Social housing in Belgarde – Strategy and Practice

1. Social housing in Belgarde – Strategy and Practice Mina Petrović Depatrment of Sociology, Faculty of Philosophy University of Belgrade minap@eunet.rs

2. Context (institutional, political, economic, cultural, action) • weak state (corruption) and undeveloped civil society (atomization not individualisation) and social capital (bonding not bridging or linking / lacking voice strategies) • predator market conditions (unregulated market), high unemployment (20%) • privatization of social life (family support) • broader problems of social integration – housing not in focus (except for REF, IDPs) • ideology of populism (confused political options - left, right)

3. Society without a social project - society beyond social integration • the "municipal turn" in social housing • programs that develop primarily in accordance to the entrepreneurial strategic approach to city development • prime aims • to prevent the brain drain (affordable non profit housing), • to prepare the valuable locations for capital investments (new social housing programs for relocating the poor) • to legitimize the dominant strategy with marginalized social housing programs (ad hoc political decisions, not comprehensively developed).

4. Obstacles • Lacking institutional tradition of municipal power • Lacking roots in development of modern welfare state - social housing diversified options (state owned, municipal, cooperative, and associative) • Implementation of social housing through a patchwork of realizations and experiences, influence of NGOs and donor programs • Question of adequate contextualisation and /or institutionalization)

5. National housing policy context • No national programme of social housing - left to the local authoritiessocial care programmes • No housing allowance, depending on local authorities decision to subsidize utility costs • Tax incentive for buying the first flat (total tax exemption / no limits concerning the flat characteristics) • National Corporation for securing the mortgages (of those in housing need) • State subventions for commercial credits • No housing savings program • No initiatives to regulate private rental sector (tax benefits , etc) • Still huge affordability problem Existing options are intended for middle classes and in accordance to high value attached to the privately owned housing .

6. Desirable options for solving housing problems in Serbia (perspective of vulnerable groups) 1. buying socially owned flat under favourable condition 2. help in construction materials 3. subsidized renting 4. buying the flat under favourable (subsidized) loan

7. Belgrade – strategy and practice • no local housing strategy • no quotas of social housing in new housing construction or reconstruction, • not defined budget % devoted to social housing / no separate budget line for social housing, decisions according to possibilities • formation of an agency for managing social housing stock lags behind the implemented programs • Still existing hidden subsidies – negligable number of protected tenants (from socialist period that not belong to social housing in strict sense) but more through the lack of enforcement in the case of arrears with utility payments, rents and maintenance costs in general

8. Belgrade social policy – on rights in social protection Housing related rights: • 1. protected housing (for preventing institutionalization of young people with special needs, with 24 hours professional monitoring, at the moment 8 children in two newly buit flats); • 2. half-way housing (for children without parents after leaving the institutions or foster families, no longer than 2 years, at the moment 5 flats – newly built); • 3. the right to legalize illegally built housing under favourable conditions (subsidized costs, loans, etc); • 4. subventions of utility costs (10-50% depending on material conditions of the households)

9. Belgrade social protection strategy • Housing related activities 1. Increasing the living standard of marginalised groups through housing construction – social housing and housing for resettlement Standards • 36-50m2, • 5 years contracts • equipped with base furniture, completely equipped with infrastructure, • subsudized rents and utility costs (for 50m2 – 15 euro) • evictions presumed for arrears longer than 1 year • target group – the most deprived, households with no employed member and on social help. • social housing should be scattered throughout the city (good connection to transport and services as to avoid social exclusion). 2. Shelter for homeless people (capacity of 500 people) 3. Cooperation with NGOs – financial support for their projects related to social services (option in Law of local governance)

10. Social housing in practice • First newly constructed flats in Kamendin - 174 flats inhabited plus 80 flats in construction. Main characteristics • Initially built within the program of non profit affordable housing. • higher equipment and flat size • peripheral location – mayor’s ad hoc decision to convert the flats to social housing • lacking program on social integration • emerging problems: • safety (it became risky to be in the neighbourhood after 6 pm, there is ex post factum initiative to develop cooperation with local police), • damaging of infrastructure (plan to introduce housekeepers as to prevent or stop ongoing dilapidation), • arrears (still tolerated, with intention for evictions) • ghettoization and stigmatization on the way

11. 2. Roma resettling • From exclusive city locations or ones with great potential • Protests of citizens in locations of resettlement (jeopardize the value of their flats), undeveloped programs • New tactic of local government / keeping in secret the location as long as possible) but choosing more peripheral location • lower social strata neighbourhood • separated from the neighbourhoods in vicinity • has to be equipped with social infrastructure • Complex project of social integration (not just housing) • integration of one family member into working market, • integration of children in preschool institutions, • developing a containers for collecting materials (informal economy that Roma relies mostly), • cooperation with the police, etc. Nevertheless, program insure right to housing but not to social mix) – reproduce fragmentation • Previous experience in Obrenovac - total disaster, the program was not an integrative one in a broader sense, Roma stole everything they could from the apartments, ruined them and left.

12. Affordable non profit housing • Law on Social housing / broader definition – affordable non profit housing for those younger than 45 employed in culture, science, education and state administration / primarily professionals to prevent brain drain from the country and public institutions. 1000 flats in several fiscal years (2005-2009). • City builds the flats giving the subsidised land and utility infrastructure, plus long-term loan program (subsidised interest) • combination of supply and demand subsidies / affordable housing project

13. In conclusion • Primacy of the political will to combine enterpreneurial projects with social responsibility • Patchworking as political option with uncertain cummulative effects – bottom up approach without adequate social and political capital • Residual social housing (not only due to physical capacity and budget constrains but cultural reasons as well)