Stockholm's 20-year waiting lists for rent-controlled housing(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Stockholm's 20-year waiting lists for rent-controlled housing
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160517-this-is-one-city-where-youll-never-find-a-home
61 comments
It really seems that you either have extremely high rents which almost nobody can pay. Or low rents but no housing.
I think neither is a good housing policy.
I think neither is a good housing policy.
Or, if you build lots of housing, then you can get moderate rents, no waiting lists, and no exclusivity.
Amazing how policy makers fail to grasp basic supply and demand.
My wife has been on the list since she was born 27 years ago. I don't particularly have a problem with the system. It's Stockholm. Either this way and reasonable rent, or rent would be totally fuckin' crazy.
I prefer this system too. Forcing people out by jacking up rent prices is the capitalist's solution, but not a good solution when applied to housing, IMHO. Why should people who've lived their entire life in a region be forced out because somebody with more money comes along? You can't pay a bunch of money and force a poorer person out of the hospital.
"Sorry, but we're full" is a completely valid response if maintaining affordable housing is more important than accommodating fervorous growth.
"Sorry, but we're full" is a completely valid response if maintaining affordable housing is more important than accommodating fervorous growth.
That's always been the drawback to renting as opposed to owning.
And the article sure makes it sound like folks in Stockholm move often. Why does it matter if they're 'kicked out' by someone with more money, versus being unable to find stable housing because of the Swedish policies?
It's fairly blind to say that Sweden's solution works so well, while completely ignoring the intended consequences. I see folks in housing policy doing that often -- if your system doesn't work as intended, it doesn't matter that the intent was good!
"Would-be renters without a first-hand contract have the option of either subletting from someone with a long lease or renting from a private landlord. But contracts are often for a year or less, since individuals who choose to let out their homes are usually limited to a fixed period agreed by the building’s housing association and only for a valid reason such as travelling abroad or moving in with a partner."
And the article sure makes it sound like folks in Stockholm move often. Why does it matter if they're 'kicked out' by someone with more money, versus being unable to find stable housing because of the Swedish policies?
It's fairly blind to say that Sweden's solution works so well, while completely ignoring the intended consequences. I see folks in housing policy doing that often -- if your system doesn't work as intended, it doesn't matter that the intent was good!
"Would-be renters without a first-hand contract have the option of either subletting from someone with a long lease or renting from a private landlord. But contracts are often for a year or less, since individuals who choose to let out their homes are usually limited to a fixed period agreed by the building’s housing association and only for a valid reason such as travelling abroad or moving in with a partner."
> That's always been the drawback to renting as opposed to owning.
Owning has the same problem. Rich people move into a neighborhood and jack up property value, making taxes affordable for original residents, who are then forced to move.
Owning has the same problem. Rich people move into a neighborhood and jack up property value, making taxes affordable for original residents, who are then forced to move.
I think this is a fairly legitimate position: those who support these controls are essentially saying that the city government should serve the people who currently live in the city, not some outsiders who want to live there to the detriment of those who do so right now.
Of course one ought to be consistent. For example, apply this on a national level and the implications re: immigration policy are obvious.
Of course one ought to be consistent. For example, apply this on a national level and the implications re: immigration policy are obvious.
> Why should people who've lived their entire life in a region be forced out because somebody with more money comes along
Why should a store that has had groceries all day be forced to give away their groceries when someone with more money comes along?
Why should a store that has had groceries all day be forced to give away their groceries when someone with more money comes along?
Which of these sounds better to you:
1) Starving Alice buys a loaf of bread for 1 dollar and obtains 10 units of happiness.
2) Rich Bob buys a loaf of bread for 10 dollars and obtains 1 unit of happiness.
1) Starving Alice buys a loaf of bread for 1 dollar and obtains 10 units of happiness.
2) Rich Bob buys a loaf of bread for 10 dollars and obtains 1 unit of happiness.
Thing is, in this case Alice might still be starving because Bob got earlier in line and went home with the $1 price-controlled loaf of bread, having saved the $9 to spend on luxuries.
I'm not a utilitarian. If I'm not personally Alice or Bob, I don't care.
Your statement makes no sense.
To use your example in the same vein, why should people be forced to starve because somebody with more money bought up all the food in the region? Oh, and they get to raid their pantries too, but instead of paying the person for the food they get from the pantry, they pay the grocery store they bought it from.
Some people think it's perfectly fine to feed the rich first and let the poor have the scraps. That is the essence of capitalism: scarce goods are distributed based on the willingness to pay. But it's perfectly valid for a society to reject this notion.
To use your example in the same vein, why should people be forced to starve because somebody with more money bought up all the food in the region? Oh, and they get to raid their pantries too, but instead of paying the person for the food they get from the pantry, they pay the grocery store they bought it from.
Some people think it's perfectly fine to feed the rich first and let the poor have the scraps. That is the essence of capitalism: scarce goods are distributed based on the willingness to pay. But it's perfectly valid for a society to reject this notion.
It's not perfectly valid. If you consume more than you produce, you will die. I did not make the rules.
> You can't pay a bunch of money and force a poorer person out of the hospital.
Sorry to be so blunt, but you probably can. I would assume you can also get bumped higher up on lists for organ transplants etc if you have the right connections (read: are willing to pay, i.e. by donating a nontrivial amount of money to support research the hospital is doing).
Sorry to be so blunt, but you probably can. I would assume you can also get bumped higher up on lists for organ transplants etc if you have the right connections (read: are willing to pay, i.e. by donating a nontrivial amount of money to support research the hospital is doing).
Sorry, but you're wrong.
Listen to/read this: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/09/tina_rosenberg.html
Summary: most of the world doesn't allow selling internal organs, but Iran does, and it's been interesting to study how that's developed.
Explicit exchange of goods for kidneys isn't allowed in the US, but you can join a "donor chain" which, when you donate to another person, through a chain of people, someone you care about can eventually get a kidney. The chain acts as a central clearinghouse in the absence of direct monetary exchange.
Listen to/read this: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/09/tina_rosenberg.html
Summary: most of the world doesn't allow selling internal organs, but Iran does, and it's been interesting to study how that's developed.
Explicit exchange of goods for kidneys isn't allowed in the US, but you can join a "donor chain" which, when you donate to another person, through a chain of people, someone you care about can eventually get a kidney. The chain acts as a central clearinghouse in the absence of direct monetary exchange.
Obviously organs can't be sold. Not sure I'm entirely wrong though, as it seems money can still get you one faster: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wealth-may-give-advantag...
Maybe in the US, but not in Sweden.
[deleted]
> Why should people who've lived their entire life in a region be forced out because somebody with more money comes along
Because they are renting and that's what renting means?
Because they are renting and that's what renting means?
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but don't you think 27 years is ridiculous? You'll both have died from old age before you get appointed something.
Also, where do you live now then? In a non rent controlled apartment?
Also, where do you live now then? In a non rent controlled apartment?
We live in the States. My wife has been able to rent for some years now, but we are waiting until we move there in a couple of years. The longer you wait, the better your selection. I'm totally fine with that system. And yes, if you can't or don't want to be on the list, you live in the suburbs.
Exactly, come in London. After 12 years and a salary above average I'm still nowhere near being able to live comfortably in the best areas. Hell, with a kid, I can barely afford the shit area where the school do not suck.
There is no magical solution to housing shortage. A waiting list is shit system, but I'm sure the Guinness Book would have no difficulty finding depressing record for rental price in other major cities.
There is no magical solution to housing shortage. A waiting list is shit system, but I'm sure the Guinness Book would have no difficulty finding depressing record for rental price in other major cities.
a salary above average I'm still nowhere near being able to live comfortably in the best areas
This makes sense to me. An "above average" salary should make it possible for you to live in "above average" areas; to live in the "best" areas should require the "best" salaries.
Obviously it's a bit more complicated than this, since different people have different rankings of locations and some people will choose to live in "worse" areas so that they can keep more of their income for other purposes; but in the limiting case where there is public consensus on which areas are "better" and everybody lives in the "best" area they can afford, percentiles of income will exactly match percentiles of housing location.
I find people in Vancouver who are confused by this concept on a regular basis. Vancouver has 900,000 households but only has space for 300,000 detached houses; as long as detached houses are viewed as being superior to other forms of housing, there's no way the median household will ever be able to afford a detached house.
This makes sense to me. An "above average" salary should make it possible for you to live in "above average" areas; to live in the "best" areas should require the "best" salaries.
Obviously it's a bit more complicated than this, since different people have different rankings of locations and some people will choose to live in "worse" areas so that they can keep more of their income for other purposes; but in the limiting case where there is public consensus on which areas are "better" and everybody lives in the "best" area they can afford, percentiles of income will exactly match percentiles of housing location.
I find people in Vancouver who are confused by this concept on a regular basis. Vancouver has 900,000 households but only has space for 300,000 detached houses; as long as detached houses are viewed as being superior to other forms of housing, there's no way the median household will ever be able to afford a detached house.
> There is no magical solution to housing shortage.
Building more houses works pretty well, and has the benefit that no magic wands are required.
Building more houses works pretty well, and has the benefit that no magic wands are required.
Even then, you can't make more transport. You hit a lot more limits quicker when you have absurd populations and sprawl instead of climb.
'Building housing' doesn't specify whether it's vertical or horizontal. My preference runs towards dense and some height. Depends on the place, though.
You can increase density only so far. It's not like you can just make streets wider or stack them on top of each other. Not to mention all the other infrastructure that you need.
In addition to that dense housings can lead to social problems and therefore crime, which is highly undesireable.
Especially in Europe you also have the problem of having a lot of old buildings that are protected, so you can't change or replace them.
Housing is a very complex problem and supply and demand only gets you so far. If it were really just all about that, places like London, NY and SF would never have become so expensive.
In addition to that dense housings can lead to social problems and therefore crime, which is highly undesireable.
Especially in Europe you also have the problem of having a lot of old buildings that are protected, so you can't change or replace them.
Housing is a very complex problem and supply and demand only gets you so far. If it were really just all about that, places like London, NY and SF would never have become so expensive.
London and SF are not very dense, all things considered, so... yeah, you do hit limits, but the limits there are mostly political.
Some of those political limits are understandable, like not wanting to tear down an ancient building. Others are pure NIMBYism.
Some of those political limits are understandable, like not wanting to tear down an ancient building. Others are pure NIMBYism.
You can make more transport capacity (more passenger trips per unit time) without necessarily devoting more land to it. A common problem lies where transit modes and routes are chosen for political, not economic, reasons.
Of course we can make more transport.
Where do you think the existing transport came from?
Where do you think the existing transport came from?
We don't know of a magic solution, but we know couple of big reasons why this is happening. The big elephant in the room problem is that Sweden is subsidizing massive immigration from some of the most backwards parts of the world. To make matters worse, Swedish citizens are paying tax to accelerate this process and they are the ones left with massive housing problem.
This is not really true. Immigrants are not being appointed housing in Stockholm City and they do not contribute to the housing problem. Most parts of Sweden actually have problems with housing for the opposite reason, urbanization is pushing big parts of the population into the big cities so there's rather cheap housing in the more "rural" parts.
The issue with housing is Stockholm has existed way before it became popular to blame all problems on the immigrants.
edit: had unclear language
The issue with housing is Stockholm has existed way before it became popular to blame all problems on the immigrants.
edit: had unclear language
No. This is wrong and xenophobic. If you don't want to wait on the list, you just live in the suburbs. This list is for Stockholm, not the surrounding metropolitan area. Don't believe what you hear coming from Swedish neo-nazis about the immigrants. It's all lies.
Being Europe, I'm sure it's fairly dense already, and likely there are decent sized areas that are historical and can't be touched, but perhaps with higher rents there would be more incentive to add to the housing supply?
The city center is almost all historical buildings except for a few parts where those have been torn down a few decades ago - something that left a very bitter aftertaste, it created what csn only be described as open sores in the city core that hasn't really healed yet - although it has started to get there in the last few years.
People in Stockholm generally don't vote for the people that want to build public/rent controlled housing, so there is no mystery there is a shortage. It has also been enormously lucrative to own your home the last 25-30 years or so as the interest has plummeted from 8% to 1.5-2%, so almost all rentals has been converted to bostadrätter (a kind of co-operative building society apartment) which you have to buy in to.
To me it sounds like Spotify and many other tech startups are just being babies and not trying to solve their own problems - they want to be in Stockholm because it is an attractive place to live, but they don't want their employees to have to pay for the fact that the city is attractive ? Tough luck.
People in Stockholm generally don't vote for the people that want to build public/rent controlled housing, so there is no mystery there is a shortage. It has also been enormously lucrative to own your home the last 25-30 years or so as the interest has plummeted from 8% to 1.5-2%, so almost all rentals has been converted to bostadrätter (a kind of co-operative building society apartment) which you have to buy in to.
To me it sounds like Spotify and many other tech startups are just being babies and not trying to solve their own problems - they want to be in Stockholm because it is an attractive place to live, but they don't want their employees to have to pay for the fact that the city is attractive ? Tough luck.
It seems like over time the city will become a retirement community as employers move out in search of areas that are easier for new hires to settle.
> but they don't want their employees to have to pay for the fact that the city is attractive ? Tough luck.
I'd be kind of incensed if I were stuck paying black market rates, too.
I'd be kind of incensed if I were stuck paying black market rates, too.
Or you could just build more housing.
While ago I wrote that Sweden is expensive country in decline (and was promptly down-voted to oblivion). Similar queues are in health care, schools and so on.
This rent controlled queue has been like this for a long time and will continue to be like this. The problem is not new.
There are no queues in health care to speak of and schools are good and available.
As I always say to you and others on the other very well off depressed mid 30s persons who has yet to face hardship, try living in just about any other country for a year and compare.
There are no queues in health care to speak of and schools are good and available.
As I always say to you and others on the other very well off depressed mid 30s persons who has yet to face hardship, try living in just about any other country for a year and compare.
Waiting times for rent controlled properties are getting longer. There are waiting times for medical procedures, those are also getting longer.
http://www.thelocal.se/20150127/swedens-health-care-is-a-sha...
https://expathealth.org/healthcare-news/global-patient-wait-...
And please leave personal comments, you have no idea about my situation. I had job offers from Sweden, but with children its simply not affordable.
http://www.thelocal.se/20150127/swedens-health-care-is-a-sha...
https://expathealth.org/healthcare-news/global-patient-wait-...
And please leave personal comments, you have no idea about my situation. I had job offers from Sweden, but with children its simply not affordable.
[deleted]
Well, I live in Stockholm and I will need a house soon
Truly, central planning at its most refined.
If you think that's central planning, you should see what zoning looks like in most US cities!
Not that I think their answer is very good.
Not that I think their answer is very good.
The free market also doesn't lead to more getting build in locations where no space is left. Why are waiting times worse than extreme prices?
Because in the longer run extreme prices helps ensure new projects do get started when possible, and that current stock is maintained.
Holding pricess below market rates helps ensure that over time current housing will be less maintained as money goes elsewhere, and as current housing can be converted into other more profitable land, it will be, thereby reducing housing overall.
There are 100s of papers showing this, which is why rent controls being bad is one of the things most economists agree on.
Holding pricess below market rates helps ensure that over time current housing will be less maintained as money goes elsewhere, and as current housing can be converted into other more profitable land, it will be, thereby reducing housing overall.
There are 100s of papers showing this, which is why rent controls being bad is one of the things most economists agree on.
...and it's happening. Quick googling can't track down a source, but I heard somewhere reliable that housing starts are at a 9-year high in California.
Higher prices = more incentive to build. It's that simple.
Higher prices = more incentive to build. It's that simple.
> The free market also doesn't lead to more getting build in locations where no space is left.
There's plenty of space left in places like New York or San Francisco, especially vertical space. Whether that's legally available to use (or impacts local infrastructure) is another matter, naturally.
There's plenty of space left in places like New York or San Francisco, especially vertical space. Whether that's legally available to use (or impacts local infrastructure) is another matter, naturally.
> The free market also doesn't lead to more getting build in locations where no space is left.
Because of the zoning laws - the opposite of a free market.
Because of the zoning laws - the opposite of a free market.
A waiting time of a month or two is a minor hassle, but a friend would have to be beyond awesome to let you sleep on his couch for 23 years.
Where do you imagine the free market is operating?
They should build some more apartments.
For a lot of people it's the normal - and indeed only - way to get an apartment in Stockholm. And it's actually not difficult to get one in the city if you're a Swede with a decent salary (meaning you can get a mortgage loan). (I.e., just about any IT salary.)
"Like many foreigners, she’s reluctant to buy, following a price rise of 14% in the city in last year alone" -- another way of seeing it is of course that prices will probably continue to go up (they've certainly been doing that for the last decades, this is no temporary bubble), meaning buying your apartment can be a good investment.
People having been worrying about rising prices since... a long time.
If you were unlucky enough to buy your apartment in Stockholm city at the "peak" in 2007, right before the prices went down slightly during the financial meltdown of 2008, it'd still have increased in value with about 60% by now. Meaning if you sold it today, you would have essentially lived for free and quite possibly earned some money on top. Whereas had you rented, you would've paid say 864000 SEK (~92000 EUR) during those years for an 8000 SEK per month rental.
Apartments in the city have historically not been a a risky investment; I know which one of renting vs. buying that I'd choose.
Not saying that all is fine. There are many good reasons why one might not want to (or can't) buy an apartment, and in those cases the situation can be very tough indeed.