Česky English Deutsch Francais

Results of the Questionnaire Survey in the Developments of Selected Towns’ Municipal Housing Stock (2003, 2004)

by Jaroslav Kubečka and Helena Potůčková, of the Ministry of Regional Development

Dana Chlupová, Marie Polešáková and Ludmila Rohrerová, of the Institute for Spatial Development

In 2005, the Brno Institute for Spatial Development carried out the 6th questionnaire survey on the development of municipal housing stocks, collecting and upgrading the necessary data and information in selected towns and cities of the Czech Republic. Based on the requirements of the assignor of the research - the Housing Policy Department of the Czech Ministry of Regional Development - this year’s research has taken into consideration 4 more towns populated under 10,000: Lanškroun, Broumov, Vodňany and Zruč nad Sázavou. So, addressed was Prague plus some of its districts, the 19 statutory cities, and 34 towns - "Map of Addressed Towns". 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: the privatization 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, the related filing system of the demand for municipal dwellings, and the criteria of allowance. Other questions explored methods to decrease the numbers of rent debtors and the amounts of rent and service debts. Also scrutinized was whether indemnity is paid to those who leave their dwellings, whether the private sector participates in the financing of newly built dwellings, and whether Municipalities build dwellings unsubsidized by the state. Problems of vandalism were surveyed again, while newly added were questions about the numbers of dwellings of special purpose, about the terms of rent contracts for such dwellings, whether all such dwellings are let to handicapped people, and how many applications of the handicapped for such dwellings are registered. Also, the respondents could indicate their recommendations as to what the questionnaire should be aimed at next year.

In active participation of the responding municipalities, the research has surveyed a total of 282,768 dwellings, representing 7.4 % of the total of 3,827,678 dwellings of permanent inhabitation in the Czech Republic (2001 census), which approximately means 50 % of all municipal dwellings in the country.

The main objective of the research was to investigate in the actual results of the ongoing privatization of municipal dwellings, started in 1991.

Municipal housing stock privatization in selected towns

The development of the privatization, which started with the transfer of the housing stock from the State to Municipalities in 1991, is shown in Diagram 1, Development of the municipal housing stock privatization in selected towns, 1991–2004.

The Diagram indicates that 46.3 % of all the dwellings transferred to the ownership of the Municipalities were privatized before the end of 2001, 52.9 % of them before the end of 2002, 57.5 % before the end of 2003, and 62.6 % before the end of 2004.

The development of the total of municipal dwellings in the towns and cities under observation (including new constructions) between 1991 and 2004 and the supposed situation after the privatization is shown by Diagram 2, Development of the total number of municipal dwellings (including recent constructions)1991–2004 and the supposed situation after the privatization 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 municipalities in 1991.

Diagram 1

Diagram 1

Note: Data on privatization processes in Prague and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected Districts only.

Diagram 2

Diagram 2

Note to Diagram 2: Supposed figures for Prague as in 2008 (as the latest date, mentioned by the District of Prague 10), supposed figures for Brno as in 2012 (as the latest date, mentioned by the Central District), supposed figures for Ostrava as in 2009 (as the latest date, mentioned by the District of Slezská Ostrava), supposed figures for Ústí nad Labem as in 2007 (as the latest date, mentioned by the District of Střekov), supposed figures for Pilsen as in 2007 (as the latest date, mentioned by the Municipality for the whole city), supposed figures for towns populated 50,000 to 99,999 as in 2008 (as the latest date, mentioned by Hradec Králové), supposed figures for towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 as in 2010 (as the latest date, mentioned by Třinec and Uherské Hradiště), supposed figures for towns populated under 10,000 as in 2010 (as the latest date, mentioned by Lanškroun, Velká Bíteš, and Valtice).

New constructions

Of the total number of municipal dwellings constructed between 1991 and the end of 2004, 81.8 % were built before the end of 2002, 10.6 % during 2003, and 7.6 % during 2004.

Diagram 3, Municipal dwellings completed between 1991 and 31 December 2004 in towns and cities under observation shows the totals of newly constructed dwellings between 1991 and 2004, as per 1000 inhabitants, in Prague, Brno, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, Pilsen, and the 3 size categories1) of the rest of towns under observation.

Diagram 3

Diagram 3

Note: Figures approximate. Some municipalities disregard subsidized dwellings which are more than 50% co-owned by themselves.

The structure of the newly built municipal dwellings is shown in Chart 1, Structure of newly constructed municipal dwellings, completed in 2003 and 2004.

Chart 1

Municipality % of newly constructed municipal dwellings, accepted in 2003 % of newly constructed municipal dwellings, accepted in 2004
in newly constructed buildings in reconstructed buildings in newly constructed buildings in reconstructed buildings
Prague 86 14 87 13
Brno 71 29 92 8
Ostrava 85 15 100 0
Ústí nad Labem 0 100 0 100
Pilsen 89 11 95 5
Towns populated 50,000 to 99,999 95 5 66 34
Towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 65 36 85 15
Towns populated under 10,000 54 46 56 44
Average 80 20 83 17

Developments of the total of municipal dwellings between 1991 and 2004

Between 1991 and the end of 2002, the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 50.1 %. Between 1991 and the end of 2003, the decrease was of 54.5 %. Between 1991 and to the end of 2004, the decrease was of 59.4 % of the total of municipal dwellings. In the course of 2003, there was a decrease of 8.7 % as related to 2002. In the course of 2004, the decrease was of 10.8 % as related to 2003.

Estimated termination of the privatization of municipal dwellings

Most respondents have supposed to finish the privatization of municipal dwellings in 2005 and 2006, some of them 2007 and 2008. The latest of the mentioned terms were 2009 (the city of Brno and the Ostrava’s District of Slezská Ostrava), 2010 (Brno’s District of Židenice and the towns of Třinec, Uherské Hradiště, Lanškroun, Velká Bíteš and Valtice) and 2012 (the District of Central Brno). Some respondents still have not fixed their deadlines. Ten respondents have terminated the privatization, i.e. the towns of Třebíč (1998), Most (1999), Tišnov (2000), Prague’s District of Horní Počernice and Ostrava’s District of Petřkovice in 2002, the Districts of Prague 8 and 13, Ostrava’s District of Polanka nad Odrou and the town of Kyjov in 2003, and Brno’s District of Královo Pole in 2004. The privatization has reached a very advanced stage in Ústí nad Labem where 88 % dwellings have been privatized since the 1991 transfer. In towns populated 50,000 to 99,999, privatization reached 81 % municipal dwellings, in towns populated 10,000 to 49,999, 68 %. The city of Pilsen is at 61 %, the capital of Prague at 58 %, towns of under 10,000 inhabitants are at 49 %, and the city of Ostrava is at 41 % dwellings. The slowest pace of privatizion is in the city of Brno where mere 24 % municipal dwellings have been privatized so far.

Share of municipal 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 in selected towns in 1991, 2003 and 2004.

The share of municipal dwellings is gradually decreasing. In 1991, 39 % of all dwellings were municipal. In 2001, 21.3 % were municipal, in 2002, 19 %, and in 2003, 17.3 %. Finally, in 2004, 15.9 % of all dwelling in the towns under observation were municipal.

Diagram 4

Diagram 4

Note: Numbers of municipal dwellings in 1991 were compared to totals of dwellings as per the 1991 census. Numbers of municipal dwellings in 2003 and 2004 were compared to totals of dwellings as per the 2001 census.

Numbers of dwellings the Municipalities intend to keep in their ownership

The percentage of dwellings the Municipalities intend to hold in their ownership, as related to those transferred in 1991, is 22.6; while as related to the total number of municipal dwellings (including new constructions) at the end of 2004, such share is of 57.2 %.

General comments on the results of the municipal housing stock privatization

  • In most towns, there was large demand for the privatization of the housing stock, sometimes very intensively so. The cities of Prague and Pilsen is where the demand is reported the largest. It is only the city of Ostrava where indifference prevails. Unwanted is the privatization in Brno’s Districts of Nový Lískovec and Tuřany (the latter with only a few municipal dwellings), in Ostrava’s Krásné Pole and in the town of Velké Meziříčí.
  • Mostly used as technical documentation in the process of housing stock privatization is the house passport and the revision reports (such as for electricity, elevators, heating units, fire protection, and so forth). If available, the planning documentation of the building is used too.
  • Technical conditions of the house seldom make difference in the statements of the Municipalities or, if they do, privatization of buildings in worse technical conditions is preferred. Just two city Districts of Ostrava and the town of Dačice say they have been privatizing buildings in good technical conditions. Brno’s District of Židenice has reported that buildings in rather poor technical conditions are privatized but no difference is made, which seems to mean that all the housing stock is in rather poor conditions. The town of Broumov say reconstructed houses in good conditions are privatized, not distinguishing either, which means that the Municipality probably endeavours to reconstruct houses before they offer them for privatization. One District of the city of Ústí nad Labem say buildings in good technical conditions are privatized, as are those in poor technical conditions. The report of the town Svitavy says reconstructed buildings in good technical conditions are privatized, as are those in poor technical conditions, which may also indicate that both of the last respondents do not distinguish the conditions at all.
  • 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, sometimes under various limitations such as the tenant’s approval (in Písek) or, as in Jihlava, only debtors’ dwellings in privatized buildings are offered to third parties. In some places they only start contemplating such procedures.

Housing policy concepts

  • The Municipality of Prague has designed and acclaimed the Concept of the housing policy for 2004 and the oncoming period, in vigour since 24 June 2004, with unspecified duration.
  • The Municipality of Brno has designed its Housing strategy. The document was acclaimed in 2001 to be valid till 2011.
  • The Municipality of Ostrava is currently designing the Concept of the housing policy.
  • The Districts of Ústí nad Labem have not designed any concept of the housing policy yet, nor is any document of such kind being prepared.
  • The Municipality of Pilsen has designed the Amendment and new directions of the housing policy, in force since 1999, of unspecified validity.
  • Of other towns and cities, 41 % have designed and acclaimed their housing concepts or other documents, independent or as parts of other documents (Olomouc, Hradec Králové, Pardubice, Havířov, Zlín, Kladno, Karviná, Děčín, Chomutov, Jablonec nad Nisou, Cheb, Svitavy, Český Krumlov, Znojmo, Písek, Přerov, Zruč nad Sázavou, Polička, Holice, Brtnice). Twelve percent are working on their documents (České Budějovice, Karlovy Vary, Česká Lípa, Tábor, Uherské Hradiště, Lanškroun), 35 % are not preparing any document at all (Opava, Frýdek-Místek, Teplice, Jihlava, Třebíč, Třinec, Příbram, Otrokovice, Kyjov, Velké Meziříčí, Broumov, Tišnov, Dačice, Vodňany, Kdyně, Velká Bíteš, Valtice), while 10 % respondents have not answered the question (Liberec, Prostějov, Mladá Boleslav, Kroměříž, Hodonín). The city of Most, representing the remaining 2 %, has transferred a major part of the housing stock to a corporation operating according to annual business plans, while the Municipality’s focus is on the support to those who build houses on their own (plot sales, network construction).

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 3 % of the total number of municipal dwellings. Such situation may be considered typical for the whole country.

  • The average number of households having exchanged their municipal apartments in 2003 was 1.6 % of the total of municipal dwellings, while in 2004, 1.4 %.
  • The average number of rent transfers of municipal flats was 2.1 % of the total of municipal dwellings in 2003, while in 2004, 1.9 %.
  • The average number of newly „allowed“ municipal apartments in new, vacant, or cleared dwellings was 2.5 % of the total of municipal dwellings in 2003, while in 2004, 2.6 %.
  • The average of legally evicted apartments as by 31 December 2003 was 0.9 % of the total of municipal dwellings, while as by 31 December 2004, 1.0 %.
  • The average number of legal notices to quit the apartment was 1.4 % of the total of municipal dwellings in 2003, while in 2004, 1.2 %. Legal executions due to debts in rentals and/or services were at mere tenths of percent (0.4 to 0.6) of the total number of municipal dwellings.

The development of the numbers of debtors in rentals and/or services between 1999 and 2004 is shown in Diagram 5, Share of debtors in rentals and/or services in relation to the total of municipal dwellings in selected towns, on 31 December of respective years, 1999–2004. The Diagram indicates that the numbers of debtors oscillate between 20 and 30 % (same as in 2003). It is only towns of under 10,000 inhabitants where the average rate of debtors is some 10 %.2)

A rather significant decrease in the number of debtors was with towns populated 50,000 to 99,999 (by some 7 %).

Generally, though, the smaller is the town, the lower seems to be the percentage of debtors.

In absolute figures, the numbers of debtors tend to gradually decrease.

The share of debtors as related to the total numbers of municipal apartments in towns and cities under observation, as by 31 December 2003, is shown in Diagram 6, Share of debtors in rentals and/or services in municipal dwellings as related to the total of dwellings in selected towns, on 31 December 2003. Such share as by 31 December 2004 is shown in Diagram 7, Share of debtors in rentals and/or services in municipal dwellings as related to the total of dwellings in selected towns, on 31 December 2004.

Diagram 5

Diagram 5

Note: Data on debtors in Prague and Brno apply to selected Districts only. Data on debtors in Ostrava apply to the whole of the city except those registered at the Municipal Office.

Diagram 6

Diagram 6

Diagram 7

Diagram 7

Note: Data on total dwellings, total municipal dwellings, and debtors in Prague, Brno and Ostrava apply to selected districts only. Data on total dwellings as per the census of 1 March 2001.

The question of the numbers of debtors (in rentals and/or services) who owed payments for the months of November and December of respective years was answered by a few respondents only, as the most frequent system of evidence cannot easily identify short-term debts in specific months. The data in following Chart 2, Share of debtors in November and December of respective years, are therefore rather approximate. Not the arithmetic average but the median is shown here, the latter being more explanatory with the small batch of respondents.

Chart 2

Municipality 2003 2004
Min Max Median Min Max Median
Prague (selected city Districts) 4,8 % 53,3 % 28,9 % 1,4 % 61,8 % 27,5 %
Brno (selected city Districts) 0,0 % 75,0 % 42,3 % 4,9 % 100,0 % 42,0 %
Ostrava (selected city Districts) 0,0 % 100,0 % 31,7 % 0,0 % 100,0 % 30,3 %
Ústí nad Labem (selected city Districts) 1,5 % 52,5 % 10,8 % 0,9 % 44,9 % 7,8 %
Pilsen (selected city Districts) 0,0 % 49,1 % 24,5 % 3,3 % 8,4 % 5,9 %
Towns populated 50,000 to 99,999 3,6 % 56,2 % 27,3 % 4,2 % 45,8 % 22,2 %
Towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 0,0 % 81,5 % 24,1 % 2,7 % 78,6 % 27,9 %
Towns populated under 10,000 2,7 % 73,9 % 34,4 % 11,1 % 62,5 % 29,4 %

The average net rental per dwelling in 2003 was of CZK 1,611 a month, while in 2004, CZK 1,653 a month.

The average monthly payment for services per dwelling in 2003 was of CZK 1,494, while in 2004, CZK 1,522.

So, the average monthly payment for the use of a municipal apartment was of CZK 3,105 in 2003, while in 2004, of CZK 3,175.

Thus the 2004 payments for both the net rental and the services were slightly higher than those of 2003.

The average debt on the net rental of a municipal apartment was of CZK 2,355 as by 31 December 2003, while of CZK 2,858 as by 31 December 2004.

The average debt on services in a municipal apartment was of CZK 2,382 as by 31 December 2003, while of CZK 2,648 as by 31 December 2004.

So, the average debt on the use of a municipal apartment was of CZK 4,737 as by 31 December 2003, while of CZK 5,506 as by 31 December 2004.

Thus the 2004 debts for both the net rental and services were higher than those of 2003. Such increase may partly be caused by the decrease in the number of municipal dwellings due to the privatization of the housing stock.

The percentages of municipal dwellings for which the maximum basic rent (as determined by the Ministry of Finance), the objectively controlled rent, or the contractual rent are applied, is shown in Diagrams 8, Municipal dwellings by types of applied rental, 2003, and 9, Municipal dwellings by types of applied rental, 2004.

The Diagrams indicate that the shares of objectively controlled and contractual rents keep increasing, while the share of the maximum basic monthly rent is decreasing.

The share of the dwellings with the maximum basic monthly rent in the towns under observation was 91.5 % in 2003 and 90.3 % in 2004.

The share of the objectively controlled rent was 3.0 % in 2003 and 3.3 % in 2004. Significantly higher is the share of this type for towns populated under 10,000: 16.5 % in 2003 and 18.0 % in 2004. However, the share of the objectively controlled rent was above average in Brno (5.4 % in 2003 and 5.9 % in 2004) and Ostrava too (4.3 % in 2003 and 5.0 % in 2004) and in the category of towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 (4.0 % in 2003 and 4.6 % in 2004).

The share of the contractual rent was 5.5 % in 2003 and 6.5 % in 2004. Most contractually rented flats are found in Ostrava (11.0 % in 2003 and 13.2 % in 2004), in towns of 50,000 to 99,999 inhabitants (11.1 % in 2003 and 11.3 % in 2004) and in towns under 10,000 (9.0 % in 2003 and 9.8 % in 2004).

Diagram 8

Diagram 8

Diagram 9

Diagram 9

In most cases, Municipalities administer their housing stock through one or more specialized private businesses. If our respondent is responsible for the whole of a city, several caretakers are usually mentioned, while if the respondent is a city District, one private business as caretaker is usually mentioned. In 2003, such type of caretaking was with 62.5 % of the total of municipal dwellings, while in 2004, 60.1 %.

The average monthly costs of the maintenance of a municipal dwelling through a caretaker were of CZK 179 in 2003, while of CZK 198 in 2004. The average costs for dwellings maintained directly by one of the Municipality’s departments were of CZK 133 in 2003, while of CZK 141 in 2004. The maintenance costs are rising. It is much cheaper for the Municipality itself to be the caretaker of municipal dwellings.

Both the average administration costs and the Municipalities’ incomes through rents have decreased, which is probably due to the ongoing process of privatization. (The average monthly costs of the Municipality were of CZK 1,777 an apartment in 2003, while of CZK 1,712 in 2004. The average monthly income was of CZK 1,777 in 2003, while of CZK 1,718 in 2004.) In 2003, the costs of administration were equal to the income through rents, while in 2004, the income was a little bit higher. This may suggest that Municipalities are getting rid of the housing stock in poor conditions. Some respondents say, though, that the mentioned income is just theoretical, disregarding the debts.

Diagrams 10a and 10b, Comparison of respondents as for the coverage of maintenance costs through rentals shows the response to the question whether the income is sufficient for caretakers to prevent the buildings from deteriorating.

Diagram 10a

Diagram 
10a

Diagram 10b

Diagram 
10b

Selected facts from the additional part of the questionnaire

  • Of all the 118 respondents, only 12 (i.e. 10 %) do not file applications for the allowance of municipal apartments. These are four Districts in the cities of Brno, Ostrava and Ústí nad Labem, and the Municipalities of Prague, Teplice, Kladno, Hradec Králové, Tábor, Příbram, Lanškroun and Dačice. (Of these, two respondents own very few apartments: Tuřany [Brno] 2 and Stará Bělá [Ostrava] 22.) The other respondents keep their records, some of them filing certain types of apartments only, such as those of special purpose, those in buildings of special purpose, or those serving to public benefit.
  • The percentage of registered applications for municipal dwellings in 2003 and 2004 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 11, Share of registered applications for municipal dwellings as related to total numbers of municipal dwellings, 2003 and 2004.
  • The percentage of registered applications for municipal dwellings in 2003 and 2004 in all the categories of towns and cities, as related to total numbers of all dwellings (as per the 2001 census), and such percentage in total, is shown in Diagram 12, Share of registered applications for municipal dwellings as related to total numbers of all dwellings in towns and cities under observation, 2003 and 2004.

Diagram 11

Diagram 
11

Note: Figures of Prague, Ostrava and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected city Districts.

Diagram 12

Diagram 
12

Note: Figures of Prague, Ostrava and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected city Districts.

  • Two Municipalities (Česká Lípa, Cheb) say they offer remuneration to tenants who return a vacant flat to the Municipality, aiming thus at a more efficient use of the housing stock.
  • 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 13, Methods to decrease the numbers of debtors and the amounts of debts in rentals and services in towns and cities under observation.

Diagram 13

Diagram 
13

Problems with vandalism are mainly related to:

  • graffiti (with possible protection in anti-graffiti facade paints, panelling, guard agents),
  • destruction of common space such as broken doors, removed steel or aluminium elements, broken windows, devastated lifts, bell plates and bells, damaged plasters,
  • theft of sensors, fire hoses and fire protection equipment, light bulbs, light covers, cast-iron sewer covers and any metals available, gutters and roofing (with possible protection in non-anonymous purchase at salvage points),
  • damage from forcible entry,
  • damage of thermal insulation lamellas, damaged facades after satellite installations,
  • destruction of container sheds, greenery, playgrounds, waste baskets, container stands, benches, street lights, traffic signs.

In relation to vandalism, our respondents have also mentioned that they missed cycling paths, places for children to run around, and zones to walk dogs. In some places the Municipalities took out vandalism insurance or asked for more intense patrolling by the municipal police.

The maximum share of dwellings of special purposes is in towns of 50,000 to 99,999 inhabitants (7.6 %) and in towns populated under 10,000 (7.7 %). In other categories, such share is between 0.5 and 2.9 %.

The share of applications of the handicapped for apartments of special purpose, as related to the total of such dwellings, is about 50 %. In towns populated 10,000 to 49,999, however, such share is reaching 150 %.

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 and so on, this year’s survey focusing on 2003 and 2004. For the assignor of the task - the Ministry for Regional Development’s Department of housing policy - such research is one of the ways to collect up-to-date information on municipal housing, for the Czech Statistic Office does not record such data.

The research of the developments in the privatization 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. The results of this year’s research, i.e. for 2004, show again that the termination of the process of the municipal housing stock privatization must be postponed. The most remote dates mentioned in this year’s research were 2010 and 2012.

The printed version of the final report of the 2005 questionnaire survey is available at the Housing Policy Department of the Ministry of Regional Development and at the Brno Institute for Spatial Development. Brief results of the research of the developments in municipal housing stocks in 2003 and 2004 are available on the Institute’s web site, www.uur.cz.

Following the requirements of the Ministry of Regional Development, the survey will be repeated at the beginning of 2006 with the questionnaire updated according to the assignor’s comments.

The task of Monitoring Municipal Housing, comprehensively analysing the municipal housing stock, is an important part of the continuous activities of the Institute for Spatial Development. The results of the annually repeated research are widely used by housing policy makers.

The assignor of the task - the Housing Policy Department of the Ministry of 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.

Notes

  • 1) By the 30/1995 Regulation of the Ministry of Finance, amending the 176/1993 Regulation on Rentals.
  • 2) There was a significantly higher percentage of debtors (93 %) in Ústí nad Labem. In 2004, the number of debtors in the Districts under observation strongly increased due to the decrease of the number of dwellings in the Central District. Namely, the municipal housing stock was privatized here, but the number of debtors was decreasing at a much slower pace. (Note: Many apartments, including those privatized, are burdened with one or more claims after previous tenants. Such fact may importantly distort the actual percentage of debtors as related to the total number of municipal dwellings. The Central District declares to own 410 municipal flats on 31 December 2004 with 1,106 debtors including old claims. Excluding the old claims, there were 103 debtors in 2004, representing 25.1 %. Data on debtors in Ústí nad Labem are not shown in Diagrams 5, 6 and 7. Mentioning 103 debtors would not correspond to other respondents, who give data with old claims, nor be comparable to Ústí’s data of previous years. On the other hand, mentioning 1,106 would incorrectly suggest that the number of debtors in Ústí nad Labem is rising.)
TOPlist
Kontakty Mapa stránek RSS Prohlášení o přístupnosti TOPlist
Poslední aktualizace stránky 9. 1. 2012 |© Ústav územního rozvoje , 2001–2021