The hypocrisies and taboos of the left, which is capitalising on the housing protests

Italians, as we know, have since time immemorial been a nation of saints, poets, artists, navigators and experts who, when the need arises, discover they possess great expertise in every conceivable field of human knowledge, as we have all seen in recent times. Over the past few months, we have all become experts – first in virology, then in vaccines, then in energy, then in inflation, then in Ukraine, then in Gaza, then in international law, then in the Strait of Hormuz. The latest major topic to land on the table at the local sports bar concerns an issue on which many have felt compelled, of late, in the newspapers, on TV and on the radio, to feign expertise – even whilst lacking it – discussing the matter as if they were sitting over a pint with friends, talking about the national football team. We are, of course, talking about housing, high rents and the housing crisis; and whilst the ‘home sports bar’ is brimming with ideas and insights, a large proportion of the arguments put forward always tended to centre on one major theme: the public sector needs to spend more, and the private sector isn’t doing what it should be doing.

Everyone agrees on the first point – the right, the left, the centre, the government, the opposition, developers and non-developers alike – although it would be worth agreeing on what ‘doing more’ actually means, apart, of course, from hoping that local councils and regional authorities can allocate more money to council housing, social housing and student accommodation. This is also because, according to the Einaudi Centre, over 61,000 public housing units stand empty because they require major maintenance: before asking for new funds, perhaps we should learn to make better use of the resources we already have. On the second point, however – regarding the private sector – when one tries to get to the bottom of the matter, to seek concrete solutions, and when one tries to take seriously the grievances of the people on the streets and of those who represent them in Parliament, one cannot help but notice a hypocrisy that is difficult to admit but necessary to denounce: a large part of the problems relating to the future of housing – in Italy, but not only there – cannot be resolved without coming to terms with the hypocrisies present on the agenda of the progressive international movement.

First of all, just to be clear, what sort of figures are we talking about? The problem of high rents in Italy is not a myth but a reality. According to a study by ANCE in January 2026, to rent an 80-square-metre flat, a family on a low-to-middle income would have to spend more than half of their earnings in Florence (55.6 per cent), almost half in Rome (47.2 per cent) and in Milan (47 per cent), and over 43 per cent in Bologna. To provide a practical example, a family earning 2,000 euros a month would have to spend around 1,100 of that in Florence on rent alone, not including utility bills and other expenses. According to a recent report by the Einaudi Centre, commissioned by Assonime and Confindustria Assoimmobiliare, the bulk of housing-related problems in Italy are concentrated in the major cities; in this regard, the report indicates an annual demand for around 39,300 homes in Rome, 34,600 in Milan, 15,300 in Turin, 13,100 in Bologna and 10,700 in Florence, taking into account the respective metropolitan areas and not just the provincial capitals.

The report adds a detail that helps us get to the heart of the matter: when we talk about private individuals having to do more, spend more and invest more, we cannot simply ask them to play their part in solving the housing problem; we must also address the conditions that make their participation possible. Is it economically viable? Are the rules clear? Is there a supply of properties? Are contracts protected? In the best sports bars across Italy where housing is a hot topic, these points may mean nothing, but if you have the patience to take a broader view, you’ll understand exactly what we’re talking about. To achieve lower rents, we need more homes where there is demand for them. To have more homes, it is not enough simply to ask the local council and the regional government to do more; we must also take steps, at the very least, to ensure that private investment in the housing sector is not discouraged. And to do this – drum roll, please – what the progressive international struggles to understand is that the possibility of increasing the supply of homes in Italy also depends on the progressive camp’s ability to come to terms with its own taboos.

If we want lower rents, it is not enough to say that the state must do more: we must come to terms with the idea that, in large cities, more building is necessary. To build more, for a start, we need to adopt a less ideological approach to the issue of land use: take, for example, the left wing devoted to dogmatic environmentalism (you know the campaigns by neighbourhood committees against any kind of construction?). Building more homes, after all, does not necessarily mean consuming new land: it also means being able to increase the density of existing neighbourhoods, regenerate derelict properties, and increase building volumes where demand is strongest. A more pragmatic stance on urban regeneration is also required: one need only consider the left’s silence in the face of magistrates’ overreach on planning policies (recall the Torre Milano trial, which ended with the acquittal of the defendants?). A more secular approach to the issue of squatting is also necessary: we should call on the left that is devoted to the squatters’ method (do you remember the demonstrations of solidarity for those who occupy other people’s properties without authorisation?).

A more secular approach is needed when it comes to the protection of private property: if we wish to encourage private individuals to invest in residential property, we must provide them with clear rules to prevent their investment from going down the drain – a situation that cannot be ruled out when the repossession of a property, in the event of prolonged rent arrears, takes an unpredictable amount of time. And rent arrears are also a problem in the public housing sector: According to the Federcasa-Nomisma Observatory report published in 2026, the outstanding debts for unpaid rent, relating to 2023, are estimated at around 3.2 billion—a staggering figure, even though these are debts accumulated over the years, not annual shortfalls in revenue nor sums that are entirely recoverable. Finally, we must stop viewing property funds as enemies by definition: if we want private investors to invest in housing, we must accept that they can make a profit by building, renovating and letting new homes. Profit is not necessarily the enemy of supply: it may simply, quite plainly, be the very condition that makes it possible.

The debate on the future of housing is wise, fair and important – provided, of course, that one is able to distinguish between the right to a home and the right, for a student, to have a home necessarily in the city centre. Discussing what the public sector should do is right, reassuring and unites everyone: spend more, be more efficient, cut red tape. Taking a step forward to understand what needs to be done to make the private sector part of the solution – without portraying them as part of the problem – is possible only on one condition: realising that the progressive internationalist movement, which is riding the wave of the housing protest in various ways, can only hope to provide answers to those seeking a home if it learns to come to terms with its own shortcomings and to banish its own taboos from the public debate.