![[-]](https://fuerteventura.click/images/collapse.png "[-]")
04-10-2024, 07:30 AM
The association has warned of the image of an "anti-tourism destination" that the Canary Islands could give on October 20
The Canary Islands Association of Holiday Rentals (Ascav) has asked the Government of the Canary Islands on Thursday to withdraw the draft law on sustainable tourist use of housing to agree on a text, since, he has assured, the solution is "basically in listening to and understanding each other, not only in complying with the procedure".
In a statement, Ascav has indicated that on April 20 a "crowd took to the streets to show their weariness and the solution is not precisely to launch even more polarized debates that confront society and tourists." He also asked who cannot agree with many demands of the thousands of people who took to the streets to protest. And from October 20, these demands will be repeated and intensified and "we will once again give the image of being an anti-tourism and hostile destination, when it is not true".
Ascav has pointed out that the Government of the Canary Islands has not taken any measure to show society its concern and avoid the new outbreak, and has assured that "once again it looks the other way as if it were a flu that cures itself". He stressed that, according to the first 43 pages of the draft law on sustainable tourist use of housing, the "entire blame for the situation of gentrification, touristification and tourismphobia in the Canary Islands lies with holiday homes, even more so after the 'call effect' caused by the announcement of the regulation and its entry into force, which has generated an effect contrary to that intended by the regulation."
He pointed out that "it is not because of the lack of foresight and lack of construction during all these years of protected or social housing for the resident near the tourist centers, which, by the way, is relegated to living increasingly polarized to the periphery in ghettos for workers". He added that "it is not because we do not understand where the "toxic assets" (homes, plots, offices, etc.) for which we rescued the banks with more than 80,000 million with public Money from our taxes went. Housing, which has not been made available to those who need it most".
Even less, he continued, "because of the incessant destruction of our territory and the invasion of our coasts by hotel multinationals that against all odds (all kinds of contrary reports), plant their hotels with succulent subsidies paid by all the Canarians". He also pointed out that "it cannot be because of the huge number of outfalls that pollute our beaches and coasts with untreated water".
Above all, "nothing to do with employment and the abysmal differences between working conditions in the tourism sector of both provinces, the most expensive shopping basket in Spain and in general terms, the poverty and inequality that we suffer with respect to other Autonomous Communities in this country". Ascav stressed that the solution to the historical structural problems of housing and the housing emergency "is not understood by blaming holiday homes, many other variables such as population growth, the high number of empty homes and the insecurity of the urban lease law will also have something to do with it".
For this reason, he stressed that "it is simply an excuse to focus the problem on a sector and respond to a hotel lobby that has been clamoring for years for the end of a new type of accommodation in demand that eats up ground". He asked if ever "we will be able to look for solutions without looking at our navel and stop thinking selfishly about political gains to reach agreements", and if it is "so difficult to comply with the main demand of owners of closed homes or those, who out of fear have gone over to the VV to rent them out again to Canarian families".
He responds that "the only thing they are asking for is that the Government of the Canary Islands guarantees them rent at market price", and questions "why it is not done if the consequence is to recover that 40% of lost rental homes". He also questioned why the Government of the Canary Islands "spends 7 million euros instead on a brilliant idea that manages to put 1 single home up for rent" and "why a table of debate and consensus is not opened to reach agreements on the model of tourism we want".
Above all, he considered that "we should ask ourselves why and who is so bothered by the fact that the Canary Islands participate directly in tourism. that we are part of it, that we manage and preserve our heritage and that we are independent to decide what to do with our resources". The solution "requires an in-depth debate and solutions in the short and medium term and not in formulating laws contrary to Canarian families by urgent means".
He has asserted that nowhere in the world is it seen that a "unique tourist product, which only exists in the Canary Islands and which has been so successful during the last 40 years and has done so much good to the conservation of the heritage in the midlands, such as the "Fincas", are now prohibited, impoverishing and condemning the owners to sell these properties to foreigners who will market them opaquely from their countries of origin, just as it happened in 2013".
The Canary Islands Association of Holiday Rentals (Ascav) has asked the Government of the Canary Islands on Thursday to withdraw the draft law on sustainable tourist use of housing to agree on a text, since, he has assured, the solution is "basically in listening to and understanding each other, not only in complying with the procedure".
In a statement, Ascav has indicated that on April 20 a "crowd took to the streets to show their weariness and the solution is not precisely to launch even more polarized debates that confront society and tourists." He also asked who cannot agree with many demands of the thousands of people who took to the streets to protest. And from October 20, these demands will be repeated and intensified and "we will once again give the image of being an anti-tourism and hostile destination, when it is not true".
Ascav has pointed out that the Government of the Canary Islands has not taken any measure to show society its concern and avoid the new outbreak, and has assured that "once again it looks the other way as if it were a flu that cures itself". He stressed that, according to the first 43 pages of the draft law on sustainable tourist use of housing, the "entire blame for the situation of gentrification, touristification and tourismphobia in the Canary Islands lies with holiday homes, even more so after the 'call effect' caused by the announcement of the regulation and its entry into force, which has generated an effect contrary to that intended by the regulation."
He pointed out that "it is not because of the lack of foresight and lack of construction during all these years of protected or social housing for the resident near the tourist centers, which, by the way, is relegated to living increasingly polarized to the periphery in ghettos for workers". He added that "it is not because we do not understand where the "toxic assets" (homes, plots, offices, etc.) for which we rescued the banks with more than 80,000 million with public Money from our taxes went. Housing, which has not been made available to those who need it most".
Even less, he continued, "because of the incessant destruction of our territory and the invasion of our coasts by hotel multinationals that against all odds (all kinds of contrary reports), plant their hotels with succulent subsidies paid by all the Canarians". He also pointed out that "it cannot be because of the huge number of outfalls that pollute our beaches and coasts with untreated water".
Above all, "nothing to do with employment and the abysmal differences between working conditions in the tourism sector of both provinces, the most expensive shopping basket in Spain and in general terms, the poverty and inequality that we suffer with respect to other Autonomous Communities in this country". Ascav stressed that the solution to the historical structural problems of housing and the housing emergency "is not understood by blaming holiday homes, many other variables such as population growth, the high number of empty homes and the insecurity of the urban lease law will also have something to do with it".
For this reason, he stressed that "it is simply an excuse to focus the problem on a sector and respond to a hotel lobby that has been clamoring for years for the end of a new type of accommodation in demand that eats up ground". He asked if ever "we will be able to look for solutions without looking at our navel and stop thinking selfishly about political gains to reach agreements", and if it is "so difficult to comply with the main demand of owners of closed homes or those, who out of fear have gone over to the VV to rent them out again to Canarian families".
He responds that "the only thing they are asking for is that the Government of the Canary Islands guarantees them rent at market price", and questions "why it is not done if the consequence is to recover that 40% of lost rental homes". He also questioned why the Government of the Canary Islands "spends 7 million euros instead on a brilliant idea that manages to put 1 single home up for rent" and "why a table of debate and consensus is not opened to reach agreements on the model of tourism we want".
Above all, he considered that "we should ask ourselves why and who is so bothered by the fact that the Canary Islands participate directly in tourism. that we are part of it, that we manage and preserve our heritage and that we are independent to decide what to do with our resources". The solution "requires an in-depth debate and solutions in the short and medium term and not in formulating laws contrary to Canarian families by urgent means".
He has asserted that nowhere in the world is it seen that a "unique tourist product, which only exists in the Canary Islands and which has been so successful during the last 40 years and has done so much good to the conservation of the heritage in the midlands, such as the "Fincas", are now prohibited, impoverishing and condemning the owners to sell these properties to foreigners who will market them opaquely from their countries of origin, just as it happened in 2013".