New squatters in Na Burguesa: court ruling, owners and the question of solutions

New squatters in Na Burguesa: court ruling, owners and the question of solutions

Leading question: How can it be prevented that people move back into a vacant building immediately after a court-ordered eviction?

At the Mirador above Palma, where tourists usually gather for the view of the bay, stands the vacant building that used to be the Na Burguesa excursion venue. A motor scooter was parked in front of the main entrance, dust lay on the terrace, and a young person looked out through one of the windows – not very atmospheric for a place that once served coffee and paella. The scene repeats itself: a court previously ordered the squatters to vacate, yet apparently new people have now settled in the house owned by the Diocese.

This is more than a neighborhood dispute. It touches on property rights, the availability of housing, the speed of the judiciary and the role of public authorities. The facts so far are clear: the property belongs to the Diocese of Mallorca, the original squatters were the subject of an eviction order and at least one person was fined. At the same time new people are on site who emphasize that they are not the convicted ones and say they will wait to see how the formalities proceed.

What is puzzling: a provisional court decision does not automatically create a secure situation on site. Legally the Diocese is obliged to apply for the final eviction. Practically this means: as long as no renewed forced eviction takes place, the building remains vulnerable to further occupations. The result is a permanent game of entry, eviction, re-entry – with costs for owners and authorities and with uncertainty for the people who live there.

Critical analysis: the judiciary issues the judgement, but implementation depends on other actors. The Diocese cannot simply order a forced eviction overnight; it requires further steps, applications and often weeks or months of bureaucratic effort. In this gap vacuum situations arise that people exploit out of necessity or political motivation. At the same time there are no short-term humane alternatives for people or families who would otherwise end up on the street.

In public discourse the perspective of everyday reality is often missing: joggers sit on the Mirador steps in the morning, tradespeople carry ladders by, a delivery van rumbles down Calle de Génova. Residents see the situation regularly and feel torn between law and empathy. Little is said about how quickly a former venue decays if no one maintains it – broken glass, defective doors, rubbish in corners – and how such conditions invite reoccupation.

Concrete solutions that could help here:

1) Accelerated coordination: If an owner like the Diocese obtains an eviction order, there should be a directly accessible interface to municipal services and the police so it can be secured in a timely manner who may enter the building and who may not. Efficiency instead of months-long bureaucracy.

2) Short-term security measures: After an eviction the property must be provisionally secured (sealed access points, regular checks, basic maintenance). This prevents quick re-occupation by third parties.

3) Social interim use: Municipalities should negotiate transitional solutions with owners: if a vacant building attracts public safety and social problems, a time-limited use as emergency shelter under certain conditions can make sense – accompanied by social services and clear move-out deadlines.

4) Preventive owner obligations: Owners of vacant properties could be obliged to ensure a minimum standard of upkeep and access protection; otherwise fines could be imposed. That would reduce the attractiveness for occupation.

An everyday scene from Palma: on a cool morning pedestrians with shopping bags pass by, an elderly woman feeds two pigeons on a wall, and further up two neighbors argue about who should pay to repair the viewpoint sign. Into this small world the uncertainty about the vacant venue now mixes. This creates tensions not only between owners and occupiers but across the whole neighborhood.

What is missing in public debate: clear rules about who must act and how quickly, and humane alternatives for people seeking shelter in such buildings. There is a legal result, but no practical bridge between the judgement and a lasting situation on site.

Conclusion: Those who enforce the law must also ensure its implementation – and that does not mean higher fines alone. Leaner procedures, pragmatic security measures and a social component are needed so that vacant properties do not become perennial hotspots. For Na Burguesa this means concretely: the Diocese must clarify the formal steps for a final eviction, the municipality should consider short-term security measures, and in parallel offers for the affected people must be put on the table. Without this threefold effort the scene at the Mirador will repeat what we have seen in recent months: a court stamp on paper, but no peace at the vantage point.