Česky English Deutsch Francais

Results of the 2009 Questionnaire Survey in the Developments of Selected Towns’ Municipal Housing Stock

For the Ministry for Regional Development, Housing Policy Dept.: Ms. Blanka Burdová, MSc

For the Institute for Spatial Development: Ms. Dana Chlupová, MSc, Ms. Marie Polešáková, MSc, PhD, Ms. Ludmila Rohrerová, MSc

In 2009, the Brno Institute for Spatial Development carried out the 10th questionnaire survey of the development of municipal housing stock, collecting and updating the necessary data and information on the municipal housing stock for the Ministry for Regional Development (hereafter the “MinRD”). Based on the agreement with the assignor of the research - the Housing Policy Department of the MinRD - this year’s research has taken into consideration the same sample of towns as in 2008. So, addressed was Prague including its selected districts, the 23 statutory cities (status as per the date of the task submission), and 30 other towns - Mapa "Map of Addressed Towns". This year the map has been updated in accordance with the applicable classification of towns to size categories, i.e. for this purpose the towns have been classified, as to size, according to the Message of the MinRD No. 151/2007 Coll. applicable for 2008. (A correct procedure shall presume to maintain this segmentation for the data evaluation, however, to be able to compare the results in individual years, the original classification of towns to size categories has been intentionally maintained, corresponding to the Message of the MinRD No. 333/2006 Coll. for 2007.) As in previous years, the questionnaire survey was aimed at the exploration of 5 kinds of data, which are usually not explored by the Czech Statistic Office: I.e. the privatisation of the municipal housing stock, shifts within the municipal housing stock, payments for the usage of the municipal housing stock, maintenance costs of the municipal housing stock, and additional data.

The additional part of the questionnaire focused on questions about the rent of municipal dwellings and the rent of municipal dwellings for selected resident groups and the related filing system of the demand for such dwellings, as well as whether the criteria of their allocation, and for their allocation to selected resident groups, have been determined. Other questions explored methods to decrease the numbers of rent debtors and the amounts of rent and service debts. Also scrutinized were whether indemnity was offered to those who left their dwellings, whether the private sector participated in the financing of newly built dwellings, and whether Municipalities built, or finished or started construction of, dwellings unsubsidized by the state in 2008. As 2010 will be declared the “European year of poverty and social exclusion abatement” and that this topic will include the issues of dwelling, i.e. exclusion from dwelling and homeless status, the question was newly included this year whether municipalities have elaborated (or have been preparing) a document attempting to solve the described issue. Also, the respondents could indicate their recommendations as to what the questionnaire should be aimed at next year.

The responding municipalities/city/town districts, addressed by the research this year, have maintained a total of 207,597 municipality dwellings, representing only 5,4 % of the total of 3,827,678 dwellings of permanent inhabitation in the Czech Republic (2001 census) (hereafter the CzR), however, at the same time, approximately 43 % of all municipal dwellings in the CzR. The numbers of dwellings assessed in the questionnaire investigation differed in relation to the topic assessed, mostly being lower than the overall number of the dwellings owned by the addressed cities/towns, as not all respondents have replied to all questions and not all replies could have been included in the respective topic.

The main objective of the research was to investigate the actual results of the ongoing privatisation of municipal dwellings, started in 1991, till the end of 2008.

Municipal housing stock privatisation in selected towns and cities

The development of the privatisation, between its start with the transfer of the housing stock from the State to Municipalities in 1991 and 31 December 2008, is shown in Diagram 1, Development of the municipal housing stock privatisation in selected towns, 1991 to 2008.

The Diagram indicates that of all the dwellings transferred to the ownership of the Municipalities in 1991, at an average 44.9 % were privatised before the end of 2001, 50.7 % of them before the end of 2002, 55.1 % before the end of 2003, 60.0 % before the end of 2004, 64.0 % before the end of 2005, 68.2 % before the end of 2006, 71.0 % before the end of 2007, and 72.9 % before the end of 2008.

The development of the total of municipal dwellings in the towns and cities under observation (including new constructions) between 1991 and 2008 and the supposed situation after the privatisation is shown by Diagram 2, Total number of municipal dwellings in cities/towns under observation (including reconstructions) between 1991 and 2008 and the supposed situation after the privatisation of the municipal housing stock.

The percentage of the dwellings, which the Municipalities intend to keep in their ownership, is related to the overall number of dwellings transferred from the State to the Municipalities in 1991.

Diagram 1

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 1

Note:

The data in the Diagram were obtained from 9 respondents in Prague;
in Brno data provided by the City Council for the whole city were assessed;
in Ostrava data from 14 respondents were assessed;
for Ústí nad Labem data were assessed from 3 respondents;
in Pilsen data provided by the City Council for the whole city were assessed;
in other towns ranking to the category populated 50,000 and above data from 11 respondents were assessed;
in other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 assessed were data from 14 respondents;
in other towns from the category populated 2,000 to 9,999 data were assessed from 11 respondents.

Diagram 2

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 2

Note to Diagram 2:

Expected numbers of municipal dwellings after the finalisation of the municipal housing stock privatisation are specified as per the latest date of the privatisation finalisation, as specified by respondents of a given group of towns.

Supposed figures for Prague as in 2015 (as the latest date, mentioned by the Districts of Prague 5), supposed figures for Brno as in 2015 (as the latest date, mentioned by the Brno - Židenice and Brno - Bystrc Districts), supposed figures for Ostrava as in 2015 (as the latest date, mentioned by the District of Michálkovice), supposed figures for Ústí nad Labem is not specified (the District Severní Terasa has finished the privatisation in 2008), supposed figures for Pilsen as in 2009 (as the latest date, mentioned by the Municipality for the whole city), supposed figures for towns populated 50,000 and above as in 2012 (as the latest date, mentioned by the town Zlín), supposed figures for towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 as in 2023 (in question is the latest term of the privatisation end as specified by the town Kyjov), supposed figures for towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 as in 2015 (as the latest date, mentioned by Velká Bíteš).

The data in the diagrams have been acquired
in Prague (assessment of data from 9 respondents);
in Brno - assessment of data for the whole city as provided by the City Council;
in Ostrava - assessment of data from 14 respondents;
in Ústí nad Labem - assessment of data from 3 respondents;
in Pilsen - assessment of data for the whole city as provided by the City Council;
in other towns - populated 50,000 and above - assessment of data from 11 respondents;
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 14 respondents;
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 11 respondents.

New constructions

Of the total number of municipal dwellings constructed between 1991 and the end of 2008, 67.0 % were built between 1991 and the end of 2002, 8.4 % during 2003, 7.0 % during 2004, 8.9 % during 2005, 3.0 % during 2006, 4.7 % in during of 2007 and 0.9 % in the course of 2008.

Diagram 3, Number of newly constructed (approved) municipal dwellings in the cities/towns under observation between 1991 and December 31st, 2008 shows the totals of newly constructed dwellings between 1991 and 2008, per 1,000 residents, in Prague, Brno, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, Pilsen, and in the three size categories1) of the rest of towns under observation.

Diagram 3

Data for all cities/towns or city/town districts.

Diagram 3

Note:

Specified figures are only approximate. Some municipalities disregard subsidized dwellings which are more than 50 % co-owned by themselves.

The Diagram 3 with the assessment of the number of municipality dwellings per 1,000 inhabitants newly constructed (approved) between 1991 and December 31st, 2008 has included:
in Prague data from all 18 addressed city districts, including the City Council;
in Brno data for the whole city, as provided by the City Council;
in Ostrava data from all 16 addressed city districts, including the City Council;
in Ústí nad Labem data from all 4 addressed city districts;
in Pilsen data for the whole city, as provided by the City Council;
in other towns - populated 50,000 and above - data from all 17 addressed respondents;
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - data from all 20 addressed respondents;
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - data from all 12 addressed respondents.

The structure of the municipal dwellings, newly built in 2007 and in 2008, is shown in Chart 1, Structure of newly constructed municipal dwellings approved in 2007 and in 2008.

Chart 1 Structure of newly constructed municipal dwellings approved in 2007 and in 2008

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Cities/towns % of newly constructed municipal dwellings, accepted in 2007 % of newly constructed municipal dwellings, accepted in 2008
in newly constructed buildings in reconstructed buildings in newly constructed buildings in reconstructed buildings
Prague 42,1 57,9 0,0 100,0
Brno - City council for the whole city 67,0 33,0 70,7 29,3
Ostrava 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
Ústí nad Labem 0,0 0,0 0,0 100,0
Pilsen - City council for the whole city 0,0 0,0 0,0 100,0
Cities/towns populated 50,000 and above 0,0 100, 90,7 9,3
Towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 54,0 46,0 0,0 100,0
Towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 100,0 0,0 0,0 100,0
Mean value 56,9 43,1 58,8 41,2

Developments of the total of municipal dwellings between 1991 and 2008

Between 1991 and the end of 2001, the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 42.4 %, between 1991 and the end of 2002, the decrease was of 47.9 %, between 1991 and the end of 2003, the decrease was of 52.0 %. Between 1991 and the end of 2004, the decrease was of 56.6 %, between 1991 and the end of 2005 the decrease was 60.2 %, between 1991 and the end of 2006 the decrease was 64.3 %, between 1991 and the end of 2007 the decrease was 67.0 % and between 1991 and the end of 2008 the decrease of the total of municipal dwellings was 68.8 %. In the course of 2002, the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 9.6 %, as related to their number in 2001, in the course of 2003, there was a decrease of 7.8 % as related to 2002, in the course of 2004, the decrease was of 9.6 % as related to 2003, in the course of 2005, the decrease was 8.4 % as related to 2004, in the course of 2006, the decrease was 10.2 % as related to their number in 2005, in the course of 2007 the total number of the municipal dwellings decreased by 7.5 % as related to 2006, and in 2008 the decrease of the total number of the municipal dwellings was 5.6 % as related to their number in 2007.

Estimated termination of the privatisation of municipal dwellings

Most respondents have supposed to finish the privatisation of municipal dwellings in 2010 and 2011. The latest of the mentioned terms is the year 2015 (City District Prague 5, Brno - Bystrc and Brno - Židenice Districts, the District of Ostrava - Michálkovice and the town Velká Bíteš) and 2023 (the town Kyjov - in this term expected is the privatisation of the dwellings built on the basis of subsidies from 2000 to 2003, where the municipality and the tenants participated in the construction; the subsidy included a condition that these dwellings could not be sold by the municipality within 20 years). Some respondents still have not fixed their deadlines. 24 respondents have already terminated the privatisation, i.e. the town Kroměříž finished the privatisation of the municipal dwellings in 1998; the town Třebíč has finished the 1st privatisation wave of the municipal dwellings in 1998 as well (the final term of the present wave has not been determined); the City District Prague 9 has finished the privatisation stage I in 1999 and the final term of the further privatisation stage has not been decided yet; even the town Most has finished the privatisation of the municipal dwellings in 1999 (the company Mostecká bytová, a.s. does not privatise - in 2007 it has transferred 41 dwellings in accordance with the Statute No. 72/1994 Coll. and 59 dwellings have been transferred in the same manner in 2008); the town Tišnov has finished a general privatisation in 2000 and in this year also the town Teplice has finished the privatisation. In 2003 the privatisation has been finished by the District Prague 13, whereas final sales of houses were finished in the course of 2007, and the Ostrava’s District of Polanka nad Odrou has finished the privatisation, too; in 2004, the Prague District 12 has finished the wave I of the privatisation (the term of the wave II not being specified), furthermore the City District Prague - Horní Počernice and the town Třinec; in 2005 the City District Prague 11 (then, a paid transfer of 274 dwellings followed), the City District of Prague 15; moreover, the City District Ostrava - Svinov, and the town Otrokovice (the dwellings are being sold within a public competition since 2006); in 2006 the City Council of the Capital Prague and the towns Liberec and Velké Meziříčí, in 2007 the City District Prague 2 and the town České Budějovice and in 2008 the City District Brno - Jundrov, City District Ústí nad Labem - Severní Terasa, the town Chomutov (only final sales of dwellings have been performed now where agreements on the future purchase contracts have been concluded as well as of houses where the sales procedure has been commenced yet in 2008) and the town Vodňany.

The privatisation has reached a highly advanced stage in Ústí nad Labem where 97.4 % of these dwellings have been privatised from the 1991 transfer to the end of 2008. In the city Pilsen and in the towns populated 50,000 and above, the privatisation reached 86.0 % of municipal dwellings, in the city Ostrava it is 72.3 % of dwellings, in the capital Prague 72.2 % of dwellings, in the towns populated 10,000 to 49,999, 69.4 %. In the towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 it is 63.6 %. The slowest pace of privatisation is in the city of Brno where mere 34.2 % of municipal dwellings have been privatised so far.

Share of municipal dwellings as related to all dwellings

The comparison of the numbers of municipal dwellings and the total of dwellings, as given by the censuses of 1991 and 2001, is shown in Diagram 4, Share of municipal dwellings as related to the total number of dwellings in the cities/towns under observation in 1991 and in Diagram 5, Share of municipal dwellings as related to the total number of dwellings in the cities/towns under observation in 2007, and 2008.

The per cent share of municipal dwellings, as compared to all dwellings in the cities/towns under observation, is gradually decreasing. In 1991, 39.2 % of all dwellings were municipal. In 2003, 17.0 % were municipal, in 2004, 15.5 %, in 2005, 14.1 %, in 2006, 12.9 %, in 2007, 12.2 %, and in 2008, 11.6 % of all dwellings were municipal.

Diagram 4

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 4

Note:

Numbers of municipal dwellings were compared to the total number of dwellings as per the 1991 census.

Diagram 5

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 5

Note:

Numbers of municipal dwellings were compared to the total number of dwellings as per the 2001 census.

Notes to Diagrams 4 and 5:

The mean values for the both diagrams were calculated without Prague. Prague was not included to the Diagram 4 as the numbers of municipal dwellings had to be added up from the data provided by the individual city districts (without those from the Prague City Council) that provided complete data; the numbers of all dwellings in 1991 could not be added up for the individual city districts as the administrative division of the Capital Prague has changed from the 1991 census (we have got the total numbers of the dwellings only for the whole city). In the Diagram 5 the mean value has also been calculated without Prague as it has summarized results of the same sample as the Diagram 4.

In the cities of Brno, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, and Pilsen data were assessed for the whole city; for the towns populated 50,000 and above data were assessed without Karviná; for the towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 data were assessed without Prostějov, Hodonín, Kyjov, and Velké Meziříčí; for the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 data were assessed for all the towns under observation.

Numbers of dwellings the Municipalities intend to keep in their ownership in future

The Municipalities intend to hold in their ownership 20.5 % of the dwellings (as related to those transferred to their ownership in 1991).

As related to the number of dwellings the Municipalities owned as per 31 December 2008, they intend to keep 65.6 % of the dwellings (the number of dwellings the Municipalities owned as per 31 December 2008 is the sum of those dwellings that remained, to the Municipalities, after the privatisation of the housing stock transferred to them in 1991 and of newly built municipal dwellings).

General comments on the results of the municipal housing stock privatisation:

  • The respondents’ answers indicate that if the tenants show lack of demand for the municipal flat or house they live in, the dwellings are often offered and sold to third parties, or they consider such a possibility.

Housing policy concepts

  • By its Resolution No. 19/12 of June 24th, 2004, the Municipality of Prague has designed and acclaimed the “Concept of the housing policy for 2004 and the oncoming period”, the duration of the document not being specified, a part of this concept being a division dealing with the social dwelling;
  • The Municipality of Brno has designed its “Housing strategy of the Brno City”. The document was acclaimed in 2001 to be valid till 2011, a part of this document being a division dealing with the social dwelling. Furthermore, the Municipality of Brno has processed the document “General Dwelling Plan of the Brno City” applicable to 2008, which will be updated every four years, a part of this document being a division dealing with the social dwelling;
  • The Municipality of Ostrava has not drawn up any dwelling concept and neither has been preparing any for the time being;
  • In Ústí nad Labem three city districts state they have not elaborated any dwelling concept, nor is any document of such kind being prepared; one city district has not specified any response to this question;
  • The Municipality of Pilsen has designed the “Amendment and new directions of the housing policy of the City of Pilsen”, in force since 1999, of unlimited validity, the division dealing with the social dwelling not being a part of this document; the housing concept is also a part of another document “Rules for handling with dwellings and non-dwelling premises - Directive No. QS 563-05”, adopted in 2007 and with unlimited applicability, a part of this document being also a division dealing with the social dwelling;
  • Of the other town category, 26, i.e. 53 %, have designed and acclaimed their housing concepts or other documents, independent or as parts of other documents (Liberec, Hradec Králové, Havířov, Zlín, Karviná, Děčín, České Budějovice, Pardubice, Kladno, Přerov, Jablonec nad Nisou, Třebíč, Tábor, Příbram, Znojmo, Cheb, Písek, Hodonín, Uherské Hradiště, Svitavy, Český Krumlov, Velké Meziříčí, Polička, Holice, Zruč nad Sázavou, and Brtnice). Two other towns, i.e. 4 %, have only been working on preparation of their documents (Prostějov, and Lanškroun). 18 other towns, i.e. 37 %, have not had such a document and even have not been preparing it at all (Most, where the town has transferred a major part of the housing stock to the corporation Mostecká bytová, a.s., while the Municipality’s focus is on the support to those who build family houses on their own, i.e. plot sales, network construction etc., Opava, Frýdek-Místek, Karlovy Vary, Teplice, Chomutov, Jihlava, Mladá Boleslav, Česká Lípa, Kroměříž, Otrokovice, Broumov, Tišnov, Dačice, Vodňany, Kdyně, Velká Bíteš, and Valtice); three respondents, i.e. 6 %, have not responded to this question (Olomouc, Třinec and Kyjov).

Chart 2, Prices in CZK/m2, for which dwellings are being sold in 2009, or possibly the prices applied in 2008 on condition the privatisation has been already ended in 2008 indicates the lowest and the highest prices reported by individual respondents:

Chart 2 Prices in CZK/m2, for which dwellings are being sold in 2009, or possibly the prices applied in 2008 on condition the privatisation has been already ended in 2008

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

City/town 2009
the lowest price in CZK/m2 as reported by the respondents the highest price in CZK/m2 as reported by the respondents
Prague 3,500 - 5,500 (CD Prague 1) or 4,988 (CD Prague 7) 21,700 (CD Prague 5)
Brno 2,096 (CD Kohoutovice) 12,500 (the Municipality of Brno)
Ostrava 1,610 (TD Petřkovice) 30,000 (TD Moravská Ostrava a Přívoz)
Ústí nad Labem neither of the respondents specified a concrete price neither of the respondents specified a concrete price
Pilsen 2,500 (statement for the whole town) 2,500 (statement for the whole town)
Other cities/towns populated 50,000 and above 600 (Chomutov - price from 2008) 12,500 (Pardubice) or 23,643 (Zlín - direct sale, applying the so-called "envelope method")
Other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 661 (Jablonec nad Nisou) 11,773 (Hodonín) or 15,152 (Tábor - vacant dwellings)
Other towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 2,000 (Broumov - price from 2008) 13,000 (Vodňany - price from 2008) or 25,789 (Velká Bíteš - the "envelope method")

Reactions to the questions concerning the fact how the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU, in May 2004, and therefrom following necessity to adhere to the Community law in the field of public support, influenced the housing stock privatisation process.

The respondents have responded to the question whether the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU, in May 2004, and therefrom following necessity to adhere to the Community law in the field of public subsidy, influenced the housing stock privatisation process in their municipality, as follows:

  • 29 % of the respondents stated this fact did not influence the process of the housing stock privatisation in their municipality on the instant. Out of which 100 % of the respondents stated it was not necessary to apply any change and none of the respondents stated this fact did not influence the privatisation on the instant, however, they were preparing a change of existing conditions.
  • 29 % of the respondents stated this fact influenced the privatisation process. Out of which 53 % of the respondents stated the privatisation was discontinued, however, conditions were modified so that they would comply with the EU law in the field of public subsidy. 34 % of the respondents stated the privatisation was under way only in the form of the sale of individual dwellings to natural persons who were living in such dwellings. None of the respondents stated the privatisation was discontinued, but only after verification of conditions (in the Economic Competition Protection Authority) and they were preparing a change of the conditions. None of the respondents stated the privatisation was totally discontinued. None of the respondents stated the privatisation was suspended and where municipal dwellings would be privatised, then only for a market price; 13 % of the respondents have specified another contingency.
  • 3 % of the respondents provided, at once, two of the offered responses in the questionnaire. From such responses may deduced that the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU, and the related necessity to comply with the community law in the field of public support, did not influence the privatisation, no change had to be applied, that since the Czech Republic's accession to the EU the privatisation has been performed only in the form of the sale of single dwellings to private persons that have been living therein.
  • 31 % of the respondents have already suspended the privatisation or did not privatise in the respective year, or do not intend to privatise at all.
  • 8 % of the respondents refer to a relevant Town Council in this matter (the City Council of Brno), or a City Council (the City Council of Ostrava) refers to individual City Districts.

The respondents utilize the following methods how to prevent the risk of providing prohibited public subsidy:

  • 21 % of the respondents sell dwellings only to natural persons, ranking among the tenants, in compliance with the Statute No. 72/1994 Coll., On the Ownership of Dwellings, as last amended.
  • 1 % of the respondents sell houses to legal entities for a market price.
  • 5 % of the respondents sell houses to legal entities for such a price so as the difference between a market and real sale price of a house would not exceed the “de minimis” limit within three years.
  • 3 % of the respondents sell houses to co-operatives, consisting of tenants, that transfer the dwellings to the ownership of individual users on instant, and dissolve themselves (these are target based co-operatives as mediators of the sale of dwellings).
  • 7 % of the respondents use other procedures, for example the sale of dwellings in the form of competitive bidding or public auction (some respondents use these sales methods only for selected dwelling categories, for example in the case of unoccupied or dislodged flats in the event the tenants have not met conditions for the privatisation).
  • 23 % of the respondents use two or more of the above-specified method at the same time.
  • 31 % of the respondents have already suspended the privatisation or did not privatise in the respective year, or do not wish to privatise at all.
  • 9 % of the respondents refer to a relevant Town Council in this matter (the City Council of Brno), or a City Council (the City Council of Ostrava) refers to individual City Districts.

Out of the total number of 112 addressed respondents, 12 % consulted, in the previous period, the issue of compliance, with the Community law, of a provided public subsidy with the Economic Competition Protection Authority; 45 % did not consult this issue, 30 % of the respondents stated they had not been privatising (and therefore did not consult this issue); this per cent share includes also respondents that have not been privatizing in the meantime, but have consulted the issue of the compliance of the public subsidy provision with the Community law with the Economic Competition Protection Authority (the towns Havířov and Prostějov), 3 % of the respondents did not respond to this question; 10 % of the respondents refer to a relevant Town Council in this issue (the City Council of Brno), or a City Council (the City Council of Ostrava) possibly refers to individual City Districts.

From the total number of 112 addressed respondents, 46 % state that the increase of the “de minimis” limit from 100 to 200 thousand EUR, as of January 1st, 2007, did not influence the privatisation process in their municipality; 5 % of the respondents state that this fact partially influenced the privatisation process in their municipality, and 3 % of the respondents state that the privatisation process was significantly influenced. 32 % of the respondents stated they did not privatize (also included was the town Prostějov, where it was approved in 2008 that the privatisation will be restarted, particularly in two stages – the town stated that the increase of the “de minimis” limit from 100 to 200 thousand EUR, as of January 1st, 2007, partially influenced the privatisation in their municipality; furthermore, the town Kyjov was included where another privatisation stage was commenced last year, but its progress has not been influenced so far). 3 % of the respondents did not respond to this question, 11 % of the respondents refer to a relevant Town Council (the City Council of Brno) in this issue, and a City Council (the City Council of Ostrava) refers to individual City Districts in this issue.

Results from the viewpoint of shifts within the housing stock, of payments for the use of the stock, and of maintenance costs, in selected towns

The results of the research in the shifts within the housing stock show that situations in larger cities (Prague, Brno, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, Pilsen) and smaller towns are not very different. The movements are rather insignificant, at an average of below 2.5 % of the total number of municipal dwellings. Such situation may be considered typical for the whole country.

  • The average number of tenants having exchanged their municipal apartments (the tenant is understood as one dwelling household) in 2007 was 1.4 % of the total of municipal dwellings, while in 2008 it was 1.2 %.
  • The average number of rent transfers of municipal flats totalled 2.0 % of the total of municipal dwellings in 2007, and in 2008 it was 2.0 % as well.
  • The average number of newly “allocated” municipal apartments in new and vacant or cleared dwellings, with a newly established rent [the dwellings allocated on the basis of social criteria, dwellings for public utility professions (teachers, medical and social services staff, municipal police, ...) and other flats], was 2.2 % of the total number of municipal dwellings in 2007 and 2.5 % in 2008.
  • The number of legally vacant dwellings was 1.4 % of the total of municipal dwellings as per December 31st, 2007, while as per December 31st, 2008 it was 1.7 %.
  • The average number of notices to quit, without assent by the court pursuant to Sec. 711(2)(a) to (e) of the Civil Code (for example due to gross violation of demeanour, non-payment of rent and services, etc.) was 1.0 % of the total of municipal dwellings in 2007 and 1.1 % in 2008. Whereas in 2007 the number of executed notices to quit an apartment amounted to 0.4 % of the total number of municipal dwellings, the number of notices to quit where a tenant brought a legal action in respect of determining invalidity of the notice amounted to 0.1 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings, the number of cases where the court decided on the invalidity of the notice to quit amounted to 0.003 % of the total number of dwellings, and the number of tenants who did not respect the notice to quit, without assent by the court, amounted to 0.6 %. In 2008 the number of executed notices to quit an apartment amounted to 0.3 % of the total number of municipal dwellings, the number of notices to quit where a tenant brought a legal action in respect of determining invalidity of the notice amounted to 0.1 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings, the number of cases where the court decided on the invalidity of the notice to quit amounted to 0.02 % of the total number of dwellings, and the number of tenants who did not respect the notice to quit, without assent by the court, amounted to 0.6 %.
  • The number of filed motions for the Court consent to the notice to quit, pursuant to Sec. 711a(1)(b) to (d) of the Civil Code, amounted, at an average, to 0.1 % in 2007 and in 2008, at an average, as well 0.1 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings.
  • The mean number of cases where the court decided on the consent to the notice to quit amounted, at an average, to 0.1 % of the total number of municipal dwellings in 2007 and in 2008 it was 0.1 % as well.
  • In 2007 the average number of cleared dwellings (particularly ejected) was 0.5 % and it amounted to 0.4 % of the total number of municipal dwellings in 2008.

The development of the numbers of debtors in rentals and/or in price of services between 2001 and 2008 is shown in Diagram 6, The development index of the number of debtors in respect of municipal dwellings between 2001 and 2008 (the year 2000 = 100). The development between the years 2001 and 2008 shows that the numbers of debtors were decreasing in the specified period of time, but in 2004 this trend was interrupted in Prague and in 2005 in Brno, Ostrava, and in towns populated 10,000 to 49,999, where in Prague the number of debtors increased in 2004 in relation to 2003 and in Brno, Ostrava, and in towns populated between 10,000 and 49,999 the number of debtors increased in 2005, as compared to 2004. However, in the following years even these cities/towns returned to the decrease trend in respect of the numbers of debtors, which continues till now (except for Pilsen where a 2.0 % increase of the number of debtors occurred in 2007, as compared to 2006, and an 18 % increase in 2008, as compared to 2007). As compared to 2000, the most significant decrease of the number of debtors occurred in Prague (by 78 %) and in Ústí nad Labem (by 73 %).

The development of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings in the cities/towns under observation between 2000 and 2008 is evident from Chart 3, The number of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) between 2000 and 2008 (summarising table).

Diagram 6

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 6

Note:

Data on the debtors in Prague, Brno, and in Ústí nad Labem apply to selected Districts only. Data on the debtors in Ostrava apply to the whole of the city, except for those debtors registered at the Municipal Office.

Chart 3 The number of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) between 2000 and 2008 (summarising table)

  Prague (selected districts) Brno (selected districts) Ostrava (selected districts) Ústí nad Labem (selected districts) Plzeň (whole city) Other towns
populated 50,000 and above populated 10,000 to 49,999 populated 2,000 to 9,999
Share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings in cities/towns (city/town districts) under observation as per Dec 31st 2000 30,9% 18,6% 30,7% 58,5% 31,5% 32,6% 18,6% x
2001 26,0% 29,1% 29,6% 74,3% 27,3% 36,6% 19,5% x
2002 23,7% 17,3% 31,6% 75,0% 24,0% 41,9% 21,1% x
2003 21,8% 16,7% 31,3% 61,9% 18,9% 34,6% 21,0% 9,8%
2004 25,3% 18,1% 33,1% 93,1% 19,6% 26,2% 20,8% 10,2%
2005 18,8% 21,4% 41,5% 111,0% 28,1% 28,1% 22,9% 10,2%
2006 14,2% 19,5% 37,8% 85,2% 33,4% 28,2% 22,2% 11,8%
2007 14,8% 13,3% 41,4% 72,2% 41,6% 25,6% 19,7% 12,4%
2008 13,9% 12,7% 37,8% 97,7% 65,0% 24,7% 19,5% 12,8%
Change index of the number of debtors 2001/2000 81,0 184,3 91,3 125,8 79,7 101,3 94,8 x
2002/2001 85,5 57,0 99,2 88,5 84,1 103,1 97,1 x
2003/2002 85,0 92,2 92,7 78,3 78,3 77,8 90,3 x
2004/2003 107,6 102,2 96,9 80,1 95,6 72,8 90,9 104,6
2005/2004 70,6 112,4 110,9 98,7 98,4 98,7 105,6 100,4
2006/2005 67,2 87,6 79,1 55,3 100,1 91,6 92,2 109,4
2007/2006 83,8 67,5 97,9 78,1 103,3 89,5 81,9 102,8
2008/2007 87,6 92,8 82,2 91,1 134,8 95,3 88,4 96,1

Note:

The share of the debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) in relation to the total number of the municipal dwellings has reached values higher than 100 % in some cities/towns, i.e. these towns have had either old claims against the debtors even in relation to dwellings sold to new tenants, who are not debtors any more, in the privatisation, or they have recorded more than one debtor per one dwelling.

From the table follows that, since 2000, in the cities/towns under observation (hand-in-hand with the proceeding privatisation) the difference of the values of the indicator “share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings” has been increasing. In 2008 the share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings, in the cities/towns under observation, varied between 12.7 % (the City of Brno) and 97.7 % (the city Ústí nad Labem). However, the predictive value of the indicator of the share of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings is markedly influenced by an advanced stage of the privatisation of the municipal dwellings. Therefore this indicator is completed, in the table, by the “change index of the number of debtors”; in 2008 the highest decrease of the number of debtors is shown by the City of Ostrava as compared to the previous year (the index being 82.2) and, on the other hand, in Pilsen, the interim increase of the debtors (the index 134.8) occured.

Diagram 7, Development indexes of the number of municipal dwellings and of debtors in the towns under observation between 2001 and 2008 (the year 2000 = 100) without the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 shows the relation between development of the number of debtors and the development of the number of municipal dwellings in the towns under observation between 2001 and 2008. It is clear from the diagram that, within the specified period of time, the number of municipal dwellings and the number of debtors was decreasing approximately at the same pace, whereas before 2002 the decrease of the number of debtors was only gentle, while in 2003 the pace of decrease of the number of debtors significantly accelerated and caught up with the pace of decrease of the number of municipal dwellings. (The evaluation has not included the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999, out of which some where addressed first within the investigation in 2005; therefore data on the number of debtors for a longer period have not been available.)

The number of debtors in the municipal dwellings, in relation to the overall number of dwellings in the cities/towns under observation as per 31 December 2007, is given in the Diagram 8, Number of debtors in the municipal dwellings as related to the total number of dwellings as per December 31st, 2007 and as per 31 December 2008 in the Diagram 9, Number of debtors in the municipal dwellings as related to the total number of dwellings as per December 31st, 2008.

Diagram 7

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts

Diagram 7

Diagram 8

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts

Diagram 8

Note:

Data on total dwellings, total municipal dwellings, and debtors in Prague, Brno, Ostrava, and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected districts only, whereas the total number of debtors in Ostrava does not include only the debtors recorded by the City council. Data on total dwellings as per the census of 1 March 2001.

Diagram 9

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 9

Note:

Data on total dwellings, total municipal dwellings, and debtors in Prague, Brno, Ostrava, and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected districts only, whereas the total number of debtors in Ostrava does not include only the debtors recorded by the City council. Data on total dwellings as per the census of 1 March 2001.

The question of the numbers of “short-term” debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) who did not meet the condition to be given notice to quit, by the lessor, without assent by the court pursuant to Sec. 711(b) of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll., was answered by a few respondents only, as the most frequent system of evidence of debtors cannot easily identify “short-term” debtors.

The average prescribed net rental per dwelling in 2007 was of 1,896 CZK/dwelling/month, while in 2008, 2,331 CZK/dwelling/month were in question.

The average prescribed monthly payment for services per dwelling in 2007 was of 1,738 CZK/dwelling/month, while in 2008, 1,746 CZK/dwelling/month were in question.

So, the average monthly payment for the use of a municipal apartment was of 3,635 CZK/dwelling/month in 2007, while in 2008, of 4,077 CZK/dwelling/month.

Thus the 2008 payments for the both average prescribed net rental and average prescribed net payment for services increased, as compared to 2007, thus also the total amount to be paid for the use of an apartment.

The average debt on the net rental per a municipal apartment was of CZK 3,340 as by 31 December 2007, while of CZK 3,722 as by 31 December 2008.

The average debt on services in a municipal apartment was of CZK 3,293 as by 31 December 2007, while of CZK 3,249 as by 31 December 2008.

So, the average debt on the use of a municipal apartment was of CZK 6,633 as by 31 December 2007, while of CZK 6,971 as by 31 December 2008.

Thus the 2008 mean debts for the net rentals per one municipal apartment increased, as compared to 2007, whereas the total debts in payments for the services slightly decreased and the total mean payment for the use of a municipal apartment increased. Such increase may partly be caused by the decrease in the number of municipal dwellings due to the privatisation of the housing stock.

The percentages of municipal dwellings for which applies the rental to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. is related (formerly those with the maximum basic rent pursuant to the Edict No. 176/1993 Coll. and in accordance with the Price precept of the Ministry of Finance No. 01/2002), the number of municipal dwellings the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30th, 1993 and to the financing of which a subsidy was provided to municipalities from the state budget or from state funds (formerly those with the factually regulated rentals pursuant to the Edict No. 176/1993 Coll. and in accordance with the Price precept of the Ministry of Finance No. 01/2002), and the number of municipal dwellings with contractual rent is shown in Diagram 10, Municipal dwellings by types of applied rentals, 2007 and Diagram 11, Municipal dwellings by types of applied rentals, 2008.

The Diagrams indicate that the shares of the dwellings the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30th, 1993 and for the financing of which subsidy was provided to municipalities from the state budget or from state funds (formerly those with factually controlled rentals pursuant to the Edict No. 176/1993 Coll. and in accordance with the Price precept of the Ministry of Finance No. 01/2002), and with the contractual rentals keep increasing gradually, while the share of the dwellings to which shall apply the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. (formerly those with the maximum basic monthly rent pursuant to the Edict No. 176/1993 Coll. and in accordance with the Price precept of the Ministry of Finance No. 01/2002) has been gradually decreasing.

As related to the total number of municipal dwellings, the share of the municipal dwellings, for which applies the rental to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. is related, reached 84.7 % in the towns under observation in 2007 and 82.9 % in 2008.

As compared to the total number of the municipal dwellings, the share of the municipal dwellings, the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30th, 1993 and for the financing of which the municipalities were provided a subsidy from the state budget, was 5.8 % in 2007 and 6.2 % in 2008 in the towns under observation. Significantly higher is the share of this type of dwellings for the category of towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 (19.5 % in 2007 and 21.3 % in 2008), in the category of towns populated between 10,000 and 49,999 (18.6 % in 2007 and 17.6 % in 2008) and in Ústí nad Labem (15.9 % in 2007 and 20.8 % in 2008).

The share of the municipal dwellings with contractual rent was 9.5 % in 2007 and 10.8 % in 2008 in the towns under observation. The highest share of such dwellings was in Pilsen, particularly 26.6 % in 2007 and 44.1 % in 2008.

Diagram 10

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 10

Diagram 11

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 11

Unilateral raise of rentals on the basis of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals from a flat and on the amendment of the Statute No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code, as last amended where the lessor is entitled to increase the rent once a year as of January 1st, 2007 and, after that, always as per January 1st or later:

Chart 4, The share of dwellings owned by municipalities (for that the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. shall apply), for which the system of the unilateral increase of rent was used in 2008, and Diagram 12, Respondents as per their response to the question whether they applied the maximum increase of rentals in 2008, indicate the attitude of the respondents to the unilateral increase of rent in 2008.

Chart 4 The share of dwellings owned by municipalities (for that the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. shall apply), for which the system of the unilateral increase of rent was used in 2008

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Town/city The share of dwellings owned by municipalities, for which the system of the unilateral increase of rent was used in 2008
0 - 24 % 25 - 49 % 50 - 74 % 75 - 99 % 100 %
Number of respondents Number of respondents Number of respondents Number of respondents Number of respondents
Prague 0 0 1 9 7
Brno 1 0 0 9 9
Ostrava 1 1 1 2 9
Ústí nad Labem 1 0 0 0 3
Pilsen 0 0 0 0 1
Other cities/towns populated 50,000 and above 4 0 4 2 7
Other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 2 2 3 3 10
Other towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 1 3 1 0 7
Total 10 6 10 25 53
Share 9,62 % 5,77 % 9,62 % 24,04 % 50,96 %

Note:

Prague - two respondents did not specify any answer.
Brno - three respondents did not specify any answer.
Ostrava - one respondent (the City Council) did not specify any answer, two respondents do not have any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. would apply.
Pilsen City - data for the whole city as delivered by the City Council of Pilsen.
Cities/towns populated 50,000 and above - three respondents did not unilaterally increase the rent in municipal dwellings in 2008.
Towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 - one respondent did not unilaterally increase the rent in municipal dwellings in 2008.

The table shows that in 2008 a half of the respondents unilaterally increased the rent in all municipal dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. applied. In total, four respondents who own dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. applied, did not utilise the contingency to unilaterally increase the rent in 2008, i.e. Karlovy Vary, Děčín, Teplice, and Příbram.

Diagram 12

Data for all cities/towns or city/town districts.

Diagram 12

Note:

Ostrava City - three respondents do not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals would apply; therefore they have not been included in the evaluation of this range of questions.

Pilsen City - data for the whole City provided by the City Council of Pilsen.

From the diagram follows that the majority of respondents (72 %) utilised the maximum increase of the rent in all localities in 2008. Totally 5 % of respondents used the maximum increase of rent, however, not in all localities. Further 13 % of respondents did not use the maximum increase of rent (including 4 % of respondents who did not increase the rent in municipal dwellings in 2008).

The highest share of respondents who did not use the maximum possible increase of rent in 2008 was in Brno, particularly 32 % of the respondents. The highest share (16 %) of respondents who used the maximum increase of rent only in selected municipal dwellings was in Prague.

The interest of the cities/towns in the unilateral increase of the rent in 2009 is documented by the Diagram 13, Unilateral raise of rentals in 2009. From the diagram follows that in 2009 as much as 91 % of respondents used the contingency of the unilateral raise of the rentals in the municipal dwellings. Totally 1 % of the respondents did not specify any answer to this question and only 8 % of the respondents (City District Brno - Central District, City District Brno - Medlánky, City District Ústí nad Labem - Severní Terasa, the towns Karlovy Vary, Děčín, Teplice, Příbram, Kyjov, and Kdyně) did not raise the rentals unilaterally in the municipal dwellings in 2009.

Most of the city/town councils (73 %) raised the rentals as early as in the 1st quarter, particularly as per January 1st, 2009 - see the Diagram 14, Respondents by the term of the unilateral raise of rentals in 2009.

Diagram 13

Data for all cities/towns or city/town districts.

Diagram 13

Note:

Pilsen City - data for the whole City provided by the City Council of Pilsen.

Ostrava City - two respondents do not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals would apply, therefore they have not been included in the evaluation of this range of questions.

Diagram 14

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 14

Note:

Prague City - four respondents did not answer this question.
Brno City - the City Council replies this issue is in power of city districts. Two respondents will not unilaterally raise the rentals in the municipal dwellings in 2009.
Ostrava City - two respondents do not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals would apply, therefore they have not been included in the evaluation of this range of questions. The Ostrava City Council refer to city districts. One respondent did not respond to this question.
Ústí nad Labem - one respondent will not unilaterally raise the rentals in the municipal dwellings in 2009.
Pilsen City - data for the whole City provided by the City Council of Pilsen.
Towns populated 50,000 and above - three respondents will not unilaterally raise rentals in the municipal dwellings in 2009.
Towns populated between 10,000 and 49,999 - two respondents will not unilaterally raise rentals in the municipal dwellings in 2009, two respondents did not answer this question.
Towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 - one respondent will not unilaterally raise rentals in the municipal dwellings in 2009, two respondents did not answer this question.

For a standard dwelling after the unilateral raise in 2008, the rental charges varied within the range from 12.37 CZK/m2 in the town Most to 70.00 CZK/m2 referred to in the City District Prague 4 and, in 2009, they varied between 13.00 CZK/m2 in the town Příbram and 95.46 CZK/m2 as specified by the City District Prague 7. For lower quality dwellings the rentals after the unilateral raise in 2008 reached the levels between 7.89 CZK/m2 in the town Teplice and 54.82 CZK/m2 as referred by the City District Prague - Řepy and, in 2009, they varied between 7.89 CZK/m2 in the town Teplice and 76.53 CZK/m2 specified by the City Council of the Capital Prague.

From the comparison of the rentals after the unilateral raise of 2009 and of the rentals in dwellings built with a state subsidy and with contractual rentals may be deduced that the highest dispersion of values, between the minimum and maximum amount of the rent in individual groups of towns/town districts/city districts, is recorded for the contractual rentals.

From the knowledge and comments of respondents to the issue of the unilateral raise of rentals may be collectively stated:

  • The basic legal criteria for determining of rentals in special purpose dwellings, and in dwellings built with the state subsidy after 1993, still have not been stipulated; thus different rentals in such houses occur where new tenants, subject to new contracts, have their rentals amounting to those determined in accordance with the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. and the “old” tenants have their rentals preserved since 2002;
  • Still absent is the so-called fictitious delivery of advice notes on the raise of rentals; this has to be delivered by way of personal delivery, even to each spouse of a married couple individually;
  • From the controlled rentals repairs, or even modernizations, of dwellings and of houses cannot be performed; towns can cover such investments from other sources but such an alternative is not available to private owners;
  • From the rentals, increased by the maximum increment, individual houses are provided reductions respecting a technical status of a house (i.e. for example a reduction if a house has an original roof, windows, thermally non-insulated facade etc.);
  • The controlled rentals release is too slow and does not correspond to the housing market and rentals.

In most cases, towns manage their municipal housing stock through one or more specialized private businesses, hired by the municipality, entitled to a consideration for the management. In 2007, such type of care-taking was with 50.6 % of the total of municipal dwellings, while in 2008, 49.1 %.

The average monthly costs of the management of a municipal dwelling through a caretaker were of CZK 210.14 per dwelling/month in 2007, while of CZK 208.66 in 2008. The average costs for dwellings maintained directly by one of the Municipality’s departments were of CZK 136.81 per dwelling/month in 2007, while of CZK 167.23 in 2008. The mean costs of the management of the municipal dwellings slightly decreased as for the management of the municipal dwellings by means of a caretaker in 2008, as compared to 2007. The mean costs for the management of the municipal dwellings, where the towns carried out the management through a respective department, increased in 2008, as compared to 2007. At the same time, from the given data follows that if a town manages its dwellings by its own, through a respective department, is cheaper than the provision of the municipal dwellings management through a caretaker.

The average monthly costs of the management of municipal dwellings increased in 2008, compared to 2007, the same as the average income from rentals of municipal dwellings in 2008, compared to 2007. The average monthly management and maintenance costs of a municipal dwelling were CZK 1,629 in 2007, while CZK 1,888 were in question in 2008; the average monthly income from rentals of municipal dwellings was CZK 2,145 in 2007, while the amount CZK 2,765 was in question in 2008. The average costs of management and maintenance of municipal dwellings was lower than the average incomes from the rentals of municipal dwellings in both 2007 and 2008, whereas the difference between these two amounts increased in 2008, compared to 2007.

Diagram 15, Comparison of respondents by their responses to the question whether the incomes from rentals cover the maintenance costs of the municipal housing stock so as deterioration of its technical status would not occur, show the evaluation of the responses of individual respondents to this question.

Diagram 15

Data for all cities/towns or city/town districts.

Diagram 15

Note:

Pilsen - the Municipality Council of Pilsen did not provide a reply to this question for the whole city.

Selected facts from the additional part of the questionnaire

The issue of letting municipal dwellings and of letting municipal dwellings to selected groups of residents:

  • Of all the 112 addressed respondents 79, i.e. 70.5 %, keep records of applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings, 32 of them, i.e. 28.6 %, do not keep records of applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings and one respondent, i.e. 0.9 %, did not specify any reply to this question.
  • Of all the 112 addressed respondents 65, i.e. 58.0 %, keep records of applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents, 46, i.e. 41.1 %, do not keep records of applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents and one respondent, i.e. 0.9 %, did not specify any reply to this question.
  • From the total number of 65 respondents who keep records of the applications on the tenancy of the municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents 16, i.e. 24.6 %, keep these records within overall records, 44 of them, i.e. 67.7 %, keep these records separately, three, i.e. 4.6 %, keep these records both within the overall records as well as separately, and two respondents, i.e. 3.1 % (other towns populated 50,000 and above), did not specify whether they kept the records of the applications for the tenancy of the municipal dwellings for the selected groups of residents either within the overall records or separately.
  • 48 respondents, i.e. 42.9 %, keep the both above-specified records of the applications for the tenancy and 15 respondents, i.e. 13.4 %, do not keep any of the above-specified records of applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling.
  • Individual respondents that keep records of the applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling for selected groups of residents keep them most often for the seniors, furthermore for disabled, persons with low incomes, unwed mothers, other selected groups (the respondents refer to, for example, applicants for asylum; alternate dwellings after divorce; tenants that vacated a present dwelling due to health reasons, following after allocation of another dwelling of a same size, but in a lower storey; persons in need of a day care; children from a children's home or leaving foster care; young people aged up to 35 - the so-called starting flats; overall socially deprived people), furthermore for public service professions (referred to are teachers, municipal police, National police, health care, fire brigade, employees of a city/town district and of statutory organizations) and families with children.
  • The per cent share of the overall recorded applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling including the municipal dwelling for the selected groups of residents, for all respondents in total, was 27.1 % in 2007, while in 2008 it was 27.3 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings. In 2007 the per cent share of the overall recorded applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling for the selected groups of residents, for all respondents in total, was 7.3 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings, while in 2008 it was 8.1 % of the total number of municipal dwellings. The total of the recorded applications for the tenancy of the municipal dwelling for the selected groups of residents amounted to 27.1 % of the total number of all recorded applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling in 2007 and in 2008 it was 30.1 % from the total number of all recorded applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling.
  • The percentage of all the registered applications for municipal dwellings in 2007 and 2008 in all the categories of towns and cities, as related to total numbers of municipal dwellings, and such percentage in total, is shown in Diagram 16, Share of all registered applications for municipal dwellings as related to total numbers of municipal dwellings, 2007 and 2008.
  • The percentage of all the registered applications for municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents in 2007 and 2008 in all the categories of cities and towns, as related to total numbers of all dwellings, and such percentage in total, is shown in Diagram 17, Share of all registered applications for municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents as related to all registered applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings - 2007 and 2008.

Diagram 16

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 16

Note:

Figures of Prague, Brno, Ostrava, and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected city districts.

Diagram 17

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 17

Note:

Figures of Prague, Brno, Ostrava and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected city districts.

  • Four respondents (the City District Brno - Jundrov, the towns Olomouc, Česká Lípa, and Cheb) specified they provided compensation money in the event the tenants returned a vacant flat.
  • Ways to decrease the numbers of debtors and the amounts of debts in rentals and services, in a comprehensive summary for all the respondents, are shown in Diagram 18, Methods to decrease the numbers of debtors and the amounts of debts in rentals and services in towns and cities under observation. From the diagram follows that the most utilised methods to decrease the numbers of debtors and of the debts in rentals and services are payment time-tables, termination of tenancy through notices to quit and, furthermore, conclusion of new contracts for lease for a determinate period of time.

Diagram 18

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 18

As 2010 will be declared the “European year of poverty and social exclusion abatement” and that this topic will include the issues of dwelling, i.e. exclusion from dwelling and homeless status, the question was newly included this year whether municipalities have elaborated (or have been preparing) a document attempting to solve the described issue. From the 112 addressed respondents only 12 specified that the above mentioned document had been prepared (City District Prague 7, the City Council of Brno, the cities/towns Olomouc and Chomutov) or had already existed (the City Council of Ostrava, the towns Most, Karviná, Protějov, Přerov, Jablonec nad Nisou, Písek, and Český Krumlov).

The issues of municipal housing have been monitored through questionnaire surveys since 2000, then exploring data of 1998 and 1999. The 2001 survey explored data of 1999 and 2000, the 2002 survey did so for 2000 and 2001, in 2003 the situation in the years 2001 and 2002 was mapped, the 2004 survey pursued the development in the years 2002 and 2003, in 2005 the survey was focused on 2003 and 2004, in 2006 the investigation was focused to the years 2004 and 2005, in 2007 the investigation pursued the years 2005 and 2006, the last year's research mapped the years 2006 and 2007 and the this year's investigation the years 2007 and 2008. For the assignor of the task - the MinRD’s Housing Policy Department - such research is one of the ways to collect up-to-date information on municipal housing, for the Czech Statistic Office does not routinely record such data.

The research of the developments in the privatisation of the municipal housing stock offers the comparison of the dynamics of this process between its beginnings in 1991 and today, giving estimations of its prospects in future years. From the this year's research (i.e. for 2008) followed that most respondents expected the termination of the process of the municipal dwellings privatisation in 2010 and 2011. The most distant dates of the privatisation finalization mentioned in this year’s research were 2015 and 2023 (this terms includes the privatisation of the dwellings that were constructed on the basis of subsidies provided between 2000 and 2003 where the municipalities and tenants participated in the construction of the dwellings; the subsidy included, among others, the condition that the municipality must not sell these dwelling within the period of 20 years). This year the most distant term of the expected termination of the privatisation, the year 2015, has thus been shifted as far as to 2023.

The printed version of the final report of the 2009 questionnaire survey is available at the Housing Policy Department of the MinRD and at the Brno Institute for Spatial Development. A brief report from the research “Results of the 2009 Questionnaire Survey in the Developments of Selected Towns’ Municipal Housing Stock” is available on the Institute’s web site www.uur.cz under the phrases “územní rozvoj” (spatial development) and “bytová politika” (housing policy).

Following the requirements of the MinRD, the survey will be repeated at the beginning of 2010. Together with the task assignor, the questions in the questionnaire and the scope of addressed respondents will be updated.

The task “Monitoring of Municipal Housing”, comprehensively analysing the municipal housing stock, is an important part of the continuous activities of the Institute for Spatial Development, which means it is repeated annually on a regular basis. The results of this research are widely used by housing policy makers.

The assignor of the task - the Housing Policy Department of the Ministry for Regional Development - and the researching staff of the Institute for Spatial Development wish to thank all the respondents for their collaborative approach and the information with which they have contributed to the final report, making thus a coherent picture of the situation of the municipal housing stock in the Czech Republic.

Note

1) Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on unilateral advance of rent from a flat and on the amendment of the Statute No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code, as last amended, and the Announcement of the MinRD No. 333/2006 Coll. on the classification of municipalities in respect of size categories according to the number of inhabitants, on the territorial classification of municipalities by grouping of cadastral districts, on the height of prices per 1 m2 of floor area of dwellings, on target values of monthly rents per 1 m2 of a dwelling floor area, on a maximum increment of a monthly rent and on the procedure when searching for a maximum rent increment for a concrete flat.

TOPlist
Kontakty Mapa stránek RSS Prohlášení o přístupnosti TOPlist
Poslední aktualizace stránky 9. 1. 2012 |© Ústav územního rozvoje - Ludmila Rohrerová, 2001–2021