It's almost impossible not to feel some sympathy for someone who, on a remote plot of land, in a fit of idyllic ambition driven by the ideal shared by any ordinary middle-class citizen, undertakes the painstaking metamorphosis of an innocent water tank into a family swimming pool.

I sense in the public outrage an implicit acknowledgment that the underlying criticism isn't really aimed at the person targeted, but at the sheer absurdity, the farce, and the humiliation a citizen may have to endure before a bureaucracy according to which the function of watering or bathing depends on how many centimetres the walls of a water tank — pleasantly set beside a quiet country house — rise above the ground.

It saddens me that the consensus is, without further thought, that the grave harm done to society must simply be reversed, the height restored, the enjoyment denied, and the rural, agricultural and ecological world safeguarded. I'm reminded of Ana Gomes, who had to demolish her improvised pool in Sintra, or of Macário Correia, who lost his mandate at Faro City Council for authorising a couple of pools in an ecological reserve, apparently unable to resist what plain common sense dictated.

Naturally, it doesn't occur to me to advocate self-determination and exemption from legal requirements as a rule of conduct. Naturally, I subscribe to the restoration of legality as the norm. What I don't understand is why this case hasn't sparked even a minute of debate about the Kafkaesque nature of so many rules, conceived in a distant era, now frozen in place and, above all, inconsequential — because, taken to the zealous extreme that characterises the diligent civil servant, they protect no one and contribute nothing to the common good. They only get in the way. All the more so in a country where another person's tank is a sin.

That's a caricature that unfortunately runs across every area of investment, and it explains much of our backwardness.

Perhaps it's this same baggage that explains the lack of optimism with which property developers, surveyed in the Investment Property Survey, view the effects of measures that are as long called-for as they are necessary for the delivery of affordable housing — namely the reduction of VAT to 6% and the simplification of urban planning licensing procedures.

If they're being offered swimming pools, why shouldn't they be expected to launch new projects at more moderate prices, thereby bringing down average prices, giving the market more supply in the mid-range and less concentration at the top end?

If there's consensus that uncertainty in licensing has been one of the biggest obstacles to activity, how can one not feel optimistic about the passing of legislation that clearly aims to remove barriers and give operators more autonomy from the Administration?

For a start, the uncertainty stems from the long delay in delivering on announcements that, in both cases, were already mentioned — if we recall — in the first version of Construir Portugal, back in May 2024. More than two years of waiting, which will still drag on through a complex process of legislative drafting and approval — perhaps unavoidable, but out of step with the market's pace and, above all, with the urgency of the measures. The market remains stuck in the tank.

Then, no less important, there's the dynamics of things, in an increasingly complex setting made of unpredictability, in which what matters isn't so much how high the walls rise above the ground, but how much water the tank actually holds. And what the risk is of jumping in.

Returning to the survey, unsurprisingly and in line with every previous analysis, two factors stand out whose pressure keeps rising: construction costs and land prices.

Once again, the market is held hostage to a legalistic view of reality that ignores the evidence — in this case, seeing swimming pools where there are only tanks.

And reality, as it inevitably must, asserts itself, with property development activity slowing — not in the design of new projects, since the appetite to invest hasn't diminished, but in their actual delivery on site, keeping supply bottlenecked at the top end.

Supposedly, this protects certain values — social ones, say — through construction or land-use requirements, freezing a "land law" that preserves the status quo. In practice, without changes in these areas, the rise in costs will outweigh the benefit of the measures, and prices simply won't come down.

So, how's the market doing? Very well, tanque you.