Occupied and Crumbling: Illetes Fort Between Monument Conservation and Human Rights

Who protects the fort — the people or the stones?

In the late afternoon, when the sun lies low over Illetes and the sea quietly pulls at the rocks, the old fort looks like a stranded ship behind the small car park. From the nearby beach café the smells of sea, coffee and burnt fish drift over. Recently, according to neighbors, about a dozen people have found shelter here. No loud protest, no banners — rather a quiet settling in: tents in courtyards, mattresses in rooms without doors, cats disappearing between the old stones, and a dog curiously sniffing visitors. The central question presses itself forward: how do we reconcile monument conservation with social duty?

One place, two problems

The fort is listed, yet the ravages of time have dug in deep. Rotten wood, open trenches, peeling plaster and corners full of rubble tell of years of decay. At the same time the building is a refuge for people without stable housing. For beachgoers in Illetes it is a familiar, sad sight: historic stones slowly crumbling — and people seeking shelter there. Protection and assistance are often presented as opposites: every stabilization measure is reflexively seen as a prelude to eviction. That is shortsighted.

Who lives there — and what is missing?

The group is heterogeneous: locals, people from Latin America and North Africa, and at least one English-speaking person. Some sleep under the open sky, others in improvised rooms. There is a lack of drinking water, toilets, stable access stairs and lighting. Mold, sharp edges and unstable walkways increase the risk of injury. The police have been informed, and an eviction has not taken place so far — an indication of the political and legal dilemma. An eviction without alternatives would only push people further into insecurity.

What is often missing from the debate

Too rarely is the close link between monument conservation and social policy named. Authorities often see only two options: protect or evict. But both sides suffer. Ownership and responsibility questions are also unresolved: does the fort belong to the municipality, a private owner, or is it in some kind of administrative limbo? Such details delay decisions and create space for improvisation. Volunteers, local cultural associations and neighbors want to help, but they often lack legal clarity and financial resources.

Pragmatic steps that make sense now

Immediate: Secure dangerous areas temporarily (covers, barriers), provide mobile toilets and drinking water, and offer basic medical care and regular social counseling on site. Such measures increase safety without immediate eviction.

Mid-term: A binding responsibility check: who owns the fort, who pays for emergency securing? A brief expert assessment by heritage conservation specialists coupled with a social plan that examines temporary housing options — for example vacant municipal buildings or targeted room placements in the area.

Long-term: Adaptive reuse: the fort could function as a hybrid project — a supervised shelter with low-threshold support and at the same time a place of local history, run by the municipality, NGOs and cultural associations. EU or regional funding and crowdfunding initiatives could support the renovation. A clear care and financing plan is important to prevent speculation and renewed vacancy.

Neighborhood, politics and responsibility

Some residents show understanding: “The main thing is that no one gets hurt,” says a woman who walks here daily with her dog. Others worry about safety and the municipality's image, especially in a tourism-driven environment. Politics and administration must do two things at once: organize humanitarian aid in the short term and communicate transparently — and at the same time develop a binding renovation and usage concept. A blanket eviction without perspective would merely shift the problem.

The Fort of Illetes creaks, smells of sea, moisture and cat food, and tells of failures. The challenge is not to choose between stone and people, but to find ways that protect both. If the municipality does not act now, the fort will continue to deteriorate and the people living there will remain in precarious conditions.

Conclusion: Immediate safety measures, coordinated social assistance and a binding renovation concept are needed. Only then can the fort become an example of how Mallorca brings together heritage responsibility and human care — and not another chapter of missed opportunities.