Madrid to tighten controls on vacation apartments-El Pais

Well, I guess my AirBnB host, who owns the building, may have to decide whether to convert all to short lets - wouldn't that be disappointing to the locals renting there....but might be more lucrative, as people wanting to be in town will have many fewer options.
I think it is a big ludicrous to limit entry ways unless they are main floor apartments. I think I get why, but not very feasible.

Que lastima! I don't suppose this new proposal was spearheaded by the Madrid replacement door industry, but it's an odd idea. Kind of like having the second-class people having to use a back door, so as to not commingle with the upper-class folks. Wonder if the idea is to discourage short-term rentals, but assuming that those places would otherwise sit empty, there will be blighted, unused apartments throughout the city in no time, no doubt.

If the problem is that locals can't get an affordable apartment because it's more lucrative for property owners to rent to short-term tourists, then Supply and Demand are at work, and the hotels should cut their prices, or tourists will be going to places other than Madrid.

Colorado ski towns are facing concerns with short-term rentals of condos and apartments, but it seems to mostly be that the taxing authorities don't feel they are getting lodging taxes that commercial hotels and lodges collect, and that short-term renters are supposed to be paying, as well. Locals can't find affordable housing, but, again, sales prices are so high that it's not simply VRBO and AirBnB participants at fault.

So in Madrid, I wonder if upper floor units just need to have a metal staircase installed, so that visitors can climb up to a balcony or window? And if your brother and sister-in-law come to visit, can they come up the elevator with you, or would they have to use the short-timer's entrance?

I know it isn't perfect, but Barcelona has had registration and taxing in a place a couple of years now... as had several other Spanish cities, Venice, and the list goes on.

I can understand their reasons. The people living in that building have to pay to maintain it, and having constant suitcase traffic in their elevators and entrances affect the cost. Then all of the reasons for the annoyance of living in a “building for tourists”instead of a home for locals! These cities are first, a home for their residents. Tourists visiting need to be very mindful of that while visiting.

Per their article:
“The number of locals pushed out from their neighborhoods is not likely to be included in the census statistics but it could lead to profound consequences, not only social problems (widening the gap between rich and poor communities) but also in terms of transport (getting to work in the center, where to go for entertainment), infrastructure (if local schools are left without students, they will have to created in new areas), and in the very shape of the city.”

Jean- I agree with you and those that say it's just supply and demand and we should let capitalism decide don't realize that it does break down communities and families. It's looking more and more like cities will become like Paris, the rich living in the center and the poor living on the outskirts.

It's a vexing problem and I certainly don't have any answers.

I mentioned that Supply and Demand were affecting the situation, but certainly didn't say that capitalism should be simply allowed to run its course. To the contrary, I mentioned that the tourism vs. local housing situation is a concern in many places. It's not a simple situation, but a Separate Entry Door policy is certainly not a sensible solution.

Otherwise, everybody would just have to go to Euro Disneyland and stay there, and leave the rest of the world to go about their lives, unaffected by tourists. And Rick Steves would stop selling guidebooks, which would make it hard to keep this Travel Forum going . . .

Just a small point, but the regulation about separate entrances wasn't created with the intention that flats would actually become like the old USA segregation with some using the front entrance and others the back door. It was designed to make a hurdle that most short-term landlords would not be able to meet and so be forced (in theory) to sell to local occupants (in practice to property corporations). The point isn't to create split buildings, but to drive out many rentiers and unify buildings as residential only. Whether this turns out to be legal will be up to the courts to decide (I suspect not, but what do I know), but it's likely just a first attempt and the Madrid mayor will try another if this one is stopped. Basically, the approach is to require licences for holiday rentals and then make the licence hard to get in central districts. They went for separate access because there is at least an arguable case to be made that permanent residents benefit. They could have made the regulation that all short-term rentals are painted purple, but that wouldn't have survived the first court.

Thanks Nick for the clarification although I wonder why Madrid just couldn't give out a set number of registration license. There must be some analyst in Madrid who could crunch the numbers and set a limit. And if the apartment doesn't have a registration number than give them a fine. That would seem a bit more democratic than the separate entrances even though I understand the intent. I think this was more a way to get headlines before the big elections next month.

"I think this was more a way to get headlines before the big elections next month."

Well, I'm sure your right there! It is suspiciously close to the election and does give the new "More Madrid" and Carmena's big tent something to talk about. Being very cynical, I also suspect they've more than half an eye on Vox and how to respond to them.