In connection with the US Presidential Nobel Prize visit to Norway the focus of the world press is on this country. Perhaps the below standing press release will also be of interest to them:
Report on Norwegian Housing Scandal
3,500 Oslo tenants in danger of being evicted due to Government’s heedless deregulation of housing laws.
In the rest of the world the trend is moving in the opposite direction from the deregulation Norway presently is implementing. In the United States, President Obama has called for a comprehensive housing program, “The Right to Rent” insuring stable rents and long term security for tenants
Due to pressure and exstensive lobbying from i.a. the Property Owners’ Union (Huseierforbundet), the Norwegian Parliament in March 1999 passed a bill abolishing the Housing Law’s Chapter II regulating rents on apartments built prior to 1938. These apartments are mainly situated in the capital, Oslo. The Norwegian Statistics Bureau stipulates their number at on average 3,500 units.
The intent in deregulating was, at the behest of the Property Owner’s Union, to “harmonize” rents pertaining to these apartments to be on a “par” price-wise with the rest of the rental market. The property owners claim was that the rents were too low to mantain the buildings nor bring any profits. This was at best a “doctored statement” but sufficed to hoodwink most political parties of the day. They happily obliged by passing the deregulation bill through Parliament.
This was implemented in the understanding that, to sugar the pill, “on par” would be construed as meaning “a slightly lower level” than pure market value rent.
To make the transition to ”par” rent as ”painless” as possible for the exposed group of tenants, a ten-year special protection period was implemented, in which the landlords would be allowed to increase rents by between 10 and 15% annually, with the intention that when the ten-year period came to an end (as it will on Jan 1st. 2010), according to Parliament’s ”plan”, the considerable annual, compounded rent increases would have led to the rents for these apartments already being on a par with the desired market rent.
However, no regulatory body is in place to assure an upper level on rents after this date. No one has paid heed to the further implications of lifting all regulations. As a result of this rents on these particular, heretofore “protected” apartments has skyrocketed out of all proportion. From Jan 1st, some tenants are facing a staggering 300% rise in their already inflated rents, notably, also under threat of eviction if they do not pay up.
A few days ago Oslo Town Council (Bystyret) unanimously voted to petition the Government and “Storting” (Parliament) to postpone the deregulation – until proper measures were taken to render assistance to the 3,500 victims of this travesty of justice. The government refuses to postpone, even knowing all too well, that there is no ready relief. According to one politician, the government fears repercussions from the mighty Property Owners’ Union.
3,500 tenants are looking at a highly uncertain future, at the mercy of their landlords, with no one to protect their interests. Many face eviction in the middle of winter. The Norwegian government turns a blind eye. Deregulation of the housing market is more important.
What no one seems to have taken into considersation, in their haste to deregulate the rental housing market, is that the economic situation in the world does not follow diagrams drawn up by, nor passed as bills by the Norwegian Parliament. Furthermore the more embarrassing fact that they in doing so, have trampled all over the Human Rights Charter, to which Norway is a signatory.
Fluctuations in the world markets and the enormous, worldwide financial crises of 2008 naturally caused havoc to both intentions and calculations. Many people both in Norway and in the larger World suddenly suffered considerable problems of liquidity – the property bubble in the United States forced many to sell real estate, including many home-owners who became tenants overnight; at the same time as the house construction market slumped, among other in Oslo, and could not keep pace with the growing demand for i.a. rental dwellings, which thereby shot up in price.
This was not a situation unheeded by property owners, landlords and entrepreneurnial speculators.
Due to the haste in deregulating the last remaining mass of sensibly governed, rent regulated dwellings in Norway, no provision has been made to stipulate an upper limit to how much the rents in the aformentioned prewar apartments can be raised. It is now a no holds barred opportunity for landlords. And they know to use it.
Suddenly those who have speculated in buying up regulated prewar apartments have hit jackpot. They purchased (the apartments) cheap, precisely with a view to possible future deregulation, and now they can enforce a carte blanche handed them on a silver platter, a govermentally-backed go-ahead raise rents to whatever level you choose – either to make a financial killing – excuse the pun – or better still to use the sky as limit in rent raising as a weapon to expel undesirable tenants; who no longer serve the purpose of satiating their rapacious greed for profits. Redesigning interiors can make these apartments into crammed bedsits for students, each paying almost as much for a room, as the former tenant has for the whole apartment. Or, they can be tailored into luxury apartments for the very rich. This will in their opinion, be totally acceptable and consistent with what is termed “market reform”.
Simultaneously these same individuals have carried out a callous and unconscionable smear campaign against the tenants of said apartments. This has partly been done through lobbying and unwittingly through ”useful idiots” – often overbearing and pompous journalists lacking insight, who find cheap amusement in making fun of innocent people in their gossipy columns. Cheap entertainment for the masses. They have the gall to use the slogan “It is not a human right to live in a large apartment”.
Alas and alack, it seems that a great many of the newspaper reading public have been duped, including politicians, and so they have come to believe the lies about tenants of (formerly) rent regulated apartments being in some way or other conniving opportunists who have hitched their wagon (apartment) to a gravy train, utterly overlooking the unavoidable fact that these apartments were governed by valid contracts which Parliament could not null and void in this manner!
In other parts of the media the debate on the issue has so far been flaccid and unengaged, except for in some niche segments, sadly reflecting the fact that the Norwegian public is rather complacent. (80% of the country consists of home-owners).
When everyone agrees on an issue, something is probably wrong.
If one pays closer heed to the resources available to the opposing sides in this conflict, one immediately becomes aware of massive, howling imparity to the advantage of the Property Owning side, who represent the Landlords. They have millions of kroner available for their PR machinery, many lawyers, highly placed contacts, also in Parliament and Government.
Against these forces are arrayed a loose federation of tenants and sympathisers who gather behind their natural leading banner The Tenants’ Association (Leieboerforeningen, LBF) and the Action Executive (Aksjonsgruppa) that has been formed as a direct result of the ongoing struggle. Winning over the Town Council was a small victory, but if Government and Parliament refuse to postpone, it will not do much good.
Basically then, one must hope for rent subsidies which are supposed to be furnished by state and municipal cooperation, but will certainly have the effect of turning the victims into social clients whose self-image as free and independent citizens will thus be crushed for ever, as they will be forced to submit to the scrutiny of the welfare boards to determine if they are elegible for support.
Is this a development that we tacitly wish to accept?
Was the preamble to the deregulation bill comprehensively studied and carried out by parliamentary committees?
Was every stone turned so the case could be viewed from all possible angles before the deregulation was passed by Parliament? Were the tenant’s pleas heard and appreciated? Did the MPs realise what they were voting yea to, when they balloted to deregulate the last vestiges of protected rent regulated housing in Norway?
Sadly, the answer to all three questions is NO.
In the rest of the world the trend is moving in the opposite direction from the one that Norway is taking. In the United States, President Obama has called for a comprehensive housing program, insuring stable rents and long term security for tenants.
In other European countries, renting instead of owning one’s domicile is a much more accepted form of housing than it apparently is in Norway. The authorities in those countries do not look down their noses at tenants, and enforce certain rules and regulations governing the marketplace. They oversee their rental market because they take seriously the fact that it is a human right to have a safe home, and that it is to the benefit of the whole nation.
Furthermore they are aware of the social injustice in segregating the housing markets, and thus also society, solely on the basis of financial ability. They also seem to take seriously, that contracts – such as those governing duties and obligations between tenants and landlords cannot be arbitrarily and unilaterally broken, even expropriated and definitely not confiscated – such as was done to the 3,500 Oslo tenants whose rights were unceremoniously swept under the carpet.
This pertains to a society that we do not want, and that most people in this country in sincerity wish to diassociate themselves from, but which they now, nevertheless tacitly condone.
It is sad that the Norwegian government instead of deregulating the last of the country’s protected units of rent-housing has not in time seen the light and gone the other and positive course – along with the rest of the civilized world, and instead sought to enlarge and develop the field of social housing for all. It is after all, believe it or not – a socialist government!! And it is not too late to turn around and embrace these better policies, for the good of all.
Thus the IUT, The International Union of Tenants has sent a petition to the Norwegian Government requesting it to reconsider, as what is about to happen is in direct contravention of the Human Rights Charter. Perhaps better than anyone else, the IUT have posed the pertinent, necessary questions to form a picture of what is actually happening when one imposes unconscionable pressure on people such as the 3,500 Oslo tenants, with all it entails of mental anguish and physical discomfort, which surely must lead to psychological and physiological health problems.
We ask you to disseminate this story internationally, so as to highlight the injustice and hopefully remedy it before it is carried any further. Perhaps it is still not too late.
Atle Bakken.
Report on Norwegian Housing Scandal
3,500 Oslo tenants in danger of being evicted due to Government’s heedless deregulation of housing laws.
In the rest of the world the trend is moving in the opposite direction from the deregulation Norway presently is implementing. In the United States, President Obama has called for a comprehensive housing program, “The Right to Rent” insuring stable rents and long term security for tenants
Due to pressure and exstensive lobbying from i.a. the Property Owners’ Union (Huseierforbundet), the Norwegian Parliament in March 1999 passed a bill abolishing the Housing Law’s Chapter II regulating rents on apartments built prior to 1938. These apartments are mainly situated in the capital, Oslo. The Norwegian Statistics Bureau stipulates their number at on average 3,500 units.
The intent in deregulating was, at the behest of the Property Owner’s Union, to “harmonize” rents pertaining to these apartments to be on a “par” price-wise with the rest of the rental market. The property owners claim was that the rents were too low to mantain the buildings nor bring any profits. This was at best a “doctored statement” but sufficed to hoodwink most political parties of the day. They happily obliged by passing the deregulation bill through Parliament.
This was implemented in the understanding that, to sugar the pill, “on par” would be construed as meaning “a slightly lower level” than pure market value rent.
To make the transition to ”par” rent as ”painless” as possible for the exposed group of tenants, a ten-year special protection period was implemented, in which the landlords would be allowed to increase rents by between 10 and 15% annually, with the intention that when the ten-year period came to an end (as it will on Jan 1st. 2010), according to Parliament’s ”plan”, the considerable annual, compounded rent increases would have led to the rents for these apartments already being on a par with the desired market rent.
However, no regulatory body is in place to assure an upper level on rents after this date. No one has paid heed to the further implications of lifting all regulations. As a result of this rents on these particular, heretofore “protected” apartments has skyrocketed out of all proportion. From Jan 1st, some tenants are facing a staggering 300% rise in their already inflated rents, notably, also under threat of eviction if they do not pay up.
A few days ago Oslo Town Council (Bystyret) unanimously voted to petition the Government and “Storting” (Parliament) to postpone the deregulation – until proper measures were taken to render assistance to the 3,500 victims of this travesty of justice. The government refuses to postpone, even knowing all too well, that there is no ready relief. According to one politician, the government fears repercussions from the mighty Property Owners’ Union.
3,500 tenants are looking at a highly uncertain future, at the mercy of their landlords, with no one to protect their interests. Many face eviction in the middle of winter. The Norwegian government turns a blind eye. Deregulation of the housing market is more important.
What no one seems to have taken into considersation, in their haste to deregulate the rental housing market, is that the economic situation in the world does not follow diagrams drawn up by, nor passed as bills by the Norwegian Parliament. Furthermore the more embarrassing fact that they in doing so, have trampled all over the Human Rights Charter, to which Norway is a signatory.
Fluctuations in the world markets and the enormous, worldwide financial crises of 2008 naturally caused havoc to both intentions and calculations. Many people both in Norway and in the larger World suddenly suffered considerable problems of liquidity – the property bubble in the United States forced many to sell real estate, including many home-owners who became tenants overnight; at the same time as the house construction market slumped, among other in Oslo, and could not keep pace with the growing demand for i.a. rental dwellings, which thereby shot up in price.
This was not a situation unheeded by property owners, landlords and entrepreneurnial speculators.
Due to the haste in deregulating the last remaining mass of sensibly governed, rent regulated dwellings in Norway, no provision has been made to stipulate an upper limit to how much the rents in the aformentioned prewar apartments can be raised. It is now a no holds barred opportunity for landlords. And they know to use it.
Suddenly those who have speculated in buying up regulated prewar apartments have hit jackpot. They purchased (the apartments) cheap, precisely with a view to possible future deregulation, and now they can enforce a carte blanche handed them on a silver platter, a govermentally-backed go-ahead raise rents to whatever level you choose – either to make a financial killing – excuse the pun – or better still to use the sky as limit in rent raising as a weapon to expel undesirable tenants; who no longer serve the purpose of satiating their rapacious greed for profits. Redesigning interiors can make these apartments into crammed bedsits for students, each paying almost as much for a room, as the former tenant has for the whole apartment. Or, they can be tailored into luxury apartments for the very rich. This will in their opinion, be totally acceptable and consistent with what is termed “market reform”.
Simultaneously these same individuals have carried out a callous and unconscionable smear campaign against the tenants of said apartments. This has partly been done through lobbying and unwittingly through ”useful idiots” – often overbearing and pompous journalists lacking insight, who find cheap amusement in making fun of innocent people in their gossipy columns. Cheap entertainment for the masses. They have the gall to use the slogan “It is not a human right to live in a large apartment”.
Alas and alack, it seems that a great many of the newspaper reading public have been duped, including politicians, and so they have come to believe the lies about tenants of (formerly) rent regulated apartments being in some way or other conniving opportunists who have hitched their wagon (apartment) to a gravy train, utterly overlooking the unavoidable fact that these apartments were governed by valid contracts which Parliament could not null and void in this manner!
In other parts of the media the debate on the issue has so far been flaccid and unengaged, except for in some niche segments, sadly reflecting the fact that the Norwegian public is rather complacent. (80% of the country consists of home-owners).
When everyone agrees on an issue, something is probably wrong.
If one pays closer heed to the resources available to the opposing sides in this conflict, one immediately becomes aware of massive, howling imparity to the advantage of the Property Owning side, who represent the Landlords. They have millions of kroner available for their PR machinery, many lawyers, highly placed contacts, also in Parliament and Government.
Against these forces are arrayed a loose federation of tenants and sympathisers who gather behind their natural leading banner The Tenants’ Association (Leieboerforeningen, LBF) and the Action Executive (Aksjonsgruppa) that has been formed as a direct result of the ongoing struggle. Winning over the Town Council was a small victory, but if Government and Parliament refuse to postpone, it will not do much good.
Basically then, one must hope for rent subsidies which are supposed to be furnished by state and municipal cooperation, but will certainly have the effect of turning the victims into social clients whose self-image as free and independent citizens will thus be crushed for ever, as they will be forced to submit to the scrutiny of the welfare boards to determine if they are elegible for support.
Is this a development that we tacitly wish to accept?
Was the preamble to the deregulation bill comprehensively studied and carried out by parliamentary committees?
Was every stone turned so the case could be viewed from all possible angles before the deregulation was passed by Parliament? Were the tenant’s pleas heard and appreciated? Did the MPs realise what they were voting yea to, when they balloted to deregulate the last vestiges of protected rent regulated housing in Norway?
Sadly, the answer to all three questions is NO.
In the rest of the world the trend is moving in the opposite direction from the one that Norway is taking. In the United States, President Obama has called for a comprehensive housing program, insuring stable rents and long term security for tenants.
In other European countries, renting instead of owning one’s domicile is a much more accepted form of housing than it apparently is in Norway. The authorities in those countries do not look down their noses at tenants, and enforce certain rules and regulations governing the marketplace. They oversee their rental market because they take seriously the fact that it is a human right to have a safe home, and that it is to the benefit of the whole nation.
Furthermore they are aware of the social injustice in segregating the housing markets, and thus also society, solely on the basis of financial ability. They also seem to take seriously, that contracts – such as those governing duties and obligations between tenants and landlords cannot be arbitrarily and unilaterally broken, even expropriated and definitely not confiscated – such as was done to the 3,500 Oslo tenants whose rights were unceremoniously swept under the carpet.
This pertains to a society that we do not want, and that most people in this country in sincerity wish to diassociate themselves from, but which they now, nevertheless tacitly condone.
It is sad that the Norwegian government instead of deregulating the last of the country’s protected units of rent-housing has not in time seen the light and gone the other and positive course – along with the rest of the civilized world, and instead sought to enlarge and develop the field of social housing for all. It is after all, believe it or not – a socialist government!! And it is not too late to turn around and embrace these better policies, for the good of all.
Thus the IUT, The International Union of Tenants has sent a petition to the Norwegian Government requesting it to reconsider, as what is about to happen is in direct contravention of the Human Rights Charter. Perhaps better than anyone else, the IUT have posed the pertinent, necessary questions to form a picture of what is actually happening when one imposes unconscionable pressure on people such as the 3,500 Oslo tenants, with all it entails of mental anguish and physical discomfort, which surely must lead to psychological and physiological health problems.
We ask you to disseminate this story internationally, so as to highlight the injustice and hopefully remedy it before it is carried any further. Perhaps it is still not too late.
Atle Bakken.
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar