Impose Restrictions on the Sale of Public Housing

Impose Restrictions on the Sale of Public Housing
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 13, 2011

The Executive Yuan Council for Economic Planning recently proposed a draft law for contemporary housing. Its most distinctive feature has nothing to do with new government construction or low cost construction. It does not establish rules for surface rights in new construction. Instead, it imposes restrictions on buyers, specifying that contemporary housing may not be freely traded. This provision is being promoted as a national initiative. But public acceptance remains to be seen. We feel it is a step in the right direction. We consider it applicable to other forms of public housing, such as affordable housing.

The CEPD's draft law for contemporary housing currently applies to building sites near the Tucheng and Shanhsia MRT stations. Public land will be subject to a 70 year surface rights clause. Developers will transfer the land to a public trust.
The land will then be sold at 50 to 60% of the market price. Home buyers must have incomes below a certain level. They may not have any housing units in their name. Home buyers are not permitted to resell the units. If they do sell, they may only sell them back to the trustee. Or else they must sell the property to other qualified home buyers.

Consider the history of government housing. Buyers of government housing were allowed to sell their units after a specified number of years. This is the main reason government housing policy was unsustainable. The government obtained the land, built the housing, then sold it to the public at below market prices. Members of the public would then resell them at market prices to others. The result was private individuals profiting at public expense. Once the low cost housing units were sold, the government no longer possessed the means to provide low cost housing. All it could do was look for more land and build more housing. This approach was unfair. Worse, it rendered the policy for government housing unsustainable.

Therefore, the contemporary housing units provided by the Council for Economic Planning are subject to special restrictions. They may not be resold without restrictions. We approve. Only this will enable the government to retain the resources necessary for the construction of government housing. Only this will enable society to provide long term solutions to housing problems. The workings of the system however, must be simple and functional. They must not result in the creation of new bureaucracies. Sellers must be allowed to sell their units only to buyers who meet the requirements. One. Sellers lack information about prospective buyers. It is not within their power to conduct private evaluations. Two. More importantly, the provision affects the selling price. Resellers could profit from the resale of housing units. The profits would then end up in private hands. Therefore the government must remain the sole trustee of the housing units.

Also, how should the trustee determine the appropriate selling price for the original buyers of contemporary housing units? This has yet to be finalized. But it may be essential to the system's success or failure. A number of ways can be considered. If one's premise is that any appreciation should accrue to the government, then the units should be bought back at their original selling price. At most, one would add the interest, or account for inflation. But if one's premise is that the buyers and the government are sharing the upside profits as well as the downside risks, then the difference between the selling price and the original purchase price should be shared by the government and the original home buyer alike, according to a specified ratio. If however one is considering depreciation and the benefits derived from the housing unit's use, then the units should be bought back at a depreciated price. Regardless of which method is used, a repurchase price mechanism must be established and included as part of the contract.

The CEDP should establish a governmental or governmental trust repurchase mechanism for contemporary housing units. The government and the public agree. This is a fair, reasonable, and sustainable system. Therefore we have no reason not to make wider use of such a system, for affordable housing, young peoples housing, and other forms of government housing. Government housing sold at low prices to the public can be included in this system. For example, the government has officially contracted to build affordable housing near the Airport MRT station A7. The price will be set at 50 to 70% of the market price. Potential buyers are already rubbing their hands, noting that "get one and you're ahead of the game." Such practices, which enrich private individuals, are highly undesirable. The Ministry of Interior Construction and Planning Agency should establish mechanisms by which the government can buy back units, while increasing the proportion of rental housing.

Some people may criticize such a mechanism for limiting the resale of units, as a complete contradiction of free market principles. They may criticize it as socialist. But the construction of public housing by the government, using society's resources, then selling them at low prices to the economically disadvantaged, is inherently socialist. It matters not whether one refers to them as affordable housing, contemporary housing, or government housing. The government is attempting to solve the housing problem for the people. It is definitely not doing so merely to provide private individuals with windfall profits.

Many advanced nations have free market economies. But the government still intervenes in the housing market. It provides government housing for sale or for rent. The government's housing sales or lease provisions attempt to ensure fairness. They attempt to avoid or at least limit profiteering. The government housing system once lacked such restrictions. The result was that when the units appreciated, they enriched private individuals. Anyone allotted a low or medium priced government housing unit was virtually a lottery winner. This resulted in another kind of unfairness. Restrictions on the resale of government housing units
will not harm the free market. They will not deprive people of their property rights. The CEPD's restrictions on resale are entirely appropriate. Government housing policy was once unjust and unsustainable. This will change all that. The government should make government housing universal. It should swiftly incorporate affordable housing into the system. This will establish a sustainable new government housing system.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2011.07.13
社論－限制公屋自由轉售應該推廣
本報訊

　行政院經建會日前公布現代住宅規畫草案，草案中最特別者並非政府興建、價格便宜，甚至也不是以設定地上權方式興建；而是對購買者轉手的限制，規定不得自由買賣。這個規定堪稱是國內的創舉，雖然民眾接受度仍待觀察，但我們認為是一個正確的方向，也值得其它公有住宅─如合宜住宅等引用。

　經建會的現代住宅規畫案，目前選定土城、三峽兩地的捷運站附近，計畫以當地的公有地設定七十年的地上權，交由建商開發信託後，再以當地平均市價的五到六成價格出售。購買民眾的資格是一定所得以下、名下無房屋者。購屋者不能自由轉賣，如要出售必須售回給信託業者，或將使用權轉售給符合限定資料的他人。

　我們回頭看過去國宅的例子可發現，承購國宅者在過了一定年限後，即可自由轉賣，是導致國宅政策難以為繼的主因。政府找地、建屋、再以遠較市價低廉的價格賣給民眾後，民眾轉手時卻是以市價轉賣。結果是利潤歸於私人，政府毫無收穫。更兼房屋已賣出，政府手上再無籌碼，只能不斷繼續找地、建屋。這種作法，不僅有違公平原則，更讓國宅政策難以永續經營。

　因此，對這次經建會規畫的現代住宅，特別訂出不能自由轉賣的規定，我們深表贊同，只有如此，才能讓政府與社會投注許多資源興建的公有住宅，永續的成為社會解決居住問題的籌碼。不過，為了讓制度運作單純且可行，不該多開一個管道，讓出售房屋者能將使用權轉售給符合限定資料的他人。一來牽涉到出售者缺乏欲購買者的資訊，甚至完全不可能「自行審查」；二來，更重要的是這項規定仍牽涉到價格問題，轉售者仍可透過轉賣獲取利潤，利益仍歸私。政府仍應以信託單位為唯一的承購單位。

　另外，信託單位承購原購屋者出售之現代住宅的價格，應該如何訂定，尚未定案，但卻可能是制度成敗的關鍵。能考量的方式，如以房價上漲的利潤完全歸公思考，當然是以原賣出價格購回，頂多加上利率成數、或通膨率。但如考慮由購屋者與政府共同承擔房屋漲跌的風險，則是以同樣房屋再出售的價格為購回基礎，此價格與原購買價格間的差距，不論漲跌，由政府與民眾各分擔一定比例。不過如果考慮房屋折舊與民眾已使用房子的效益，反而是應該以折舊購回。但不論用那種方式，對購回價格的機制必須先建立，並載諸於合約中。

　如果，經建會透過現代住宅，可以建立起由政府（或代理政府的信託單位）購回的機制，而且政府與各界都認可這是一個「公平、合理、且更可長可久」的制度，那麼，就沒有理由不把此制度推而廣之，把合宜住宅、青年住宅…等由政府興建、並以低價出售給民眾的公有住宅，都納入此制度中。例如，政府已正式發包的機場捷運Ａ７站合宜住宅，價格號稱是市價的五到七成，市場人士已喊出「買到就賺到」；類似這種利益歸私的作法非常不可取。內政部營建署也應建立由政府購回的機制，同時增加出租房屋的比例。

　或許有人批評這種限制自由轉賣的機制，完全違背自由市場機制，太過於「社會主義」了。那麼，我們必須強調，由政府以國家、社會的力量，興建住宅，再以低廉價格賣給經濟較弱勢民眾的「公屋制度」─不論它叫合宜住宅或現代住宅，甚至國民住宅，其本身就是一個「很社會主義」的制度。政府要為民眾解決居住問題，但絕對不是為民眾創造「享受資產增值」的空間。

　國外許多先進國家，雖然其經濟體制是自由市場機制，但政府仍介入住宅市場，以公屋提供民眾購買或租用。而所有政府對公屋出售或出租的規定，一定會力求公平，儘量限制並避免「利益歸私」。過去的國宅制，就是少了這麼一個限制，結果是導致漲價歸私，抽中低價國宅者如中樂透，反而創造另一種不公平。對限制公屋的自由轉售，我們認為不會有破壞市場機制、剝奪民眾財產權等之疑慮。經建會提出的限制自由轉售規定，確實是切中時弊，可以一改過去國宅造成的不公與難以為繼原因，政府是該將其變成公屋的普遍制度，並把已發包的合宜住宅立即納入此制度中，藉此建立更能永續經營的公屋新體制。