An operation characterized by “its transparency and competitive competition”. This is how the Ana Botella City Council described the sale of 1,860 homes officially protected by the Madrid Municipal Housing and Land Company (EMVS) to the Blackstone vulture fund for 128.5 million euros. A maneuver undertaken in 2013 which, under the pretext of guaranteeing the financial solvency of EMVS, resulted in 18 promotions of public rental houses and rental houses with option to purchase in the hands of the companies Fidere Gestión and Fidere Vivienda , now renamed Testa Residencia. . That is to say in the hands of subsidiaries of the Blackstone vulture fund.
The decision comes back to the forefront in a context of a housing crisis which has already led to a social outbreak. During the draw organized last Friday 28 for 400 affordable housing units from EMVS (less than a quarter of those sold by Botella), the current vice-mayor Inmaculada Sanz preferred not to give her opinion on this controversial sale of social rental apartments when she was consulted for this newspaper. He did not dare to call it an error and chose to highlight what, in his opinion, are the main lines of José Luis Martínez-Almeida’s housing policy.
“We are committed to being the public developer and the company that builds the most housing in Spain. When we arrived there were fewer housing units, we already have more than 8,000 and we want to reach 15,000. The policy of this government team is very clear, although we also have to increase the supply in the city of Madrid, that is why we are going to continue working on public-private collaboration,” said the deputy mayor in response to a question from Somos Madrid.
“This dust, this mud,” says Arantxa Mejías, president of the Association of People Affected by the Sale of Social Housing by EMVS (AAVVE). He thus answers questions from this newspaper on the link between the current housing crisis and the sale of his house and that of 1,859 other families in Blackstone. “At that time, there was already a housing crisis with continued evictions, it was absurd that the municipality was thinking of getting rid of the little housing it had. [en concreto de un tercio del total]. And even more at a ridiculous price,” he adds.
Eleven years later, even if he continues to live in the same house, the wound from this maneuver has not finished healing. Mejías’ parents paid around 500 euros per month when the town hall granted them their officially protected housing around 2004. Today, they pay around 1,100 euros.
But the worst part, he says, is the opacity and uncertainty that the process creates: “We discovered everything when a neighbor received the eviction notice. The city council has left us exhausted and helpless. “It was shocking and devastating.” His family filed a complaint of duress after Fidere refused to renew the contract. Once admitted to treatment, they obtained a negotiation which allowed them to “enjoy the right to opt for this house like any neighbor, without being discriminated against for having fought for our house”.
The sale to Blackstone was also the first contact for many citizens with the concept of “vulture funds”, increasingly present in public debate as its proliferation and control of properties in large cities developed: “ It is very dangerous, and all the more so because there is no effective control of the administrations. It is also likely that rental housing will become the monopoly of a few large landlords, which will eventually pose problems even for small landlords. Not to mention that the conversion of purchased houses into tourist rentals loses the charm of neighborhoods and generates horrible neighborhood coexistence. And not just in the center.
A “harmful” operation which “ignores contractual rules”
During the sale of thousands of social housing units, the Botella government “violated the most basic rules of good management”, according to a report from the Chamber of Auditors of Madrid published in 2016. The opinion identifies on 66 pages a crucible of irregularities on the part of the Botella government. of EMVS as part of the sale of its housing portfolio. Among them, that Madrid City Hall provided inside information to four companies (Azora-Morgan Stanley, Lone Star, Harbor Group-Álvarez & Marsal and Magic Real State-Blackstone, the final winner) on the conditions of the sale, before to make The operation was made public on May 3, 2013.
The Chamber concluded that the decision to sell these promotions was taken “at least between December 12, 2012 and before April 2, 2013”. In other words, “there was no public agreement” when it came to selling this portfolio of social apartments. In fact, they had submitted offers before the process opened.
Ultimately, the Madrid Provincial Court and then the Supreme Court ended up acquitting Botella; the former CEO of EMVS, Fermín Oslé and the representative of Fidere, Alfonso Benavides. On the administrative level, the Court of Auditors convicted the former mayor and seven senior officials of her executive at first instance, but the sentence was later revoked. Two councilors appointed by the PP freed Botella from a million dollar sentence, worth 25.7 million. Mejías assures that “unfortunately all these acquittals were predictable and expected because there are families and names that are very difficult to reach.”
The acquittal of the Court of Auditors, by two votes to one, was signed by the former Minister of Justice of the first government of José María Aznar, Margarita Mariscal de Gante and José Manuel Suárez Robledano. The vote against was Felipe García, a councilor proposed by the PSOE, who maintained the arguments put forward by the organization during its first conviction: the sale operation was “detrimental” to municipal property and did not comply with the principles of “publicity, competition”. , transparency and objectivity” in the procedure.
According to the report of the Chamber of Auditors, the municipal company of the Town Hall failed to establish the obligatory specifications. In doing so, “not only the internal procurement rules but also the law on public sector contracts” were ignored, as well as the reports of necessity and technical and legal feasibility of the operation. Result: “it disregarded its obligation to establish an objective assessment of the value of the assets to be sold”. Thus, for the Chamber of Auditors, the EMVS “ignores not only the contractual rules”, but also “the criteria of rationality, economy and efficiency which must govern the management of public interests”.
The fine print of this letter also showed the extent to which the municipal executive is bending to Blackstone’s demands. The fund reduced its already “final and binding” offer by two million euros, arguing that there were more neighbors who did not pay the rent than those announced, a hypothesis that EMVS accepted “without the slightest proof “.
In addition to those directly affected, thousands of people have been indirectly affected by the failure to respect a citizen’s right such as social housing, which every family should be able to access in order to live with dignity.
Arantxa Mejias
— President of the Association of Men and Women Affected by the sale of EMVS social housing
The Town Hall also failed to act when the fund did not materialize the 2.3 million euros for the rehabilitation and improvement of the houses that it had detailed in its purchase offer. The Chamber of Auditors stressed that it was still “a simple intention and not a real commitment”. It is not in vain that the company claims to have invested 2.1 million, but “without documentary proof of this point given that the majority of the invoices provided cannot be considered as an investment but as simple maintenance”. Fidera even emphasized that this contribution “is not part of the mandatory content of the transaction”.
Arantxa Mejías says that already at that time they understood that they were directly affected, but that Botella’s decision would leave “thousands of people indirectly affected by infringing on a citizen right like social housing, to which every family should be able to access to live with dignity”. He believes that “it is very dangerous that in the 21st century we cannot access decent and affordable housing, and that we leave a large part of what we earn on a roof”.
A house and a decent life which for her is not limited to the shelter of a roof and four walls, but includes “having a certain number of square meters to start a family or live alone in all conditions”. And he adds: “They attack this right and make us feel that satisfying it at a reasonable price, by paying our rent and our provisions, is demanding a life beyond our means. »
