In het belang van de volkshuisvesting: De bevoegdheidsverdeling tussen overheid en woningcorporaties

This book mainly focuses on the question of the extent to which the powers of governments and housing associations with regard to the construction, rental and management of residential properties are shaped and limited by legislation and policy. The first sub-questions focuses on EU law. The answer is that the implementation of EU law in the Dutch Housing act leads to a inflexible arrangement, while EU law allows for alternatives. The second sub-question focuses on the powers of the government’s administrative bodies. Given the remit assigned to housing associations, the way in which the government can influence the activities of housing associations is of considerable importance. Housing associations must primarily focus on the policy drawn up specifically by each municipality. Municipalities depend on consensus with and between housing associations and tenant associations. They have no supervisory powers and also depend on the supervisory authority at national level. The Dutch central government primarily depends on the municipal policy chain for steering the performance of the remit by housing associations. Most of the Minister’s powers entailing supervision are mandated to the Dutch Housing Association Authority, a body which must operate independently. The Minister therefore only has a limited role. In the policy chain, performance by housing associations is wedged between public law standards set by the government that result in agreements under civil law contracts on the one hand and monitoring fulfilment on the other. The social housing system is predominantly based on coordination between all parties involved. All these aspects contribute to the current system not being optimally efficient/effective and there being ambiguity and legal uncertainty, giving rise to conflict and challenges. The social housing framework presents further ambiguity by housing associations having to focus on two legally set priority provisions for the use of their resources. While they must prioritise using their resources to contribute to fulfilling the housing vision, they must also give priority to their core remit (SGEI). This can lead to prioritisation clashes. The question is what exactly is in the interest of social housing, while the legal system suggests that this interest can be defined. The conclusion is that the Housing act does not contain an unambiguous social housing framework. Various challenging areas along the policy chain have been identified, leading to recommendations. The third sub-question focuses on housing associations. Housing associations must operate in the social housing domain and act in the interest of social housing, with priority given to the assigned public remit. The social housing domain covers a multitude of activities that together define the powers of housing associations, though this demarcation does not provide answers to all the questions concerning the nature and scope of these powers. This results in a complex, as well as in some aspects ambiguous system. This presents housing associations with legal uncertainty,. Various fields of tension can be recognised. The fields of tensions identified can be traced back to the legal system and are accompanied by ambiguities. The general conclusion is that, a clear, efficient, effective normative framework is lacking at the start of the policy chain, and this reverberates down the policy chain, impacting the various links in the chain. This book contains general recommendations concerning the legal regime as a guidance for finding solutions to make a clearer framework of powers. Having such a framework in place would make it easier to answer the question of what is in the interest of social housing. In line with the recommendations, steps that the legislator can take to shape more efficient and effective legislation have been proposed.