We have a bunch of threads about the buildings meant for social housing in different countries.

Now, I was thinking of creating a thread to discuss the social housing programs, their financing, eligibility and effects on real estate market, more than the buildings itself. It is less "cool" than a photo thread, but important nonetheless.

Give us an idea of how social housing programs work your city/country.

==================================

I'll start with Netherlands. In the early 60s, the national government faced two conflicting goals: house a population that was booming in a country with a severe housing shortage, while keeping wages low enough to preserve the competitiveness of its industries and export-oriented economy.

It then created two separated programs that subsist today: sociale woning (social housing) and huurtoeslag (rent subsidy). They are inter-related.

Social housing are buildings, new or existent, set aside for specific rental programs in rent-controlled schemes. Some of those buildings are high-rises, "project"-style, others are new developments in disused areas, conversions and even buildings that were bought, renovated and converted to that purpose. 48% of the total residential stock in Netherlands, as of 2010, comprises estates classified as social housing.

Those properties are owned by either housing corporations (not-for-profit hybrid entities) or by private landlords who rent their buildings under the scheme. Rents are capped (at € 630 from July 2011), and housing is allocated based on regional/local waiting list schemes, in a relatively transparent way. Annual increases are controlled by the central government and, in any case, can push the price below the cap.

Associated with that program, there is the rent subsidy, which pays, according to a mathematical formula, part of your rent if you live in a social housing and your income is too low. That subsidy can cover up to 90% of the difference between your actual rent and the statutory minimum of € 243, depending on many objective factors like income, presence of live-in dependents, service costs and age.

^^ Interesting thread idea. If i might add to the situation in The Netherlands:

- The situation in the 1960s was not the starting point: social housing became institutionalised in the early 1900s as private enterprises housing the urban working class. Financing, ownership and management were all private (but with favorable financing conditions). Ownership and management were often a form of collective organization by the renters/occupants (in a 'vereniging'). Before WW2 the % of homes owned by these associations were only a small % of the total housing stock.

- The current situation is a remnant of the situation after the WW2, where a lot of public funds (Marshall plan funds) were spent for the construction of affordable housing. These funds were allocated with the (technically private) affordable-housing companies, who built, own and manage these homes. A set of rules was invented to keep rents under (government) control, usually in par with inflation. This was done to keep it in line with moderated wage increases to prevent the economy from overheating.

- In the late 1990s the system was further privatized. No public funds are directed to social housing anymore. The social housing agencies are expected to finance new construction (and urban renewal) through capital they gain by selling off old housing stock. The system of government backed financing conditions (cheap loans) and the 'rent control' are still in place.

- Recently the European Commission ruled that all activities of these housing agencies that are not directly related to social housing may no longer be financed through the system of government backing (false competition). This means they may no longer develop 'market rate' housing under these financing conditions (which was one of their sources of income). Also, the allocation of social housing is now limited to households making less than €33.000 per year. This creates a problem, because the number of social housing units is much bigger than the number of households with an income under €33.000.

- The system is in need of a major transformation. Not only because of the mismatch between housing and population needing it, but also because it needs a sustainable financial foundation. Now that the market for selling off old housing has dried up, many companies are reporting financial losses, and urban renewal schemes have come to a stand-still. It's only a matter of time before the maintenance standards need to be lowered.
On the other hand, there is a lot of potential for big (institutional) private ownership of (part of) this housing stock. They are in the books for way too cheap, have no real owner (owners are not allowed to make a profit), and many of their occupants can afford a higher rent (wages have increased much faster than controlled rents).