claims to want to “protect the right to housing”. Among them, the elimination of the controversial Golden Visa (which allowed foreigners to obtain residency by buying high-value properties), and the recent reform that allows homeowners’ associations to veto tourist rentals if they agree by a qualified majority (60%).

In theory, this last measure was to empower neighbors in the face of the boom in uncontrolled tourism in residential buildings. But what happens when the courts, as in this case, interpret that the tourist use does not “notoriously” alter the enjoyment of the property?

We are faced with a law that, although it seems to protect residents, clashes head-on with judicial interpretation and leaves the true decision-making capacity of the communities up in the air. Why enact a law that cannot be enforced? Are we not generating a false sense of control while perpetuating the same problems?

Tourism vs. coexistence: a poorly resolved dichotomy

There is no denying that tourist rental generates income for many owners, especially in coastal areas such as Torrox, Nerja or Frigiliana, but this activity cannot be developed at the expense of the welfare of those who live all year round in these communities.

The cases of neighbors suffering noise at late hours, insecurity in the portals, broken elevators and abused common areas are not anecdotal. They are the norm in many estates where tourist homes coexist with family homes.

And this is where the government fails: it is trying to regulate what it should have prevented years ago, with more ambitious urban planning measures, with tax incentives and legal certainty to protect owners who want to put their homes up for long-term residential rental and, above all, with a clear legal framework that truly supports the communities of neighbors.

Who really protects the right to housing?

There is a lot of talk about the “right to housing”, but who guarantees it? The state pushes laws that sound good in headlines, but do not always have a realistic application. Communities are left unprotected, homeowners are confused, and legal investors are also left in no man’s land.

Meanwhile, the underlying problem – the lack of affordable housing, speculation and the touristification of residential areas – remains unresolved.

Conclusion

The Madrid ruling not only disarms a neighborhood community that sought to protect its space, but also leaves in evidence the limitations of a legislation that does not land in reality. If the government’s goal is to curb the abuse of tourist rentals and guarantee fair access to housing, it should act with more firmness, consistency and respect for neighborhood rights.