In previous instalments I tried to answer two questions. How much does it cost, today, to live in San Marino? And who benefits from it? One question remains, the most important one: what is to be done?
Before answering, it’s worth recalling where we started. In 2014 the average registered rent in San Marino was about 292 euros a month.
By 2025 it had reached 642 euros. More than doubled in eleven years.
Over the last decade rents have risen by 36%, inflation by 21%, and contractual wages by a mere 16%. It doesn’t take an in-depth study to work out who has won this contest.
And who has lost it? Almost half of San Marino’s families – 6,947 households out of 15,008 – are made up of people living alone or single parents with children. Families facing the market with a single income.
For a retail worker who takes home around 1,400 euros net, the average rent eats up 45% of their salary. Utility bills not included (!).
The United Nations sets the sustainability threshold at 30%. Our market is calibrated for households with two incomes: for everyone else, housing in San Marino has become mathematically out of reach.
Then there is insecurity of tenure. Of the 477 residential rental contracts registered in 2025, 218 last no more than a year. Those lasting more than three years number just 13. What does this mean? That at every renewal the tenant has two options: accept the increase or pack their bags. All perfectly legal, of course.
Faced with this picture, the Government responded with the law on “Extraordinary measures for the housing emergency” (No. 64/2025). In two years, public spending on mortgage subsidies has almost doubled: over 1.2 million euros in 2025 alone.
The result? Prices kept rising.
It could hardly have gone otherwise: if you boost buyers’ spending power without touching supply, public money ends up – via the mortgage – in the pockets of sellers. It’s a welfare-style approach that treats the symptoms while feeding the disease.
This is why RETE’s bill starts from a change of perspective. Not a law on the housing “emergency”, as if it were some passing natural disaster, but a framework law on the right to housing.
Housing as a fundamental right, not as an investment asset. And a simple principle, written in black and white: a home is adequate only if it costs no more than 30% of the net income of the person living in it.
From this, the proposals follow.
First, halt the granting of atypical residency permits and related schemes, which by mid-year counted 392 beneficiaries who have certainly contributed to driving prices up.
Second, tackle vacant housing. The land registry counts 17,480 residential units against 15,008 families: almost 2,500 homes that appear uninhabited, some of which are registered to banks and trust companies.
We propose a progressive tax on properties left empty for more than twelve months, exempting small family estates, and a higher tax rate for those who take homes away from families to use them for short-term tourist rentals. The revenue would go into a Housing Guarantee Fund.
Third, a fair regulated rent linked to the local average wage. A reference index per square metre, calculated by the Real Estate Market Observatory, would set maximum rents.
It would apply immediately to large landlords – those owning more than three properties – while small landlords would receive strong tax incentives to opt in. This is, in essence, the path taken by Spain in 2023.
Fourth, put an end to the abuse of temporary contracts: they would need a genuine, documented reason, otherwise they would automatically become standard three-year leases.
Fifth, a 1.50% cap on the spread banks can apply above the Euribor rate on first-home mortgages.
Finally, a five-year plan for social housing with zero land consumption, recovering abandoned public property, and a right of first refusal for the State on properties sold at auction, to be allocated to those who cannot afford a home of their own.
I already know what the usual defenders of the free market will object: that rent caps distort prices, that landlords will pull homes off the market. But what market are we even talking about?
A market in which a handful of large landlords can afford to keep homes empty rather than lower rents is not a free market: it is an entrenched position of privilege.
So who stands to lose? Only those who have built their wealth on other people’s scarcity.
To small landlords, however, we say something different. Many today keep a flat empty out of fear they won’t be able to reclaim it if a tenant stops paying.
That is why, for those who rent at a fair, regulated rate, the State would guarantee payment in cases of prolonged non-payment, later recovering the sum from the debtor, and would grant a tax credit on insurance against damages. Renting at a fair price should be worth it.
These proposals can be improved, and we want to discuss them with those who live this crisis every day. That is why I invite citizens, trade unions and trade associations to the public evening event “Ad ogni costo casa” (“Housing at any cost”), to be held on Thursday 12 November at 9pm, in the Sala Joe Cassar (formerly International) in Borgo Maggiore. We will present the data and our proposals. Above all, we will listen to yours.
Housing cannot remain a privilege reserved for those who inherited it or those who can count on two incomes. If rents devour wages, it is up to politics to set things right. We are trying. Thursday evening, together.
Giovanni M. Zonzini
