1 / 14

E volution of housing policy and social tenure types

E volution of housing policy and social tenure types. Grzegorz Panek, University of Silesia, Poland. Privatization. Smooth progress in the first years of transformations.

tatyanae
Download Presentation

E volution of housing policy and social tenure types

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evolution of housing policy and social tenure types Grzegorz Panek, University of Silesia, Poland

  2. Privatization • Smooth progress in the first years of transformations. • State ownership handed over to municipalities, which in turn were selling single residential units rather than whole buildings • Percentage of private units in the cities surged from 32% in 1988 to 45% in 1994.

  3. Privatization • Although most of Polish households live in owner-occupied apartments, the portion of the stock controlled and managed by municipalities is still bigger than in other Central and Eastern European states. • The same holds true for cooperatives. • Public stock formerly owned by state enterprises had to be privatized.

  4. Right of personal use in Czech Republic and Slovakia • The right of personal use was a hybrid institution of a lease and ownership. It combined main advantages of both. The state loses its disposition authority of the flat after the handing over of such a flat and that right may be transferred to cohabitants or heirs.

  5. Privatization in Czech Republic • Sale of single units • Sale of whole buildings to legal entities (companies or associations) consisting of original tenants (municipalities willing to brush off all responsibility at once) • Sale of whole buildings to tenants as co-owners • A co-owner may not be the tenant of a unit in a house he co-owns (weakest protection of residents)

  6. Residential Tenancies and Housing Benefits Act 1994 • Compromise solutions called for a long time • Lifted the administrative allocation system, setrestrictions on maximal rent • increased tenants' participation in the stock’s maintenance, introduced benefits for the poor • Restored owner privileges, protecting tenant rights at the same time.

  7. Rent control • Regulated rents before 2001 • Landlord protests – insufficient proceeds • ECtHR case law – Hutten-Czapska v. Poland • After 2001 free rent with restrictions on increase. • In Slovakia a separate problem connected with property restitution

  8. Tenants Protection Act 2001 • Uniform protective regime for all tenures other than ownership. • Uniform rent increase control mechanisms (except TBS and incidental lease) • Principles of public stock management

  9. Slovakia and Czech Republic – similar protection • Mandatoty provisions • Termination by lessor allowed only for reasons stipulated in the Civil Code • Judicial review of termination • Right to replacement housing • Special rules of succession lease • Unilateral increase of rent problematic in Slovakia

  10. New Tenure - TBS • Social Building Associations (introduced in 1995) to relieve municipalities and add a market dimension to social housing investments. • Companies limited by shares or cooperatives established by juridical persons. • Statutory objects of the activity of the Associations: construction and renting of housing premises. • State credit for new constructions cut off.

  11. Municipalities • Under art. 4(2) TPA, municipalities are required to assure social and replacement units where necessary, and meet the housing needs of low income households on terms provided by law.

  12. Municipal stock subdivision • General stock • Social housing • Duration of leases – always indefinite in the former and definite in the latter

  13. Allocation • Allocation of a social unit follows not only from criteria set by municipal council, but most also judicial decisions. • Art. 14 TPA: in the eviction judgments the court may oblige municipalities to provide a social unit for the evicted debtors, taking into account the manner of their enjoyment of the previous premises, as well as their financial standing and family situation. In addition, the cited statute lists several categories of persons to whom the court must award the right to a social unit

  14. Future • Rather uncertain. • It is unclear what may become of Polish Social Building Associations. No true central poilcy concerning social housing - with ownership remaining the officially preferred option. • Problem practically left to municipalities.

More Related