Rented Housing Should Replace Purchased Housing

Rented Housing Should Replace Purchased Housing 
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 7, 2010

Taiwan's housing market and housing policy has never been so chaotic. On the one hand, the price of residential units offered by private sector construction firms in the most desirable parts of the city have skyrocketed. Regional price differences have increased and are in chaos. On the other hand, the government is responding to social problems caused by soaring prices. It is once again offering government housing. The Taipei City Government has announced that it will construct new public rental units in some of the city's most desirable districts. But the government must do far more. Now is the time for the government to promote social housing.

The Ministry of Finance National Property Administration recently announced its intention to make three plots of land available. The plots are located in highly desirable parts of Taipei City's Neihu and Da An Districts. In order to establish surface rights, it is holding public auctions for the right to construct rental housing for senior citizens, student dormitories and ordinary residences. Rents will be temporarily set at less than the prevailing market rate. We enthusiastically endorse the Ministry of Finance's policy of providing rental housing. This however must not be the full extent of the government's housing policy.

For the past six decades, the government had no housing policy. The government did nothing. Nearly all domestic residential housing units were built and sold by private builders. At most the government had a half-baked policy for government housing. But its policy, which called for the government to obtain the land, build the units, then sell them to qualified buyers, was riddled with problems. The quality of the buildings built by the government was poor. The outright sale of low cost housing may benefit the buyers of government housing units. But they put the government in the difficult position of having to endlessly obtain land and build units with ever diminishing resources. Such a policy is ultimately untenable. Such a form of government housing is a thing of the past.

Over the past twenty years, housing prices have risen. To help people purchase housing, to salvage the economic boom, and boost the real estate market, the government launched first time home buyers loans, discount mortgages, and Youth Home Loan policies. These however did not constitute a housing policy. This was merely a bunch of quick fixes in the absence of any housing policy,

Let us examine the housing policies of other governments. Singapore, like Taiwan, is predominantly Chinese society. It too subscribes to the notion that "land equals wealth." But Singapore has not experienced the same social problems as Taiwan, where high property prices have generated social problems. The main reason is Singapore's Housing & Development Board, which provides housing to almost 90 percent of the public. It rents government housing to low income citizens. Hong Kong is another region that is predominantly Chinese. Everyone assumes that housing in Hong Kong is continually hitting new highs, and that the general public has a hard time finding a place to live. But in fact the Hong Kong government has a long standing public housing policy. Nearly half the population lives in public housing. Lower income citizens live in housing leased to them by the government.

The United Kingdom survived the financial tsunami. The impression outsiders have is that British housing prices have skyrocketed due to speculation in the housing market. But in fact the British government still provides public housing to low income citizens. Nearly 20 percent of the population lives in public housing units leased to them by the government. Germany has so-called welfare housing. These are high-quality residential units built by the government and rented to those in need at low rates. If one's income exceeds a certain level however, one must vacate these units, or else rent them from the government at prevailing market rates. Sweden provides direct government investment in housing construction. Japan has its "residential parks" which provide new housing units for those in need.

As we have seen from the example of other countries, no matter how capitalistic and no matter how market oriented they might be, other governments intervene in the housing market to a greater or lesser degree. That is because housing is not a commodity that can be provided entirely by the private sector, or whose price can be determined by the market place. Treating housing purely as a market commodity, and allowing private capital to engage in speculation, will eventually lead to skyrocketing housing prices and social problems. After all, society has certain expectations of the government. It hopes that hard-working lower income people will at least have a place they can settle into. That is why so many governments have housing policies, and why the government directly intervenes in the marketplace. Depending on a nation's circumstances, it will rent or sell housing to the public.

Housing prices are soaring. The government would like to make government housing units available once again. It would like to introduce public rental housing. We hope the government will provide a more comprehensive, longer-term housing policy. The government needs a phased strategy to gradually increase the supply of public housing. In the past, housing was sold to the public. Once the units were sold, the government no longer possessed the means by which it could meet society's needs. Therefore, in the future public housing should be leased to the public rather than sold outright. The Executive Yuan plans to build a mass transit line to the airport, as well as 4000 units of affordable housing. These, for the most part, should be rented rather than sold. The government can set certain standards, allowing low income tenants to pay low rents. Tenants whose incomes exceed the standard will be required to relocate. Or else they will be required to pay the market rate, then move within a certain number of years.

The government's current response to the high price of housing is to impose aggressive controls on housing prices. This "kill them all" approach is both laborious and ineffective. It can easily lead to collateral damage. Young people, general office workers, and other ordinary people, are having trouble finding places to live. If the government had more public housing at its disposal, people who could not afford high prices could at least afford low-rent public housing. Current social grievances and social problems could be moderated. If on the other hand, the price of luxury housing skyrockets to two or five million NT per Ping, the government need not be too concerned.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.09.07
推動社會住宅 出租取代出售
本報訊

台灣的住宅市場與政策，從來沒有如此混亂。一方面，原本以民間建商提供的住宅，菁華區價格飆漲，各區域價格差異拉大又混亂；另一方面，政府為回應房價飆漲引發的社會問題，除了國宅重出江湖外，政府也宣布要在台北市菁華區，興建公益出租住宅。不過，政府該作的遠多於此，現在，該是政府推動社會住宅的時候了。

對財政部國產局日前宣布要把台北市內湖與大安區菁華區的三筆土地釋出，以設定地上權方式，採公益性招標，興建只租不賣的銀髮族住宅、學生宿舍及一般住宅，租金則暫訂為低於區域行情的價格。對財政部這項政策，特別是只租不售的作法，我們深表贊同與支持。但政府的整體住宅政策不能只有這樣。

回顧過去一甲子的台灣住宅市場，政府幾乎可說「毫無政策」。政府完全放手，國內的住宅幾乎全部由建商興建出售，勉強稱得上「半套政策」者是國宅政策。但這種由政府找地、興建、再出售給符合某一標準資格之民眾的國宅政策，卻是問題叢生。除了因政府興建，品質控管差外，因為採出售賣斷方式，雖然對購得較低價國宅的民眾而言，是獲利多多，但政府卻陷入不斷找地、興建的循環中，手中籌碼日益減少。終是無以為繼，國宅走入歷史。

至於這廿多年來，或是為因應房價上漲，協助民眾購屋；或是為挽救房地產與經濟景氣，鼓勵民眾購屋以拉抬房地產，政府陸續推出首購房貸、優惠房貸、青年購屋貸款…等政策，則根本稱不上一個住宅政策，充其量只是在毫無住宅政策下，推出修修補補的小作為罷了。

讓我們先看看其它國家的住宅政策吧。與台灣同樣是華人、同樣有「有土斯有財」觀念的新加坡，就未如台灣般，發生高房價引發的社會問題，主要原因就是星國政府的建屋局，提供近九成住宅給民眾；對低收入者，則有政府興建的住宅可租用。另外一個華人地區香港，雖然大家認為香港房價不斷創新高，一般民眾恐難有立錐之處，但事實上港府有一套行之多年的公營住宅政策，近半民眾住在所謂的公屋內，較低收入者則是向政府承租公屋。

即使是英國，雖然在金融海嘯中，外界的印象是英國房價亦炒作翻天，但事實上英國政府的住宅政策，仍有由政府提供住宅租給較低收入者，而且承租政府公有住宅者達二成。德國則有所謂的福利房，由政府興建高品質的住宅，並以低價租給需要的民眾，但如民眾收入超過某一水準，則要退租，否則就要以市場行情向政府承租。瑞典有政府直接投資興建的住宅，日本也有「住宅公團」興建房子提供給需要的民眾。

因此，縱觀各國情況，不論是多麼資本主義、多麼市場經濟的國家，政府都有一定程度的介入住宅市場。因為，房子絕對不是單純的一個「商品」，可以完全由民間提供，讓市場決定價格。把房子視為百分之百的商品，任由民間資金炒作、造成房價飆漲，最後一定成為社會問題。畢竟，社會對政府有期許，希望讓那些努力工作但收入較低的民眾，至少有一個安身立命的居住地。因此，各國政府皆訂有住宅政策，政府也都直接介入市場，或租或賣，視國情與條件而定。

因此，在面對這波房價飆漲，政府要讓國宅重出江湖，推出出租的公益住宅之際，我們期待政府，能提出更完整、更長遠的住宅政策。政府應有步驟、有策略的逐步增加公住宅的供給。而鑑於過去國宅多出售給民眾，出售後政府即再無籌碼因應社會需求，因此，未來政府提供的公住宅應以出租而非出售為主。行政院規畫在機場捷運線興建的四千戶平價國宅，就該以出租而非出售為主。政府可訂定一定標準，以低廉的租金讓中低收入者承租。收入超過標準者則需強制搬遷，否則就要以市場行情承租，且在一定年限內要搬遷。

政府現在因應高房價的重要對策，是努力的「打房」，這種「一律砍殺」的作法，其實是費力多又收效少，更容易「誤殺」。因為，現在問題在年輕人、一般上班族等升斗小民難有立錐之地。如果，政府手上有較多的公住宅為籌碼，這些趕不上房價的民眾，至少能以低廉租金承租公住宅，原有的民怨與社會問題，應可平復。至於豪宅要飆到每坪二百萬還是五百萬，政府就甭太介意了。