“These are welfare measures that do not resolve the question of the market”. The judgment of Carlo Sforza Fogliani, president of Confedilizia, the association of property owners, on the housing plan just presented by Matteo Renzi's executive is dry.
The executive's project, drawn up by the Minister of Infrastructure and Transport Maurizio Lupi, has three objectives: support for rent at an agreed fee, expansion of the offer of social housing, and development of social housing. Cost of the operation: 1 billion and 741 million euros.
Fogliani, can we start again with a figure like this?
That money is enough to do what the government has decided to do. But it is money that is used in part to combat the housing crisis, not to prevent it. It's not the shock the housing market needs.
What doesn't convince you?
The problem is that the plan contains insufficient interventions to revive the market, which is suffering from excessive taxation which reached its peak with the government of Mario Monti and did not change course during the executive of Enrico Letta. Measures such as support for social housing do not solve the housing crisis.
Why?
Because the new public or semi-public buildings they will build will be ready in 6, 7 or even 10 years, while people need to rent at affordable prices right away.
What should be done?
The housing emergency derives from excessive taxation, higher than the income that the goods produce. There is no incentive to buy, rent or build. A measure that would have been useful was there, but it's gone. I'm talking about the reduction of the Tasi to 4 per thousand for the owners of second and third homes who rent at an agreed fee. But Lupi did not get the green light on this from the State Accounting Office [which had calculated the cost of the operation at 95 million a year for the four-year period 2014-2017].
Is there anything that convinces you?
The home plan also contains some important signals. I am referring to the fight against abusive occupations, with the occupants who will no longer be able to obtain or apply for residence and connection to utilities. But also the dry coupon, with the rate further reduced from 15% to 10% for those who rent at an agreed rent.
And the possibility for tenants to redeem the house after at least 7 years?
For this we have to wait. The question will only be clearer later, given that it will only apply to new contracts and not to existing ones. But I think it's a very limited provision, I doubt new contracts will be made with the buyout agreement described up to now under these conditions. These are measures that do not have a great impact, such as the one on the expenditure for the purchase of furniture following the restructuring, on which Irpef deductions are envisaged, which may be higher than that for the restructuring itself. Yes, it's something good, but it's nothing new. There are improvements, but it hasn't had much effect so far.
