Social Housing Meaning Legal

After World War II, the popu­la­ti­on grew at a pre­vious­ly unknown rate, rural exo­dus incre­a­sed, while war dama­ge redu­ced the num­ber of houses in many cities. Rents rose dra­ma­ti­cal­ly and the government pas­sed a law in 1948 to block them, ending the eco­no­mic bene­fits of inves­ting in housing. Rents were gra­du­al­ly dere­gu­la­ted until the deba­te of the 1980s led to the cur­rent Rent Act of 1989, which theo­re­ti­cal­ly balan­ced the rela­ti­ons­hip bet­ween landlords and ten­ants. During the win­ter of 1953/4, howe­ver, the­re was a major homel­ess­ness cri­sis, and the necessa­ry laws were gra­du­al­ly mobi­li­zed, lea­ding to a high level of con­struc­tion almost con­ti­nuous­ly from the 1960s onwards. Social landlords have been an important source of exper­ti­se, as well as con­struc­tion sta­ke­hol­ders with links with natio­nal and local aut­ho­ri­ties. [49] The con­struc­tion indus­try was insuf­fi­ci­ent at the time, so poli­ti­cal sup­port was nee­ded Min­ha Casa Min­ha Vida (“My House, My Life”), the Bra­zi­li­an federal government‘s social housing pro­gram, was laun­ched in March 2009 with a bud­get of 36 bil­li­on reais ($18 bil­li­on) to build one mil­li­on houses. [9] The second pha­se of the pro­gram­me, which is part of the Natio­nal Growth Acce­le­ra­ti­on Pro­gram­me (PAC, Pro­gra­ma de Ace­le­ra­ção do Cresci­men­to), was announ­ced in March 2010. [10] This pha­se pro­vi­ded for the con­struc­tion of two mil­li­on addi­tio­nal housing units. Sin­ce the ear­ly 1990s, governments have also encou­ra­ged “mixed ten­u­re” in rede­ve­lo­p­ment are­as and “new con­struc­tion,” offe­ring a ran­ge of owners­hip and ren­tal opti­ons to crea­te social har­mo­ny through the inclu­si­on of “social housing” and “afford­a­ble housing.” A recent rese­arch report[78] argued that the evi­dence base on mixing pro­per­ties remains thin. Resi­dents of social housing may be stig­ma­ti­zed and for­ced to use a sepa­ra­te, less com­for­ta­ble wrong door than the door used by non-sub­si­di­zed resi­dents, and social housing may be less desi­ra­ble. [79] In 1937, the first Labour government intro­du­ced a lar­ge sys­tem of public housing – it beca­me known as “public housing” – for citi­zens who could not afford pri­va­te rents. Most government apart­ments built bet­ween 1937 and the mid-1950s con­sis­ted of two- to three-bedroom coun­try-style detached houses; only 1.5% of sta­te houses in 1949 were part of apart­ment buil­dings, all in Auck­land or Grea­ter Wel­ling­ton. After the end of World War II in 1945, most local aut­ho­ri­ties also began to pro­vi­de social housing, main­ly for low-inco­me elder­ly people.

The goals of public housing – deco­m­mo­di­fi­ca­ti­on, social equa­li­ty, and demo­cra­tic con­trol of resi­dents – are not at the heart of afford­a­ble housing poli­ci­es in the United Sta­tes. Many exis­ting pro­grams address the need for afford­a­ble housing and often inclu­de ele­ments of social housing, but fall far short of the ide­al of tru­ly social housing. The forms of housing pro­jects may vary in Slo­va­kia. In the for­mer Czecho­slo­va­kia (now the Czech Repu­blic and Slo­va­kia), during the com­mu­nist era in Czecho­slo­va­kia, the con­struc­tion of lar­ge housing esta­tes (Slo­vak: síd­lis­ko, Czech: síd­liš­tě) was an important part of buil­ding plans in the for­mer Czecho­slo­va­kia. The government wan­ted to pro­vi­de lar­ge quan­ti­ties of housing quick­ly and afford­a­b­ly and redu­ce cos­ts by adop­ting uni­form designs across the coun­try. They also tried to pro­mo­te a “collec­ti­vist natu­re” among peop­le. Peop­le who live in the­se housing com­ple­xes can usual­ly own or rent their apart­ments, usual­ly through a pri­va­te owner. In the­se housing pro­jects, the­re is usual­ly a mix of social clas­ses. [65] Based on our inter­views with housing advo­ca­tes and a review of exis­ting typo­lo­gies, we defi­ne social housing models as tho­se that seek sus­tainab­le afforda­bi­li­ty, social equa­li­ty, and demo­cra­tic con­trol over residents.

The­se objec­ti­ves are reflec­ted, to vary­ing degrees, in exis­ting afford­a­ble housing pro­grams in the United Sta­tes, inclu­ding public housing, rents mana­ged by non-pro­fit orga­niz­a­ti­ons, and pri­va­te co-ope­ra­ti­ves with limi­ted equi­ty on land mana­ged by com­mu­ni­ty land trusts. But not all of the­se exis­ting pro­gram­mes respond equal­ly to the three main objec­ti­ves of social housing. The degree of “social” of each model depends less on owners­hip struc­tures than on how it pro­tects housing from mar­ket pres­su­res, pro­mo­tes racial and eco­no­mic inte­gra­ti­on, and enab­les robust housing manage­ment. From 1997 to 2010, the Labour government wan­ted to remo­ve social housing from local government admi­nis­tra­ti­on. Initi­al­ly, this was done through lar­ge-sca­le vol­un­ta­ry trans­fers (LSVT) from coun­cils to housing asso­cia­ti­ons (HAs). Not all muni­ci­pal pro­per­ties could be trans­fer­red, as in some muni­ci­pa­li­ties their housing stock was in poor con­di­ti­on and had a lower capi­tal value than the remai­ning debt from con­struc­tion cos­ts – in fact, the muni­ci­pal stock was in nega­ti­ve equi­ty. [75] In some muni­ci­pa­li­ties, ten­ants rejec­ted the trans­fer opti­on. [76] More than two out of three Vien­nese live in social housing. The sky­line of many Roma­ni­an cities was domi­na­ted by stan­dar­di­zed apart­ment buil­dings under the for­mer com­mu­nist government‘s poli­cy of buil­ding high-rise blocks. From 1974 onwards, sys­te­ma­tiz­a­ti­on con­sis­ted lar­ge­ly of the demo­li­ti­on and recon­struc­tion of exis­ting vil­la­ges, towns and cities, in who­le or in part, with the decla­red aim of trans­forming Roma­nia into a “mul­ti­la­te­ral­ly deve­lo­ped socia­list socie­ty”. In 2012, 2.7 mil­li­on apart­ments date back to the com­mu­nist era, which repres­ents 37% of total housing in Roma­nia and about 70% in cities and municipalities.

After post-com­mu­nist pri­va­tiz­a­ti­on, the rate of home owners­hip in this form of housing reached 99.9%. [62] New homeow­ners‘ asso­cia­ti­ons (COAs) have been chal­len­ged intern­al­ly by the cumu­la­ti­ve effect of late dues, lack of afforda­bi­li­ty, and the estab­lis­hed prac­ti­ce of occa­sio­nal resi­dence ser­vices in COAs, which has often trig­ge­red mis­ma­nage­ment. On the other hand, HOAs have faced inef­fec­ti­ve mecha­nisms from the out­side to address their inter­nal pro­blems, such as the lack of prompt legal pro­cee­dings against defaults, lack of finan­cial sup­port for social­ly dis­ad­van­ta­ged house­holds, and a pri­va­te sec­tor unpre­pa­red to take over the manage­ment of con­do­mi­ni­ums. [63] The reluc­tance of Spa­niards to rent housing and cuts in public spen­ding in the 1980s mini­mi­zed ren­tal housing in Spain. Ren­ted hos­tels were rela­tively com­mon during the Fran­co era (1939–75). With the advent of demo­cra­cy and the 1978 Con­sti­tu­ti­on, the manage­ment of social housing depen­ded main­ly on the auto­no­mous regions.