Search

According to the recent Housing Memorandum ( MVROM, 2000 ), Dutch housing associations are expected to actively improve the control of tenants over their dwellings and their living environment and offer them more possibilities to choose their own type of tenure. Before the publication of the Memorandum, associations had already developed various innovative types of tenure, for example fixed rent contracts, tenant maintenance programmes and different forms of sale with discounts and risk-reducing conditions. With the introduction of these tenures, associations aim to contribute to their social objectives by improving tenants' satisfaction with their dwellings and to improve the market position of their stock as well. Our paper discusses innovative types of tenure that have been developed by the Dutch housing associations and their benefits and risks for tenant and landlord. We focus on the 'Client's Choice' programme that has been developed by the association WoonbronMaasoevers, which is recognised as a front-runner in offering households a wide range of choice in tenure and which is also illustrative of many of the benefits and risks of the innovative tenures. We conclude that many of the innovative tenures, including the Client's Choice programme, can contribute to tenant empowerment and freedom of choice. However, low-income households will mostly have to keep relying on (social) rented housing and other forms of empowerment. For the landlord, the Client's Choice programme has the benefit of increasing cash flow, which can be used for (social) housing investments. However, there are also substantial financial risks, concerning the rate of sales, the development of market values and the potential costs of having to buy back all the dwellings at the end of their economic lifespan. Thus, the implementation of the Client's Choice programme on a large scale should be accompanied by measures to control or provide for these risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Until recently it has been usual in the Netherlands for local authorities to acquire land for development, to prepare it for building, and then make building lots available through sale or leasehold. In the 1990s housing production shifted from social housing to owner-occupied housing. Project developers became interested in the ownership of land as the key to build dwellings. These land purchases changed the context in which local authorities had to operate in the development of land. Instead of making arrangements for the recovery of costs via a public monopoly, local authorities now have to revert to a set of statutory instruments, or enter negotiations with market parties to come to an agreement on a voluntary contribution to development costs. In this contribution, we report the current state of the discussion in the Netherlands on the recovery of costs and we analyse various alternative instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution gives some reflections on the Netherlands' New Housing Memorandum 2000-2010, which was published on 15 May 2000. This Housing Memorandum urges the housing corporations (the social housing organisations which own 37 per cent of the housing stock) to sell 500 000 dwellings in 10 years. This seems to confirm Harloe's assertion that social housing in Europe is only a transitional tenure. Even in the Netherlands-champion of social rented housing within the European Union-the owner occupied sector would seem destined to marginalise the social rented sector in the long run. This paper argues that the housing corporations, being private, independent social entrepreneurs, will be only partially inclined to take the political message of the Housing Memorandum to heart. It is expected that the Dutch social rented sector will remain a differentiated sector and continue to blossom alongside home ownership. Harloe's theory will, in short, not be confirmed by the housing developments in the Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In several respects, the Netherlands represents a special case in housing tenure and housing policy. The proportion of owner-occupier dwellings is relatively low, whereas the proportion of social rented dwellings is extremely high. This profile presents housing tenure data in a number of countries. The housing stock in the Netherlands consists of exactly 50% owner-occupied dwellings in 1998. This share is increasing rapidly. Within the rented sector the share of the commercial rented sector is only about 12%, owned by professional institutional investors and private landlords with small properties. The dominant landlord type in the rented sector, with a 38% share of the total housing stock, is the social landlord. Until recently, municipalities owned 6% and (private) housing associations 32%. Privatization, stimulated by national government, has resulted in a transformation of most municipal companies into housing associations. Nowadays, municipalities own less than 1% of the housing stock; about 37% is in the hands of housing associations. Government outlays on housing subsidies in the Netherlands were consistently high throughout the 1980s, very high in comparison to other West European countries.