From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: Dagens Nyheter April 6th
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:54:31 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <1992Apr7.160600.4981@lth.se> sundinKC@dna.lth.se (Anders Sundin) writes:
>Bertil Jonell writes:
>>>sundinKC@dna.lth.se (Anders Sundin) writes:
>>>Today DN presented the main proposals for new subsidies to help
>>>the retired to pay their rent.
>>
>>  This shouldn't be needed if it wasn't for a severely broken housing policy,
>>a broken land-utilization policy and a almost as broken tax policy.
>
>Isn't this is the effect of removing the subsidies for building new houses?
>Do you seriously think that the retired would pay less in rent if every square
>meter of beach on the islands outside Stockholm was explored?
 
  The rental market should improve if it was a little less regulated too.

>Nor do I see how an "almost as broken tax policy" has anything to do with the
>ability of the retired to pay their rents. The retired usually don't pay taxes,
  
  They pay property-tax, a.k.a. rent to the government, if they 'own' anything,
which makes it impossible for many to live in their own houses, forcing
them to move to an apartment, making these kinds of subsidies nessesary.
  While this isn't true for the majority of seniors, it don't make the 
total situation any better.

  BTW, it is very interesting to compare the percentage of the Swedish 
population that live in a villa they own themselves, with, for example the
same percentage in Denmark or Norway.

>and I am sure that most of our foreign readers will agree that rents are low
>in houses that are more than 10 years old.
>
>>  The roots of this problem date back to the 60's and 70's when the entire
>>country should be planned.
>
>All right, lets stop all planning. Welcome to the anthill.

  I'm not against all planning. I'm against that sort of planning that views
the citizens as elements of disturbance that should be shuffled hither and 
dither based on the issue in vogue at the moment.

>>"Start building new houses, so that the supply will increase and the prices
>>will fall all by themselves!" you say? No, that hasn't been tried because it
>>is all too logical.
>
>I agree that the protection of beaches is too strong today (its more or less
>total) but it is basically a sound policy. I want to be able to walk down to
>the beach at least somewhere in the area I am at.

  How many 500m wide beaches do we have in Sweden? Do we have to have the
full 100% of our humongeous coastline to be protected by something far 
stronger than allemansr{tten?

>The problem is who should be allowed to build on beaches? The ones with good
>connections to the ruling parties in the local area (kommun) or who?
>There is a lot of room for the *good old boys* type of corruption here.
  
  That is what we have now. Permissions to build in areas protected by
environmental protection or beach protection have been used as bargaining
chits to try to entice athlethes or industries to move to certain kommuns.

> Anders Sundin           e-mail: sundinKC@dna.lth.se

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."