“Housing as a basic human right“: The Vienna model of social housing (2019)

> Kurt Puchinger takes us to his office via a Hapsburg-era “paternoster” cyclical lift.

Even though, the word "Hapsburg" exists, it is very uncommon to write it that way. (It is "Habsburg")

> Tenants’ incomes are not continuously assessed, so pay progression throughout a resident’s career does not jeopardise their right to remain in public housing.

This is correct but this comes with a unfortunate side effect. If no one checks your income, you can do something which is called "Untervermietung". Basically, you let the apartment while it is on your name and you make a profit (Airbnb) [0]

In addition, I want emphasise that social housing is NOT only for Austrians. You can also get a flat as an EU citizen. But you have already lived a few years in Vienna. [1]

[0]: https://www.meinbezirk.at/wien/c-lokales/stadtraetin-fordert... [1]: https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/bauen_wohnen_und_umwelt...

EDIT: grammar

Whether the promise of “housing as a human right” is fulfilled depends on your likelihood of actually obtaining one of these discounted homes when you’re eligible. In US housing discourse there’s an implicit assertion that because you’re denied discounted housing by a “fair” lottery or waiting list system, instead of the “unfair” market, that’s somehow better. It’s not better! The thing is whether or not you actually end up with a home. And that is mostly going to be about whether construction is keeping up with demand.

Junk article.

This is an article based on Socialist Democracy and/or Marxist ideals. Had to stop reading once I realized that. I can't follow the logic. I don't see data. I don't see ROI, I don't see comparisons with other inputs/outcomes.

Who is this Author? An Economist? A civil engineer? Do they have any insight into economics and engineering involved in Housing?

Or are they just a communism-leaning journalist?

Also, the headline isn't followed up by anything but a description of things that exist. I don't see a proposal. No innovative thought in this article. Just people trying to justify handouts.

"Human rights" are defined and created by humans. They don't really exist where/unless they are not enforced by other humans.

The idea that housing is a human right doesn't make much sense to me. The dependency of Housing is Land. Why not make Land in general a human right?

Or, perhaps ownership titles are supposed to be given to housing?

"The average rent on a one bedroom property amounts to 21 per cent of an average resident’s income. In Paris, the average is 46 per cent of income. In London, it’s 49 per cent. Vienna’s housing subsidy is paid for with a 1 per cent levy on the salaries of every Viennese resident, half of which is deducted from wages, and the other half matched by employer contributions."

Ok, so SOMEONE will pay for it. "Other people" will pay for it. I don't think shoveling responsibilities off on onto other people (tax payers) is much of a solution.

“Our policy is based on the basic statement that housing is a human right,” Puchinger explains. “For 100 years this has been the philosophy of the Viennese Social Democratic Party.”

"This year marks the centenary of so-called “Red Vienna”, when Marxists in the Social Democratic Party initiated a radical reformist programme of municipal socialism – mass housebuilding, public education and healthcare – creating a proto-welfare statelet in the former seat of the collapsed Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Social Democrats have been the dominant party in the city legislature ever since."