Gran Canaria must be an island to live in, not just visit

Compiled with the help of artificial intelligence, based on Spanish-language information. Source below the article.

We have spent far too long talking about the conflict between residents, property owners and tourism activity in the so-called tourist zones of the Canary Islands. And I say “tourist zones” in inverted commas deliberately, because Gran Canaria is a tourist island, but it is also an island to live on. This is a complex problem, and complex problems are not solved with magic recipes.

For too long we have listened to apparently simple answers, and even to positions that change depending on where they are voiced: one thing in one municipality, another in another institution, and yet another when it comes to legislating. I believe we must move away from that. We need a serious solution, legally sound and, above all, built to last. And my starting point is very clear: first, the right of the property owner. Anyone who legally bought a property must be able to decide what happens to it within clear rules. And if the current rules no longer reflect the social reality we live in, our duty as public representatives is not to hide behind them. It is to change them.

Legislating so that people can live in their own property

Here I want to be especially clear. I am not satisfied with saying that an owner may only live in their property where residential use is currently recognised. I believe we must tackle precisely that problem. We have to legislate so that a person can live in a legally acquired property when that property meets the objective conditions required to be habitable. Naturally, with requirements: safety, sanitation, habitability, rules of coexistence and all the guarantees established by law. But we cannot turn our backs on reality.

The Canary Islands are facing a very serious problem of access to housing, and in the south of Gran Canaria thousands of workers and their families know this particularly well. In that context we must ask ourselves a fairly simple question: what sense does it make to remove a person from a perfectly habitable home when the authorities themselves have been unable to offer affordable and realistic residential alternatives? We are talking about people who work in our hotels, restaurants, shops, public services and businesses linked directly or indirectly to tourism. People who make the daily functioning of our main economic sector possible.

It does not seem reasonable to tell them that they are essential for working in a tourist zone, but that they cannot live in it simply because a classification conceived decades ago prevents it, even when the property meets all the necessary conditions. I believe that deserves to be reviewed.

A tourist island must also be an island you can live on

I defend tourism. I have done so for years from public office and I will continue to do so. These are compatible concepts, by logic. It is our main economic engine and we must ensure it remains competitive, modern and high quality. What a minister seeks and pursues is harmony at the destination. Harmony between all parties so that those involved can carry out their life plans, satisfied in their duties and obligations.

But precisely for that reason we must remember what the economy is for: tourism must generate wealth to improve the quality of life of our people. It would make no sense if tourism’s success ended up making it harder for the people who sustain that activity to find somewhere to live. That is why I also do not share the idea of presenting residents as a threat to tourism. Tourism quality does not depend on expelling residents. It depends on having good establishments, good facilities, cleanliness, safety, services, renovation, professionalism and demanding quality standards. That should be our debate.

What matters is quality standards

If a management company guarantees those standards, perfect. Good tourism businesses are necessary and must have the security to carry out their activity. But if an individual owner can operate their property for tourism while complying exactly with the requirements set out in legislation, I believe we should also study that possibility. What should matter is how the service is provided and what quality the visitor receives. A modern tourism regulation must monitor outcomes, standards, upkeep, safety and quality; it should not protect specific business models above the legitimate right of property.

The owner decides what happens to their property

That principle must be firmly established. An owner may wish to live in their property, place it in tourist use, voluntarily incorporate it into a management company, or run a tourism activity individually if legislation permits it and the established requirements are met. Furthermore, I consider it unfair to apply modern restrictive laws to properties acquired entirely legitimately and freely in the past. Our duty must be to build a legal framework that allows these possibilities to be ordered, not to impose that a private property must necessarily be tied to the economic interests of a third party.

That is why I believe we must also review the principle of unity of operation. Not to destroy it, but to update it. Unity of operation should serve to guarantee professionalism and quality, not to grant a company rights over properties whose owners have not decided to take part in that business.

And communities must have much more of a say

The second great principle must be to strengthen the role of communities of property owners. Because within a complex there are individual properties, but there is also shared common heritage: swimming pools, gardens, reception areas, access points, facilities and services. And decisions about what belongs to everyone cannot be taken without those who own it. That is why my position is simple: the owner should decide about their own property and the community should have a real ability to decide about what is common. Majorities, procedures, limits and their legal fit will have to be established, but I believe that should be one of the principles on which we build a new regulation.

Neither turning everything residential nor maintaining a fiction

Nor am I proposing to convert the entire tourist accommodation supply into residential use. That would be irresponsible. Gran Canaria needs to preserve its accommodation capacity and maintain a strong tourism industry. But neither can we maintain legal fictions when reality has changed. There are tourist complexes, residential ones and mixed ones. And there are thousands of people who have lived for years in properties located in the so-called tourist zones. Politics has two options in the face of that reality: ignore it or regulate it. I prefer to regulate it.

A solution that does not set anyone against anyone else

We should not frame this debate as residents against business owners, or property owners against operators. There must be room for everyone here: for the owner, for the community, for those who legitimately wish to operate in tourism, and for the companies that carry out their activity properly. What we need are clear rules, legal certainty, quality standards and legislation adapted to the Canary Islands as they are today. No magic solutions. No different positions depending on which institution you happen to be in. And no turning into culprits those who have simply bought or live legally in a property.

We must also recognise those who have been fighting for years

I also want to express explicit recognition to all the affected people who, individually or through various platforms, have spent years defending their rights, studying the regulations, organising themselves and making visible a reality that for too long has not always received the attention it deserved. Their work has been essential. Politics must learn from that effort. We cannot approach these groups only when it suits us to listen to them and then forget about the problem when the political moment changes. An issue of this magnitude demands continuity, coherence and commitment.

The affected people have managed to make themselves heard on their own merit. They have kept the debate alive and have forced the institutions to look squarely at a reality that exists. My intention is not to replace that work or to take it over. It is to add to it: to listen, to help from whatever political responsibility falls to me and to give institutional strength to demands that deserve a clear and lasting response. That is why I want them to know that, on that path, they can count on me. Not to tell them what they should be defending, but to accompany them, work with them and help ensure that all that effort ends up turning into solutions.

A Gran Canaria that is tourist-friendly must also be liveable

My position starts from something very simple: first, respect the right of the property owner. Then, build a regulation that allows all the other realities to be ordered. Because Gran Canaria needs tourism, but it also needs housing. It needs businesses, but it also needs residents. And, especially, it needs the people who work and make our tourism success possible every day to be able to build their life plans here too. A tourist Gran Canaria must also be a liveable Gran Canaria. That balance is not only possible. I believe it is essential.

🧭 Explore Gran Canaria with us
📰 Read more Gran Canaria news ☀️ Check Gran Canaria weather 🏝️ Get the Gran Canaria island guide 🏖️ Find the best beaches in Gran Canaria

Source

Scroll to Top