Housing Crises and the Limits of Criminalizing Property Occupation

• The housing crisis is primarily driven by speculative vacancy rather than individual property occupations.
• Occupation cases represent only 0.00054% of total housing stock, with the vast majority involving properties held by banks and investment funds.
• Criminal law should be the last resort; current reliance on it ignores the state's failure to provide adequate housing alternatives.

Concentration of Property Ownership

• From 2008 to 2025, the number of entities owning more than ten properties increased by 35.3%, while those owning single units decreased by 3.7%.
• Approximately 27,000 large-scale owners hold over one million homes, often keeping them vacant to await market appreciation.
• Homelessness has risen by 25% over the last decade, with official counts underestimating the reality of those in precarious living situations.

Legal and Administrative Barriers

• The application of criminal sanctions for occupation, such as Article 245.2 of the Penal Code, often ignores whether the property was being used at all.
• The legal doctrine of 'state of necessity' could theoretically exempt individuals in extreme need, but its application is hindered by rigid requirements regarding 'subsidiarity.'
• Existing institutional support channels are ineffective: in Valencia, public housing response rates were under 3.2% against demand, exacerbated by bureaucratic hurdles like digital-only applications and unstable shelter conditions.

Policy Implications

• Criminalizing those in housing emergencies serves to protect rent-seeking behavior rather than resolve the underlying crisis.
• Real solutions require political, not penal, action: expanding public housing stock, imposing price controls, banning speculative practices, and restricting tourist apartments.