Česky English Deutsch Francais

Results of the 2010 and 2011 Questionnaire Survey in the Developments of Selected Towns’ Municipal Housing Stock

For the Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic, Dwelling Policy Dept.: Blanka Burdová

For the Institute for Spatial Development: Dana Chlupová, Marie Polešáková, Ludmila Rohrerová

In 2012, the Institute for Spatial Development carried out the 13th 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 of the Czech Republic (hereafter the “MinRD CR”). Based on the agreement with the assignor of the research - the Dwelling Policy Department of the MinRD CR - the this year’s research has taken into consideration the same sample of towns as in 2011. So, addressed was the Capital Prague including its selected districts, the 23 statutory cities (status as per the date of the task submission), and 30 other towns - "Map of Addressed Towns“. For this purpose the towns have been classified, as to size, according to the Message of the MinRD No. 180/2009 Coll.1) applicable for the years 2010 to 2012. As in previous years, the questionnaire survey was aimed at the exploration of 5 kinds of data: 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 was 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 municipalities offered indemnity to those who left their dwellings and whether the private sector participated in the financing of newly built dwellings in 2011. Also, the respondents were provided space here to react.

The responding municipalities/city/town districts, addressed by the research this year, have maintained a total of 157,891 municipality dwellings, representing 3.3 % of the total of 4,756,672 dwellings according to the 2011 census, 3.9 % of the total of 4,104,735 occupied dwellings according to the 2011 census, however, at the same time, approximately 60 % of all the total of 261,297 municipal dwellings in the Czech Republic (CzR) (status as per December 31st, 2011).

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 some respondents have not 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 2011.

Municipal housing stock privatisation in selected cities and towns

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 2011, is shown in Diagram 1, Development of the municipal housing stock privatisation in the cities/towns under observation, 1991 to 2011.

The Diagram indicates that of all the dwellings transferred to the ownership of the Municipalities in 1991, at an average 47.1 % were privatised before the end of 2001, 51.9 % of them before the end of 2002, 55.8 % before the end of 2003, 60.1 % before the end of 2004, 63.3 % before the end of 2005, 67.0 % before the end of 2006, 70.6 % before the end of 2007, before the end of 2008 privatized were 72.5 %, before the end of 2009 privatized were 75.0 %, before the end of 2010 privatized were 78.3 % of these dwellings, and 79.8 % were in question before the end of 2011.

The development of the total of municipal dwellings in the cities and towns under observation (including new constructions) between 1991 and 2011 and the supposed situation after the privatisation of the municipal housing stock is shown by Diagram 2, Total number of municipal dwellings in cities/towns under observation (including new constructions) between 1991 and 2011 and supposed situation after the finalization of 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 8 respondents in Prague;
in Brno data provided by the City Council for the whole city were assessed;
in Ostrava data from 12 respondents were assessed;
for Ústí nad Labem data were assessed from 4 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 9 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 10 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 District of Prague 5), supposed figures for Brno as in 2016 (as the latest date, mentioned by Brno - Bystrc District), supposed figures for Ostrava as in 2020 (as the latest date, mentioned by the District of Ostrava - Jih), supposed figures for Ústí nad Labem is not specified (the District Severní Terasa has finished the privatisation in 2008), the City Council of Pilsen indicates, for the whole city, that the privatization in compliance with the Statute No. 72/1994 Coll. was finalized in 2009, supposed figures for towns populated 50,000 and above as in 2025 (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 the town Velká Bíteš).

The data in the diagram have been acquired:
in Prague - assessment of data from 8 respondents;
in Brno - assessment of data for the whole city as provided by the City Council;
in Ostrava - assessment of data from 12 respondents;
in Ústí nad Labem - assessment of data from 4 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 9 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 10 respondents.

New constructions

Of the total number of municipal dwellings constructed between 1991 and the end of 2011, 59.1 % were built between 1991 and the end of 2002, 10.2 % during 2003, 7.5 % during 2004, 10.0 % during 2005, 2.9 % during 2006, 6.1 % during 2007, 1.0 % in the course of 2008, 1.5 % during 2009, 1.0 % in the course of 2010, and 0.9 % in the course of 2011.

The structure of the municipality dwellings newly constructed in 2010 and in 2011 may be seen in Chart 1, Structure of newly constructed municipality dwellings inspected in 2010 and in 2011.

Chart 1 Structure of newly constructed municipality dwellings inspected in 2010 and in 2011

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

City/town Per cent share of newly constructed municipality dwellings inspected in 2010 Per cent share of newly constructed municipality dwellings inspected in 2011
that were constructed in new buildings that were established by changes of finished structures that were constructed in new buildings that were established by changes of finished structures
Prague 0,0 100,0 74,7 25,3
Brno - City Council for the whole city 45,9 54,1 0,0 100,0
Ostrava x x 91,7 8,3
Ústí nad Labem x x x x
Pilsen - City Council for the whole city x x x x
Other cities/towns populated 50,000 and above 96,0 4,0 0,0 100,0
Other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 0,0 100,0 0,0 100,0
Other towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 x x 0,0 100,0
Mean value 57,1 42,9 60,0 40,0

Data in Chart 1 were collected:
in Prague - assessment of data from 8 respondents;
in Brno - assessment of data for the whole city as provided by the City Council;
in Ostrava - assessment of data from 12 respondents;
in Ústí nad Labem - assessment of data from 4 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 9 addressed respondents;
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 14 addressed respondents;
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 10 addressed respondents.

Developments of the total of municipal dwellings between 1991 and 2011

Between 1991 and the end of 2001, the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 45.0 %, between 1991 and the end of 2002, the decrease was of 49.5 %, between 1991 and the end of 2003, the decrease was of 53.0 %, between 1991 and the end of 2004 the decrease reached 56.9 %, between 1991 and the end of 2005 the decrease was 59.7 %, from 1991 to the end of 2006 the decrease reached 63.4 %, between 1991 and the end of 2007 the decrease amounted to 66.7 %, while the period between 1991 and the end of 2008 saw the 68.6 % decrease, and between 1991 and 2009 the decrease amounted to 71.0 %, between 1991 and 2010 the decrease was 74.3 %, while, finally, the period between 1991 and 2011 saw the decrease by 75.8 % of the total number of municipal dwellings. In the course of 2002, the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 8.2 %, as related to their number in 2001, in the course of 2003, there was a decrease of 6.9 %, as related to 2002, in the course of 2004, the decrease was 8.4 % as related to 2003, during 2005 the decrease of the total number of municipality dwellings was 6.5 %, as related to 2004, the year 2006 saw the 9.0 % decrease in relation to the number in 2005, in the course of 2007 the total number of the municipal dwellings decreased by 9.1 %, as related to 2006, in 2008 the decrease of the total number of the municipal dwellings was 5.6 %, as related to their number in 2007, in the course of 2009 the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 7.8 %, as related to 2008, during 2010 the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 11.3 %, as compared to their total number in 2009, and in the course of 2011 the total number of municipal dwellings saw the 6.0 % decrease, as compared to 2010.

Estimated completion of the privatisation of municipal dwellings

Most respondents have supposed to finish the privatisation of municipal dwellings in 2012, 2013, and in 2014. Other terms of the privatization completion specified by the respondents are the years 2015 (City District Prague 5, Brno - Židenice, the District of Ostrava - Slezská Ostrava, and the towns Jablonec nad Nisou, Cheb, Lanškroun, and Velká Bíteš), 2016 (City District Brno - Bystrc, and the town Svitavy), 2018 (the town Frýdek-Místek), 2020 (City District Ostrava - Jih), 2021 (the town Znojmo), 2023 (the town Kyjov), and 2025 (the city Zlín). In some towns/cities another privatization wave was started, i.e. the privatization of the dwellings built on the basis of subsidies by the MinRD of the Czech Rep. and by National Fund for Development of Dwelling from 2000 to 2002, where the municipality and the tenants participated in the construction. Among others 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.

25 respondents have already completed the privatisation, i.e. the town Teplice finished the privatisation of the municipal dwellings in 2000. In 2003 the privatisation has been finished by the District of Polanka nad Odrou in Ostrava. In 2004 the privatization of the municipal dwellings was finished in the City District Prague - Horní Počernice; in 2005 in the City District Prague 15, the City District Ostrava - Svinov, and the town Otrokovice where the dwellings are being sold within a public competition since 2006; in 2006 the privatization of municipality dwellings was finished by the City Council of the Capital Prague and the by town Velké Meziříčí; in 2007 by the town České Budějovice; in 2008 by the City District Brno - Jundrov, City District Ústí nad Labem - Severní Terasa, by the town Chomutov, Kroměříž and by the town Vodňany, and in 2009 by the city of Pilsen, which completed the privatization in compliance with Statute No. 72/1994 Coll. and will henceforth sell whole houses by way of a municipal public competition, applying the so-called envelope method, to one owner (both natural persons and legal entities), or possibly change them for lands; in 2009 also the town Polička finished the privatization of municipal dwellings, as well as the town Písek, where dwellings have been sold for market prices since 2009. In 2010 the privatization was finished by further 5 respondents (City Districts Brno - Bohunice, Brno - Komín, Brno - Líšeň, the districts Ostrava - Michálkovice, and Ostrava - Petřkovice), and in 2011 by the town Most (particularly by the town in 2009 and by the Mostecká bytová, a.s company in 2011), Karviná, and Děčín.

The privatisation has reached a highly advanced stage in Ústí nad Labem where 98.0 % of these dwellings have been privatised from the 1991 transfer to the end of 2011. In the towns populated 50,000 and above the privatisation reached 94.0 % of municipal dwellings, by then in the city of Pilsen privatized were 86.8 % of dwellings, in the capital Prague 82.0 % of dwellings were in question, in the towns populated 10,000 to 49,999, 73.1 % were privatized. In the city of Ostrava this concerned 72.8 % of dwellings, in the towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 it is 70.3 %. The slowest pace of privatisation is in the city of Brno where mere 47.0 % 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 3, Share of municipal dwellings as related to the total number of dwellings in the cities/towns under observation in 1991 and in Diagram 4, Share of municipal dwellings as related to the total number of dwellings in the cities/towns under observation in 2010 and in 2011.

The per cent share of municipal dwellings, as compared to all dwellings in the cities/towns under observation, is gradually decreasing. In 1991, 40.1 % of all dwellings were municipal. 21.8 % were in question in 2001, 20.0 % in 2002, and in 2003, 18.6 % were municipal, in 2004, 17.1 %, in 2005, 15.9 %, in 2006, 14.5 %, in 2007, 13.2 %, in 2008, 12.5 %, in 2009 in question were 11.5 %, in 2010, 10.2 %, and in 2011 only 9.6 % of all dwellings were municipal.

Diagram 3

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

Diagram 3

Note:

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

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 2001 census.

Notes to Diagrams 3 and 4:

The both diagrams summarize data from the identical number of respondents.

The data were collected from:
in Prague - assessment of data from 8 respondents;
in Brno - assessment of data for the whole city as provided by the City Council;
in Ostrava - assessment of data from 12 respondents;
in Ústí nad Labem - assessment of data from 4 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 9 addressed respondents;
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 14 addressed respondents;
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 10 addressed respondents.

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

The Municipalities intend to hold in their ownership 17.0 % 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 2011, they intend to keep 70.5 % of the dwellings (the number of dwellings the Municipalities owned as per 31 December 2011 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).

Housing policy concepts

  • By the Resolution No. 19/12 adopted by its council on June 24th, 2004, the City Council of Prague has designed and acclaimed the Concept of the housing policy for 2004 and the oncoming period, the duration of the document being unlimited, a part of this concept being a division dealing with the social dwelling;
  • The City Council of Brno has designed its Housing strategy of the Brno City. The document was acclaimed in 2001 to be valid till 2011 (updated in 2009), 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 since 1997 (last updated in 2008), which will be henceforth updated every four years, a part of this document being a division dealing with the social dwelling;
  • The City Council of Ostrava has had a drawn up document Concept of dwelling of the City of Ostrava, in 2010 the first part of the concept, Analysis of dwelling and of the housing issue, was ratified, in 2011 its second part, Solution of some selected issues of the dwelling concept (low-cost dwelling) was ratified, and the proposed period, for which the document is to be adopted, has not been specified, a part of this document is also a section concerning social dwelling;
  • In Ústí nad Labem none of the addressed four city districts has had elaborated any dwelling concept and no such document is being prepared;
  • The City Council 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 section 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 owned by the city of Pilsen - Directive No. QS 63-05, adopted in 2007 and with unlimited applicability, a part of this document being also a section dealing with the social dwelling;
  • Of the other town category, 29, i.e. 59 %, have designed and approved their housing concepts or similar documents, independent or as parts of other documents (Liberec, Hradec Králové, Pardubice, Havířov, Zlín, Most, Frýdek-Místek, Děčín, České Budějovice, Kladno, Karviná, Přerov, Jablonec nad Nisou, Třinec, Tábor, Příbram, Znojmo, Cheb, Písek, Hodonín, Uherské Hradiště, Otrokovice, Svitavy, Český Krumlov, Velké Meziříčí, Kdyně, Polička, Holice, and Zruč nad Sázavou). Three towns, i.e. 6 %, have only been working on preparation of their documents (Opava, Prostějov, and Třebíč). 15 other towns, i.e. 31 %, have not had such a document and even have not been preparing it at all (Olomouc, Karlovy Vary, Jihlava, Chomutov, Mladá Boleslav, Česká Lípa, Kroměříž, Kyjov, Lanškroun, Broumov, Tišnov, Dačice, Velká Bíteš, Brtnice, and Valtice); two respondents, i.e. 4 %, have not responded to this question (Teplice, and Vodňany).

Chart 2, Prices in CZK/m2, for which dwellings are being sold in 2012, or possibly the prices applied in 2011 on condition the privatisation has been already ended in 2011, indicates the lowest and the highest prices reported by individual respondents:

Chart 2 Prices in CZK/m2, for which dwellings are being sold in 2012, or possibly the prices applied in 2011 on condition the privatisation has been already ended in 2011

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

City/town 2012
The lowest price (CZK/m2) specified by respondents The highest price (CZK/m2) specified by respondents
Prague 5,700 (City District Prague 12) 20,000 (City District Prague 4 and Prague 5)
Brno 2,096 (City District Kohoutovice) 17,400 (City District Slatina)
Ostrava 1,428 (City District Slezská Ostrava) 12,000 (City District Hrabová)
Ústí nad Labem None of the respondents specified concrete data (only complete objects sold, price cannot be specified, no sale performed, privatization already finished earlier).
Pilsen Privatization pursuant to Stat. No. 72/1994 Coll. finished in 2009, further on the city will privatize whole houses by the city public competition by way of the "envelope method" to 1 owner (both natural persons and legal entities), or exchange for lands.
Other cities/towns populated 50,000 and above 900 (Karlovy Vary) 11,500 (Pardubice), or socalled direct sale: 19,396 (Zlín)
Other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 1,200 (Česká Lípa), or 700 (Příbram, 2011 price) 18,232 (Znojmo)
Other towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 2,500 (Broumov), or 2,000 to 2,500 (Valtice) 19,625 (Tišnov)

Responses to the question “How your municipality proceeds in the privatization of the dwellings?”, which solves the method of privatization of the dwellings in relation to 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 so as not to take the risk of providing public subsidy prohibited by the community law.

On privatization of the municipality dwellings the respondents proceed as follows:

  • 22 % of the respondents sell dwellings only to natural persons that live in such dwellings, 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.
  • 3 % of the respondents sell houses to legal entities for such a price so as the difference between a market and sale price of a house would not result in the infringement of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1998/2006 of December 15th, 2006 on the application of the Articles 87 and 88 of the Agreement on the support of the “de minimis”.
  • 4 % 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).
  • 5 % of the respondents use other procedures, for example the sale of dwellings, or houses, in the form of competitive bidding, public auction, or electronic auction (some respondents use these sales methods only for selected dwelling categories, for example in the case of unoccupied or dislodged flats, or in the event the tenants have not met conditions for the privatisation of the dwellings); furthermore, the exchange of complete houses for lands, is also applied.
  • 31 % of the respondents use two or more of the above-specified methods at the same time (the most frequent combination of the methods is the sale of the dwellings to natural persons that live therein, in compliance with the Statute No. 72/1994 Coll., and another procedure when selling the dwellings, and also the sale of the dwellings to natural persons that live therein, in compliance with the Statute No. 72/1994 Coll., and the sale of the houses to legal entities for a market price).
  • 26 % of the respondents have already finalized the privatisation or did not privatise in the respective year, or do not wish to privatise at all.
  • 6 % 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.
  • 1 % of the respondents (the City Council of Pilsen) specifies that the privatization in accordance with the Statute No. 72/1994 Coll. has been finished in 2009, henceforth whole houses will be sold by way of the municipal public competition applying the “envelope method”, to single owners (natural persons or legal entities), or will exchange them for lands.
  • 1 % of the respondents did not specify any response to this query.

Results from the viewpoint of shifts within the municipal housing stock, of payments for the use of the stock, and of maintenance costs, in selected cities/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 3.9 % 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 2010 was 1.3 % of the total of municipal dwellings, while in 2011 it was 1.2 %.
  • The average number of rent transfers of municipal dwellings totalled 1.8 % of the total of municipal dwellings in 2010, and in 2011 it was 1.8 % as well.
  • The average number of newly rented municipal apartments [on the basis of selection of tenants according to social criteria, dwellings rented on the basis of selection of tenants according to their social expedience (teachers, medical and social services staff, local police staff, ...), dwellings rented for market rentals and other flats], was 3.8 % of the total number of municipal dwellings in 2010 and 3.9 % in 2011.
  • The number of legally vacant dwellings was 2.9 % of the total of municipal dwellings as per December 31st, 2010, while as per December 31st, 2011 it was 3.9 %.
  • 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 1.8 % of the total of municipal dwellings in 2010 and 1.6 % in 2011. Whereas in 2010 the number of executed notices to quit an apartment (when a tenant vacated an apartment) amounted to 0.5 % 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 0.2 % 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 0.03 % 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 1.1 %. In 2011 the number of executed notices to quit an apartment (when a tenant vacated an apartment) amounted to 0.5 % 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 1.0 %.
  • 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 0.2 % of the total number of municipal dwellings in 2010 and in 2011 it was 0.2 % as well.
  • 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 2010 and in 2011 it was 0.2 %.
  • In 2010 the average number of cleared dwellings (particularly ejected) was 0.4 % and it amounted to 0.6 % of the total number of municipal dwellings in 2011.

The development of the numbers of debtors in rentals and/or in services between 2003 and 2011 is shown in Diagram 5, The development index of the number of debtors in respect of municipal dwellings between 2003 and 2011 (the year 2002 = 100). The development between the years 2003 and 2011 shows that as of 2002 the number of debtors was gradually decreasing as long as to 2008, except for the minor variation (increase) in 2004 in Prague, in 2004 and 2005 in Brno, in 2005 in Ostrava, in 2007 and 2008 in Pilsen, and in 2005 in the group of towns populated 10,000 to 49,999. However, in 2009 this trend has stopped (except for Ústí nad Labem) and the number of debtors, in turn, increased. It may be assumed that the economic crisis, combined with the gradual relieving of controlled rentals, showed themselves here. In 2010, as compared to 2009, the number of debtors decreased again (except for the towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 where another increase was seen), the same as in 2011, as compared to 2010, when a significant increase of the number of debtors was seen only in Brno and in the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999. As compared to 2002, the most significant decrease of the number of debtors occurred in Ústí nad Labem (by 89 %), in the towns populated 50,000 and above (by 60 %), and in Prague (by 55 %).

Chart 3, Share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) between 2002 and 2011, gives the share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of dwellings in cities/towns under observation as per December 31st and at the same time interim change index of the number of debtors.

Diagram 5

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

Diagram 5

Note:

Data on the debtors in Prague, Brno, and in Ústí nad Labem apply to selected districts only.

Chart 3 Share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) between 2002 and 2011

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

  Prague (selected City Districts) Brno (selected City Districts) Ostrava (whole city) Ústí nad Labem (selected City Districts) Pilsen (whole city) Other cities/towns
populated 50,000 and above (selected cities) populated 10,000 to 49,999 (selected towns) populated 2,000 to 9,999 (all towns)
Share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of municipality dwellings in cities/towns (city/town districts) under observation as per Dec 31st 2002 24,1% 17,3% 31,4% 75,0% 24,0% 33,6% 21,4% x
2003 22,1% 16,7% 31,1% 61,9% 18,9% 30,2% 21,4% 8,8%
2004 24,9% 18,1% 33,1% 93,1% 19,6% 23,2% 20,9% 8,7%
2005 20,1% 21,3% 41,5% 111,0% 28,1% 23,1% 23,1% 9,1%
2006 16,5% 19,5% 37,6% 85,2% 33,4% 23,0% 22,5% 11,2%
2007 15,1% 13,3% 41,0% 72,2% 41,6% 19,1% 19,3% 10,8%
2008 14,6% 12,7% 37,6% 97,7% 65,0% 18,6% 18,8% 12,5%
2009 23,9% 18,2% 44,8% 89,2% 70,2% 22,6% 23,7% 14,0%
2010 24,7% 16,9% 41,0% 92,7% 66,8% 33,7% 27,7% 14,4%
2011 29,0% 22,3% 39,2% 66,5% 62,2% 33,9% 25,4% 17,5%
Change index of the number of debtors 2003/2002 85,2 92,3 92,9 78,3 78,3 81,6 90,1 x
2004/2003 103,5 102,4 97,7 80,1 95,6 71,9 89,7 100,0
2005/2004 76,7 112,3 111,1 98,7 98,4 93,5 106,1 105,0
2006/2005 73,1 87,6 78,6 55,3 100,1 90,9 92,9 115,8
2007/2006 73,8 67,6 97,6 78,1 103,3 82,6 79,7 94,1
2008/2007 89,8 93,0 82,7 91,1 134,8 95,9 88,7 106,5
2009/2008 145,0 139,2 114,9 84,2 109,0 109,3 114,9 111,9
2010/2009 93,4 86,6 88,2 79,7 92,2 96,2 109,6 99,6
2011/2010 102,3 127,8 93,0 66,1 90,9 96,4 87,5 117,9

Note:

The share of the debtors (in rentals and/or in 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 2002, in the cities/towns under observation (hand-in-hand with the proceeding privatisation) a great difference of the values of the indicator “share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings” occurs. In 2011 the share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings, in the cities/towns under observation, varied between 17.5 % (the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999) and 66.5 % (Ústí nad Labem). However, the predictive value of the indicator of the share of debtors (in rentals and/or in 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 “interim change index of the number of debtors”; in contrast to 2009 when most towns/cities (except for the city Ústí nad Labem) experienced an increase of the absolute number of debtors, in 2011 Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, Pilsen, towns populated 50,000 and above, and towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 saw decrease of the absolute number of debtors. The highest annual decrease of the number of debtors was recorded in Ústí nad Labem, namely by 33.9 % (index 66.1), on the other hand the highest annual increase of the number of debtors reached 27.8 % (index 127.8) in Brno - the number of debtors increased first of all in the city districts Brno - Central District and Brno - North, i.e. in the city districts with the highest number of municipal dwellings.

Diagram 6, Development indexes of the number of municipal dwellings and of debtors in the towns under observation between 2003 and 2011 (the year 2002 = 100) without the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 shows the relation between the development of the number of debtors and the development of the number of municipal dwellings in the towns under observation between 2003 and 2011. It is clear from the diagram that, between 2003 and 2008, the number of debtors decreased more rapidly than the number of municipal dwellings, while in 2009 a temporary increase of the number of debtors occurred, however, and since 2010 the number of debtors decreases again, its pace being slower than that of the number of municipal dwellings. (The evaluation has not included the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999, out of which some were addressed first within the investigation in 2005; therefore data on the number of debtors for a longer period have not been available.)

Diagram 6

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

Diagram 6

The question of the numbers of “short-term” debtors (in rentals and/or in 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(2)(b) of the Statute No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code as last amended, was answered by rather a lower number of respondents only, as the most frequent system of evidence of debtors cannot easily identify “short-term” debtors. In general it may be stated that the share of the “short-term” debtors was relatively high in the period under observation. It may be caused by the influence of the persisting economic crisis combined with the already finished (by December 31st, 2010) or, in some cases, still proceeding (till December 31st, 2012) gradual deregulation of rentals when the number of inhabitants who find themselves in a short-term financial distress increases.

The total of payments for the use of a dwelling and the total of outstanding amounts for the payments related to the use of a dwelling:

  • Compared to 2010, both the payments for the prescribed net rentals and the payments prescribed for the services increased in Ostrava, Pilsen, and in other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 in 2011.
  • As compared to 2010, in the towns populated 50,000 and above payments for both prescribed net rentals and payments prescribed for services decreased, on the other hand, in 2011.
  • As compared to 2010, in Prague, Brno, and in Ústí nad Labem payments for prescribed net rentals increased, at coincidental decrease of the prescribed payments for services in 2011.
  • In the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 payments for prescribed net rentals decreased at coincidental increase of the payments prescribed for the services in 2011, as compared to 2010.
  • A significant increase of due amounts both for net rentals and for payments for services was seen in Prague in 2011, compared to 2010, at simultaneous decrease of the number of municipal dwellings.
  • On a relatively small decrease of the number of municipal dwellings, there was an increase of the total of due amounts for the payments for the use of dwellings in Pilsen, in the towns populated 10,000 to 49,999, and in the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999.
  • A marked decrease of due amount both in net rentals and in payments for services was seen in Brno in 2011, particularly on a relatively small decrease of the number of municipal dwellings. In Brno the reason for a marked decrease of the due amounts for the payments related to the use of the dwellings was a big decrease of due amounts in the city district Brno - Central District, particularly from 147,976,000 CZK in 2010 to 13,735,000 CZK in 2011.
  • On a relatively low decrease of the number of municipality dwellings, Ústí nad Labem saw a decrease of the debt in net rentals as well as in payments for services.

Dwellings by types of applied rentals:

In the previous years 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, and with the contractual rentals kept increasing gradually, while the share of the dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. applied, has been gradually decreasing.

In relation to the expiry of applicability of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. for most of the cities/towns in 2010, in 2011 a marked change in the structure of municipality dwellings occurred in relation to the type of applied rentals:

  • The number of dwellings decreased, to which applied the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. (the prolonged applicability of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll., as amended by the Statute No. 150/2009 Coll. concerns only some cities/towns),
  • The number of dwellings with contractual rentals increased (among others by the dwellings, for which the rentals were arranged by contract after the expiry of applicability of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll.),
  • A new category emerged of “other dwellings”; in question are such dwellings, for which the rentals were not arranged by contract after the expiry of applicability of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll.

The share of the dwellings the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30th, 1993 and to the financing of which municipalities were provided subsidies from the state budget or from state funds was high in Ústí nad Labem (43.1 % in both 2010 and in 2011) and in the category of towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 (24.2 % in 2010 and 24.8 % in 2011). A high share of such dwellings was also in the category of towns populated 50,000 and above (20.8 % in 2010 and 22.0 % in 2011) and in Pilsen (17.2 % in 2010 and 17.4 % in 2011). On the other hand, the lowest share of such dwellings was in Brno (1.9 % in 2010 and 2.1 % in 2011). A low share of dwellings constructed with the state subsidy was also in Prague (3.0 % in 2010 and 3.5 % in 2011).

In 2010 a high share of dwellings with contractual rentals was in the towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 (23.3 %), in the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 (21.0 %), in Ostrava (18.3 %), and in the towns populated 50,000 and above (17.2 %). On the other hand, in 2010 the lowest share of such dwellings was in Prague and in Pilsen (3.0 %), and in Brno (4.6 %). In 2011 the share of these dwellings was significantly higher in Ústí nad Labem (52.8 %), in the towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 (37.3 %), and in the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 (30.0 %). While the lowest share of such dwelling was, in 2011, in Prague (3.1 %), in Pilsen (3.7 %), and in Brno (5.7 %). In 2011 the share of the dwellings with contractual rentals increased first of all in relation to the expiry of applicability of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. for most cities/towns in 2010 (for some dwellings, for which the applicability of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. expired, the contractual rentals has already been arranged). As compared to 2010, in 2011 the highest increase of the share of dwellings with contractual rentals was seen in Ústí nad Labem (increase from 13.2 % in 2010 to 52.8 % in 2011) where, according to the information from the questionnaire, the deregulation was free of problems; tenants were offered contractual rentals lower than market rentals in a given locality (according to a survey of rentals in estate agencies), due to which reason the tenants signed annexes to their occupational lease containing increased rentals. Compared to 2010, in 2011 a high increase of the share of dwellings with contractual rentals saw also the towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 (increase from 23.3 % in 2010 to 37.3 % in 2011), and in the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 (increase from 21.0 % in 2010 to 30.0 % in 2011).

Unilateral increase of rentals on the basis of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral increase of rentals from a flat and on the amendment of the Statute No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code, as last amended, as amended by the Statute No. 150/2009 Coll., and on the basis of the Announcement of the MinRD No. 180/2009 Coll. [On the basis of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. the lessor was entitled to increase the rent once a year and, after that, always as per January 1st, or later, within the period of time that started on January 1st, 2007 and ended on December 31st, 2010. By the amendment of the Statute, i.e. by the Statute No. 150/2009 Coll., the option for the municipalities to unilaterally increase the rentals was prolonged till December 31st, 2012. Concerned are dwellings in the Capital Prague, in the municipalities of the Central Bohemian County populated above 9,999 as per January 1st, 2009 (within our investigation identified were the towns Kladno, Mladá Boleslav, and Příbram), and in the cities/towns České Budějovice, Pilsen, Karlovy Vary, Liberec, Hradec Králové, Pardubice, Jihlava, Brno, Olomouc, and Zlín]:

Diagram 7, Respondents as per their response to the question whether they will unilaterally increase rentals up to the value of the target rentals in 2012, indicate the attitude of the respondents to the unilateral increase of the rentals in 2012.

From the diagram follows that from the respondents who are concerned with the prolonged period (up to December 31st, 2012) when rentals may be unilaterally increased, 42 % will increase rentals in 2012 up to the value of the target rentals and further 18 % of cities/towns will increase rentals, however, not as high as up to the target value. The increase as high as up to the target rentals was least frequently referred to by respondents in Prague (only 21 % of city districts).

Diagram 7

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

Diagram 7

Note:

The diagram includes only those cities/towns that are concerned by the extension of the period of time (till December 31st, 2012) within which the unilateral increase of rentals may be applied.
Included were not the other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 as the extension of this period of time when the unilateral increase of rental may be applied concerns only two respondents from this group of towns.
City of Brno - 1 respondent does not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral increase of rentals applied, therefore it has not been included in the evaluation of this question group.
Pilsen City - data for the whole city provided by the City Council of Pilsen.

Terms of the unilateral increase of the rentals in 2012 are shown in Diagram 8, Respondents by the term of the unilateral increase of rentals in 2012.

From the diagram follows that most of the respondents who specified that they would unilaterally raise rentals during 2012 have performed this during the first quarter of 2012.

Diagram 8

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

Diagram 8

Note:

The diagram includes only those cities/towns that will unilaterally increase rentals in 2012. Included were not other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 as only two respondents from this town group are concerned with the prolonged period when the unilaterally increase of rentals may be applied.
Pilsen City - data for the whole city provided by the City Council of Pilsen.

After the unilateral increase the rental charges for a standard dwelling varied as follows:

  • In 2008 they ranged from 12.37 CZK/m2 in the town Most to 70.00 CZK/m2 in the City District Prague 4;
  • In 2009 their range was from 13.00 CZK/m2 in Příbram up to 95.46 CZK/m2 in the City District Prague 7;
  • In 2010 their range was 12.91 CZK/m2 in the town Most to 110.44 CZK/m2 referred to by the City Council of the Capital Prague;
  • In 20112) the range started at 13.72 CZK/m2 in Karlovy Vary and ended at 110.44 CZK/m2 specified by the City Council of the Capital Prague;
  • In 2012 the limit values were 15.00 CZK/m2 in Příbram and 149.96 CZK/m2 in the City District Prague 6.

For lower quality dwellings the rentals after the unilateral increase varied as follows:

  • In 2008 they ranged from 7.89 CZK/m2 in Teplice up to 54.82 CZK/m2 in the City District Prague - Řepy;
  • In 2009 the interval was 7.89 CZK/m2 in Teplice and 76.53 CZK/m2 specified by the City Council of the Capital Prague;
  • In 2010 the rentals ranged from 7.19 CZK/m2 in Děčín to 91.67 CZK/m2 referred to by the City Council of the Capital Prague;
  • In 2011 the charges ranged from 7.60 CZK/m2 in Karlovy Vary to 97.77 CZK/m2 in the City District Prague 7;
  • In 2012 the range was 10.00 CZK/m2 in Příbram and 114.80 CZK/m2 in the City District Prague 4.

From the comparison of the rentals after the unilateral increase of 2012 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 problems with the deregulation of rentals may be collectively stated:

  • Due to the rentals deregulation an urgent need smaller dwellings emerged and interest was increased in the privatization of municipality dwellings;
  • In 2012 the rentals were not increased, the 2010 level of rentals apply and, at the same time, it was approved that the tenants will be provided a discount amounting up to 32 % of net rentals as of January 1st, 2010 in the apartment houses where windows had not been changed and facades had not been thermally insulated and where original water and sewerage mains remain in place;
  • Increase of rentals is not considered due to the composition of tenants (pensioners, single mothers with children, singles without children), as increased rentals would be liquidating for them;
  • There are no problems with the raise of rentals, tenants were offered contractual rentals lower than market rentals in a given locality (according to surveys of rentals in estate agencies), due to this all but one tenants signed amendments to occupational leases containing increased rentals;
  • The year 2012 saw the last contingency to apply the unilateral increase of rentals, due to the economic crisis and problems of tenants with payment of rentals approved was a discount for standard dwellings, as well as for lower quality dwellings, by 5.00 CZK/m2, in spite of this the number of applications to change present dwelling for a smaller one increases due to the inability to pay rentals, as a rule, in case of illness or unemployment it is an insolvable problem for tenants;
  • The Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. did not enable the increase of the rentals for the day care house category and for the special purpose dwellings (barrier-free), it is difficult to perform a general increase of such rentals, with respect to the necessity to reach agreement with a tenant there is still a difference between rentals in day care house-type dwellings, barrier-free ones, and other standard municipality dwellings, as well as contractual (market) rentals outside the municipality dwelling sphere;
  • The number of debtors still escalates;
  • In 2010 the maximum rentals increment value was applied, at the same time, in 2010 and 2011 a 25 % discount from rentals was applied, amendments in respect of the discount were concluded with tenants;
  • Tenants disagreed with rentals amount with respect to the quality of tenement dwellings;
  • Still missing the price maps promised by the MinRD of the Czech Republic.

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 2010, such type of care-taking was with 46.6 % of the total of municipal dwellings, while in 2011, it was 45.0 %.

The average monthly costs of the management of a municipal dwelling through a caretaker were of CZK 291.34 per dwelling/month in 2010, while of CZK 266.05 in 2011. The average costs for dwellings maintained directly by one of the Municipality’s departments were of CZK 244.13 per dwelling/month in 2010, while of CZK 211.00 in 2011. As for the management of the municipal dwellings by means of a caretaker, the mean costs of the management of the municipal dwellings increased in 2011, as compared to 2010, in the case of the City of Pilsen, in the towns populated 50,000 and above, and in the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999. Furthermore, it slightly increased in the cities of Brno, Ostrava, and Ústí nad Labem. In the city of Prague the amount of costs for the provision of the management of municipal dwellings by means of a caretaker decreased in 2011, as compared to 2010. A slight decrease was also seen in the category of towns populated 10,000 to 49,999. Six of all the investigated groups of respondents specified the provision of the management of the municipal dwellings through a respective department. Four of them indicated an increase of the costs for such management of the municipal dwellings in 2011, as compared to 2010 (i.e. in Prague, Ostrava, towns populated 50,000 and above, and in towns populated 10,000 to 49,999). On the other hand, the costs decreased in Brno, and in towns populated 2,000 to 9,999. The cities of Ústí nad Labem and Pilsen do not specify such management of municipal dwellings. At the same time, from the given data follows that if a town manages its dwellings by its own, through a respective department, it is cheaper for the cities/towns than the provision of the municipal dwellings management through a caretaker.

The average monthly costs of the management of municipal dwellings slightly decreased in 2011, compared to 2010, the average monthly income from rentals of municipal dwellings slightly increased, on the other hand, in 2011, compared to 2010. The average monthly management and maintenance costs invested by cities/towns in municipal dwellings were CZK 2,640 in 2010, while CZK 2,619 were in question in 2011; the average monthly income from rentals of municipal dwellings was CZK 3,495 in 2010, while the amount CZK 3,511 was in question in 2011. The average costs of management and maintenance of municipal dwellings was lower than the average incomes from the rentals of municipal dwellings both in 2010 and in 2011, whereas the difference between these two amounts increased in 2011, compared to 2010. This situation may be caused by the gradual decrease of the number of dwellings due to their privatization, by a more efficient housing stock management of cities/towns and, at the same time, by a gradual deregulation of rentals. Fewer dwellings remain to the cities/towns in their property (the cities/towns finalize sales of dwellings in already privatized houses, or they sell dwellings featuring worse technical status), due to which reduced are their costs of management and maintenance on simultaneous feasibility to gradually raise municipality dwellings' rentals.

Diagram 9, Comparison of respondents by their responses to the question whether the present incomes from rentals cover the maintenance costs of the municipal housing stock so as deterioration of its technical status would not occur, shows the evaluation of the responses of individual respondents to this question.

Diagram 9

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

Diagram 9


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 78, i.e. 69.6 %, keep records of applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings, 33 of them, i.e. 29.5 %, do not keep records of applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings. One respondent, i.e. 0.9 %, did not specify response 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. One respondent, i.e. 0.9 %, did not specify response 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 13, i.e. 20.0 %, keep these records within overall records, 47 of them, i.e. 72.3 %, keep these records separately, two, i.e. 3.1 %, keep these records both within the overall records as well as separately, and three respondents, i.e. 4.6 %, 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.
  • 47 respondents, i.e. 42.0 %, 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, other selected groups (the respondents specify for example refugees - integration dwellings; persons endangered by social exclusion; persons using day care; children from children's homes and from foster care; starter dwellings for inhabitants aged up to 35, under the condition they have concluded building and loan contract, or a similar financial product, for example a deposit account, time deposit, etc.; provision of replacement dwellings after divorce of marriage and other replacement dwellings; court decision to quit), unwed mothers, for public service professions (referred to are teachers, municipal police, National police, health care, and workers of a social services centres, employees of city/town districts) and, furthermore, 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 26.0 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings in 2010, while in 2011 it was 24.7 %. In 2010 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 7.5 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings, while in 2011 it was 7.8 % 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 30.0 % of the total number of all recorded applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling in 2010 and in 2011 it was 31.7 % 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 2010 and 2011 in all the categories of cities and towns, as related to total numbers of municipal dwellings, and such percentage in total, is shown in Diagram 10, Share of all registered applications for municipal dwellings as related to total numbers of municipal dwellings, 2010 and 2011.
  • The percentage of all the registered applications for municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents in 2010 and 2011 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 11, Share of all registered applications for municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents as related to total registered applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings, 2010 and 2011.

Diagram 10

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

Diagram 10

Note:

Figures of Prague, Brno, Ostrava, and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected city districts; data for Pilsen are data as provided by the City Council of Pilsen for the whole city;
in Prague - assessment of data from 16 respondents (without the City Districts Prague 6, 8, and 14);
in Brno - assessment of data from 16 respondents (without the City Council, City Districts Central District, South District, Bohunice, Medlánky, and Tuřany);
in Ostrava - assessment of data from 15 respondents (without the City Districts Hrabová, and Stará Bělá);
in Ústí nad Labem - assessment of data from 1 respondent (without the City Districts Město, Severní Terasa, and Střekov);
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 10 respondents (without the towns České Budějovice, Hradec Králové, Kladno, Most, Karlovy Vary, and Teplice);
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 17 respondents (without the towns Příbram, Znojmo, Písek, Český Krumlov, and Lanškroun);
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 9 respondents (without the towns Tišnov, and Vodňany).

Diagram 11

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

Diagram 11

Note:

Figures of Prague, Ostrava, and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected city districts; data for Brno and Pilsen are data as provided by the City Councils for the whole cities;
in Prague - assessment of data from 12 respondents (without the City Districts Prague 1, 3, 6, 8, 14, Horní Počernice, and Letňany);
in Brno - assessment of data for the whole city as provided by the City Council;
in Ostrava - assessment of data from 9 respondents (without the City Districts Hošťálkovice, Hrabová, Michálkovice, Petřkovice, Proskovice, Stará Bělá, Svinov, and Třebovice);
in Ústí nad Labem - assessment of data from 1 respondent (without the City Districts Město, Severní Terasa, and Střekov);
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 8 respondents (without the City of Olomouc and the towns České Budějovice, Hradec Králové, Kladno, Most, Frýdek-Místek, Karlovy Vary, and Teplice);
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 13 respondents (without the towns Třinec, Příbram, Znojmo, Písek, Kroměříž, Hodonín, Český Krumlov, Velké Meziříčí, and Lanškroun);
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 5 respondents (without the towns Tišnov,Vodňany, Zruč nad Sázavou, Kdyně, Velká Bíteš, and Valtice).

  • Only one respondent (the town Jablonec nad Nisou) specified that they provided compensation money in the event the tenants returned a vacant flat.
  • The 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 12, Methods to decrease the numbers of debtors and the amounts of debts in rentals and services in cities and towns 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: conclusion of new contracts for a determinate period of time, payment time-tables, termination of tenancy through notices to quit in compliance with the Civil Code. As compared to the results of the previous year's investigation, the share of respondents using other methods to reduce the number of debtors and to reduce debts in rentals and services has not significantly changed.

Diagram 12

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

Diagram 12

The issues of municipal housing have been monitored through questionnaire surveys since 2000, then exploring data of 1998 and 1999. Since then this investigation is performed on an annual basis and this year's one mapped the situation in 2010 and 2011.

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 this year's research (i.e. for 2011) followed that most respondents expected the finalization of the process of the municipal dwellings privatisation in 2012 to 2014. The most distant dates of the privatisation finalization mentioned in this year’s questionnaire investigation were 2021, 2023, and 2025 (this term includes the privatisation of the dwellings that were constructed on the basis of subsidies provided by the MinRD of the Czech Rep. and National Fund for Development of Dwelling between 2000 and 2002 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 dwellings within the period of 20 years). The privatization follows the fastest pace in the city Ústí nad Labem; on the other hand, the slowest process is seen in the city Brno.

The printed version of the final report of the 2012 questionnaire survey is available at the Dwelling Policy Department of the MinRD CR and at the Institute for Spatial Development. A brief report from the research Results of the 2010 and 2011 Questionnaire Survey in the Developments of Selected Towns’ Municipal Housing Stock is presented on the Institute for Spatial Development’s web site (www.uur.cz → Bytová politika a regenerace sídel → Monitoring komunálního bydlení → Municipal Housing Stock → Municipal Housing Stock 2010 and 2011).

The task “Monitoring of Municipal Housing”, comprehensively analyses the municipal housing stock. Assessment of data acquired within are used as one of basic documents for a conceptual work of a particular branch.

The assignor of the task - the Dwelling Policy Department of the Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic - and the researching staff of the Institute for Spatial Development wish to thank all the respondents for their collaborative approach and the information, by 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) Message of the MinRD No. 180/2009 Coll. on classification of municipalities to size categories according to the number of inhabitants, on a real segmentation of municipalities by their grouping to cadastral areas, on amount of basic prices per 1 m2 of dwellings floor area, on target values of monthly rentals per 1 m2 of dwelling floor area, on maximum increments of the monthly rentals, and on the process when searching for a maximum increment of rentals for a concrete dwelling.
2 Values for the years 2011 and 2012 concern only those respondents where the contingency to unilaterally increase rentals was prolonged up to December 31st, 2012.

TOPlist
Kontakty Mapa stránek RSS Prohlášení o přístupnosti TOPlist
Poslední aktualizace stránky 28. 1. 2013 |© Ústav územního rozvoje - Ludmila Rohrerová, 2001–2021