husby vs harlem 1.2

A week ago my favourite neoliberal Per and his two neoliberal friends had a couple of beers and a nice debate inside the classy restaurant Carmen. At least that's how I want to remember it. I was pretty damn tired (and maybe a bit drunk too) and were probably shouting at them (I'm sorry Per!). I discussed (and they tried to get their views through when I had to breathe - damn this need for oxygen!) the suggested privatization of appartment houses in the million programme suburbs around Stockholm. Pers friends said that the privatization of appartment houses in Harlem, NY, had been a huge success and that it will be exactly the same in Husby and other old suburbs/ghettos in the Stockholm area. And I just can't agree with that. What about supply & demand? Is Harlem a part of Manhattan and is there a demand for private housing on Manhattan? Hell yes! Can you make a big profit? Sure as hell! Just as you can in Söder. Once a shabby working class area and now a paradise for yuppies and the upper middle class. Then let's take a look at Husby and other million program suburbs. Is there a demand for old appartments far away from central Stockholm in desperate need of serious renovation? Maybe. Can you make a profit? Probably not. Will you be able to lose a lot of money? Most probably! It would be interesting to know how much money the current owner, Stockholms Kommun, believe is needed to renovate these areas. What would a reasonable price be for these appartments? Maybe the tenants actually ought to get paid to take care of these old appartment houses? I can't get rid of the feeling that the new conservative/liberal coalition in Stockholm wants to find a way to avoid these huge future expenses by cheating a group of people who already are vulnerable. Many of the current tenants have a hard time understanding Swedish and getting permanent employments and therefore also any kind of decent bank loans. They take a huge risk if they decide to and manage to buy their appartments.

I'm not totally against private housing. Harlem and Söder were dumps before the privatization wave. But unfortunately the original tenants usually seems to be the ones who benefit the least from both systems. The huge public housing areas are often in decline and slowly turning into slums. If they are in attractive areas like Manhattan or central Stockholm there are a lot of money to be made from renovation and privatization. Unfortunately that often means that the original low income tenants can't afford to buy or rent these "new" renovated appartments - they have to move to the next dump instead. The only way to change this is to build many more appartments that are both affordable and in areas that are made attractive. Real city areas - not just sleeping cubes in faraway places. But that would also mean that the prices on many already existing appartments would fall. Something that many voters, in Stockholm at least, wouldn't like. They have invested a lot in their living. So I'm not sure how we will make that happen. I'm only sure that public housing is a part of the solution - not the problem.

Here's what Husby Unite thinks about it (Swedish only). I have to agree with their doubts.

And here are some other voices about Harlem and privatization:
Village Voice
Slate