All change for social housing?
A possibly relevant tale from Sweden concerning social housing in those parts and whether subsidising it breaches EU Law: S&P reckons "public funding of housing companies owned by local authorities" could be under threat.
"If the European Commission comes to the same conclusion as Standard & Poors then Swedes will see their rents gradually coming into line with market prices. At the same time, the local authority-owned housing companies will lose their stranglehold of the rental market. In May 2005 the European Property Owners' union (EPF) reported the Swedish system of subsidies to the European Commission. The union is arguing that the subsidies, combined with the local authorities' role as regulators, limits the ability of private property owners to negotiate their own rental rates". (Source)
The ownership model in these parts is not on the same basis, but the issues for private property owners are clearly similar - a private landlord will always be undercut by a local authority, as the latter do not set anything like a market rent. And there's a nice bit of special pleading masquerading as public interest: " The Swedish Union of Tenants expressed concern about the consequences of the report. "The risk is that we get a public housing system which is no longer in the public interest," said the union's press officer Peder Palmstierna to SvD". It is in the interest of sitting council tenants to pay as little as possible, but it is at least debatable whether it is in the interests of those who do not have that advantage.
"If the European Commission comes to the same conclusion as Standard & Poors then Swedes will see their rents gradually coming into line with market prices. At the same time, the local authority-owned housing companies will lose their stranglehold of the rental market. In May 2005 the European Property Owners' union (EPF) reported the Swedish system of subsidies to the European Commission. The union is arguing that the subsidies, combined with the local authorities' role as regulators, limits the ability of private property owners to negotiate their own rental rates". (Source)
The ownership model in these parts is not on the same basis, but the issues for private property owners are clearly similar - a private landlord will always be undercut by a local authority, as the latter do not set anything like a market rent. And there's a nice bit of special pleading masquerading as public interest: " The Swedish Union of Tenants expressed concern about the consequences of the report. "The risk is that we get a public housing system which is no longer in the public interest," said the union's press officer Peder Palmstierna to SvD". It is in the interest of sitting council tenants to pay as little as possible, but it is at least debatable whether it is in the interests of those who do not have that advantage.
This entry was posted
on Monday, December 04, 2006 at 10:42 am.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Delighted to see you blog on the subject of housing C . The temptation to acquire needy lifestyle whereby points ( for prizes) are accumulated is a national disaster. I have droned on at great length on this before but I would mention this. The only possible justification for the extension of "social " housing of various sorts is the socialist collective principle . This supposed forgotten and despised philosophy is extending not diminishing through ghastly housing policy. It is the single greatest scourge of the country and the determination of Nu Lab to continue its secret socialism is never clearer . WF Deede that magnificent institution constantly points out the Blairism in practice has been far far to the left of its rhetoric and the illusion that Brownite element twist the great Satan’s arm is exactly that , an illusion.
Welcome to the front line C , I was disappointed Voyager did not answer my question on economic policy . Are you out there V ?
» Post a Comment