Dozens of activists stood outside the doors of 106 Carme Street this Wednesday for seven hours to stop three evictions. The riot police had to remove them one by one. Some denounced that the agents were used very forcefully. A speaker, microphone in hand, was the entire time insulting the police and encouraging the activists. Two evictions were finally carried out, and the third was postponed. But all this is the latest episode in a long story.
The conflict around this property in Raval has been going on for more than seven years. In the first term of Mayor Ada Colau, its tenants reported that the SOCIMI that had bought it was letting it go to waste so that everyone would leave and convert the apartments into high-end apartments, which had already been sent the corresponding burofaxes. informing them that they would not renew their rental contracts. That the SOCIMI in question, mainly owned by one of the most powerful investment funds on the planet, were doing more or less the same thing in a dozen properties in Ciutat Vella.
The Colau executive announced that he would administratively denounce all the funds that harassed their tenants, that he would impose fines of up to 900,000 euros, and that he would already open a disciplinary file against the owners of 106 Carme. Soon the SOCIMI and a good part of the tenants agreed to extend the rental contracts for three years. The property stressed that it had spent 70,000 euros to improve the property, that it had attended to every case, that it had not harassed anyone...
It is a royal estate that has fallen into disrepair and is divided into several parts from 1788. Ca l'Erasme was commissioned by the Indian Erasme de Gònima. The baroque paintings in the main hall stand out inside. Four years ago the City Council granted the property one of the many bonuses it gives for the maintenance of listed buildings of local interest, in this case just over 500 euros.
And soon the matter was diluted. That much-vaunted sanctioning file was archived. The City Council found no evidence of harassment and closed the case. The new leases also came to an end. As some activists said, some tenants continued paying the rent anyway, others left... Apparently people still live there. Neighborhood housing defense entities became very involved. As often happens in these cases, some parts of the story are confusing. One floor was boarded up and three others usurped.
The eviction of a woman, her daughter and her two grandchildren was suspended given their vulnerability. Municipal sources say that the family is waiting for a social apartment. “In this case, the City Council required a mandatory social rent from the property, a requirement that was rejected. Proceedings will soon be opened in case this constitutes an infringement and sanction.” The sources add that the other two floors were occupied by men who are not in a vulnerable situation.
