Making renting riskier doesn't inherently make property less expensive. If a shortage of rental properties makes more people want to buy condos and houses, then there's more demand for condos and houses. Making renting riskier also means that apartment buildings are less profitable and less likely to be built.

A more likely outcome is that condos and houses get more expensive because of the shortage of apartments. And fewer apartments get built because investors know that they will not be able to kick out squatters.

If letting becomes a bad return on money, leaving the house empty is an even worse return of money. So you sell, and thereby get money for better investments, while at the same time the house gets an owner tenant. Real estate is fixed and cannot be physically transferred.

As for apartments, they will still be financed by people who intend to live in them. Removing the landlord removes a huge margin, because you're nourishing a stranger.

> Making renting riskier doesn't inherently make property less expensive

It did that here.

> A more likely outcome

You are literally making up stuff and preaching a false reality as you go. No wonder how the US housing market got shafted - seeing what kind of mentality you people subscribe to.

If rents went down, it wasn't because renting became riskier. By definition that's going to raise rents.

More likely it's other factors like remote works becoming less common once covid subsided.

At the end of the day, all of this discussion does not detract anything from my original point:

> You would be surprised about the sheer number of spaniards that would welcome this second-order effect.

Lots of spaniards would clap at this, even if they're mistaken (what your arguing for). So peter335's argument would not be listened to.