durangodawood
Dis Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 23,922
- 15,988
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Everything youre describing there is the result of demand for this housing, probably because, as the guy noted: "overall its an excellent system" - which is the headline youve been burying until just now.I replied to the other user with:
How is it a distortion?...you go to a government website after you've waited 3 years, and they say "these are the 3 you're allowed to pick from"...and they're taking private ownership and bargaining off the table, how is that not "the government choosing"? If your number comes up, and 3 crappy ones from 1940s are all that's available, how is what I said inaccurate?
Here's a user doing an "AMA" about it:
View attachment 347287
While they still think it's an overall "excellent system", they outline some of the parts that aren't well-advertised.
Flat allocation criteria - Socialhousing
socialhousing.wien
This site links to some of their resources where you can peruse the process and the rules (if you use the google translate tool...unless you're fluent in German)
But the allocation criteria is based on more of a "to each according to his need" mindset (not surprising that their largest complex is named after, and has a big statue out front of, Karl Marx). For instance, if I as a non-married person with no kids wanted one, they would show me only the available ones, that "meet my needs" (not my wants, my needs). If you want a bigger one (that has either extra bedrooms, or more living space), you need to provide a justification for that. And I'm guessing that "well, I want a 3 bedroom because I want to have one spare room to be used as an office, and another spare bedroom for a guest room" isn't going to be an approved reason.
So, unless we're splitting hairs over vernacular here.
If I were to register, put in my household situation, they'd show me my spot on the waiting list, and when my ticket came up 2 years from now, they'd then show me the filtered list of the ones currently available, and that THEY felt were suitable for a single guy with no kids.
Would it make you feel better if I changed it to say "the government will show me a slimmed down list of the 3 available options for a 800sq ft 1bd 1ba apartments that they feel are suitable for someone in my situation" rather than "the government picks it for you"?
Like I said, I feel like that's splitting hairs.
The government saying "well, we decided you should be drinking coffee with breakfast, so here's 2 brands of coffee we'll allow you to choose from" isn't really a real choice if I wanted my morning beverage to be orange juice, and if the government owns 70% of the places in the city that serve breakfast (and are aiming to up that even more over the next 5 years), it limits my ability to exercise my real breakfast choice from other sources as well.
I'm not saying there's no "pros" to their system, I'm just saying that many people here aren't fully thinking through the "cons". If someone doesn't prioritize having absolute choice about where they live, and are content having an older place if it means their rent is $600 then great, sounds like they'd be a good candidate for Vienna. But that's not going to be applicable for a lot of younger people here in the US.
I suppose the govt could develop even more housing to the point where theres always loads of vacancies available. Or maybe if youre a single person who wants a 3 bedroom, thats what the private market is for - which still operates there.
Last edited:
Upvote
0