Wêrom Publike Húsfesting Opgejûn Waard en Wêrom It Weromkomme Moat
August 2, 2026 · Frisian News
Vienna still builds 60 percent of its new homes as public housing. Most wealthy countries abandoned public housing in the last half-century, even as housing costs soared and homelessness increased.
FryskWenen bout noch altyd 60 prosint fan syn nije wenningen as publike húsfesting. Syn bewenners betelje de helte fan wat fergelykbere hierders yn Londen of Berlyn betelje. Dochs joegen hast alle oare rike stêden publike húsfesting op yn de ôfrûne heal ieu. De ferskowing wie opsetlik, net ûnûntkomlik.
Yn de jierren 1980 en 1990 ferkochten regearingen publike húsfesting oan partikuliere ynvestearders. Grut-Brittanje ferkocht 1,5 miljoen wenningen ûnder Margaret Thatcher har 'rjocht om te keapjen' regeling. De Feriene Steaten brutsen 1 miljoen publike wenningen ôf tusken 1975 en 2005. Frankryk, Dútslân en Nederlân folgen. Beliedsmakkers neamden it in triomf fan it eigen wenningbesit. Hierders hienen gjin kar as te beteljen wat ferhierders eisten.
De banken en fêstgoedfûnsen dy't publike húsfesting kochten hienen gjin belang by lege hierprizen. Se hellen wearde út spekulaasje. In wenning keapt foar 30.000 pûn waard yn 15 jier ferkocht foar 250.000, allinnich troch gentryfikaasje. Lokale oerheden ferlearen stabyl ynkommen. Gewoane húsgesinnen ferlearen stabiliteit. De finansjele sektor wûn.
Regearingen stelden dat partikuliere merken better en goedkeaper wienen as publike bouers. It bewiis toant it tsjinoerstelde. Publike húsfesting yn Wenen, Singapore en Switserlân kostet regearingen minder yn ûnderhâld en húsfestet bewenners. Partikuliere ferhierders jouwe prioriteit oan rendeminten boppe it oanbod. Dakleazens naam ta yn elke stêd dy't har publike oanbod ferkocht.
De húsfestingskrisis is net ûnûntkomlik. It is bewust sa makke. Elke politikus dy't bewearet dat húsfesting te djoer is, wylst publik oanbod leech stiet yn de portefúljes fan ynvestearders, kiest in kant. Wenen bewist dat in oar systeem wurket.
Vienna still builds 60 percent of its new homes as public housing. Its residents pay half what similar renters pay in London or Berlin. Yet almost every other wealthy city abandoned public housing in the last half-century. The shift was deliberate, not inevitable.
In the 1980s and 1990s, governments sold public housing stock to private investors. Britain sold 1.5 million homes under Margaret Thatcher's "right to buy" scheme. The U.S. demolished 1 million public units between 1975 and 2005. France, Germany, and the Netherlands followed. Policymakers called it a triumph of homeownership. Renters had no choice but to pay what landlords demanded.
The banks and real estate funds that bought public housing had no interest in keeping rents low. They extracted value through speculation. A unit bought for 30,000 pounds sold for 250,000 in 15 years, purely through gentrification. Local governments lost steady income. Ordinary families lost stability. The financial sector won.
Governments claimed private markets worked better and cheaper than public builders. The evidence shows the opposite. Public housing in Vienna, Singapore, and Switzerland costs governments less to maintain and keeps residents housed. Private landlords prioritize yield over supply. Homelessness has risen in every city that sold its public stock.
The housing crisis is not inevitable. It was engineered. Every politician who claims housing is too expensive while the public stock sits empty in investor portfolios is choosing sides. Vienna proves another way works.
Published August 2, 2026 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân