Housing Policy Debate: Economic Profit vs. Social Affordability

The author challenges mag. Remec's perspective on housing policy, asserting that Remec misunderstands the fundamental difference between viewing housing as an economic venture and as a social policy aimed at providing affordable and secure homes. Remec's focus appears to be on the profitability of housing providers, rather than ensuring accessible housing for those who cannot afford it themselves.

Despite mag. Remec's significant involvement in drafting a new law, he failed to secure provisions allowing landlords to unilaterally set cost-based rents. The legislation, as enacted, mandated rent increases based on property age, but crucially, it stipulates that public landlords must offer non-profit rental agreements to eligible recipients through public tenders for indefinite terms.

“

The difference lies in whether the goal is to achieve profit for the subjects of housing provision or, for the widest possible circle of people who cannot solve their housing issue themselves, to enable a safe and affordable home at the lowest possible cost.

The author clarifies a key distinction: mag. Remec fails to grasp the difference between a subject of public law, like SS RS, which can only act as prescribed by law, and a commercial company, which can do anything not prohibited by law. Since market or cost-based rents were not and are not defined in the law, no public landlord is permitted to charge them independently.

While the new law offers public landlords more flexibility in selecting priority categories and housing statuses, the author believes that promising young individuals will not be disadvantaged. However, the persistent imbalance between the supply of and demand for rental housing is acknowledged as a long-term issue.

“

Mag. Remec does not understand the difference between a subject of public law (which can only do what is prescribed by law) and a commercial company (which can do everything except what laws prohibit).