For the Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic, Dwelling Policy Dept.: Ms. Blanka Burdová, MSc
For the Institute for Spatial Development: Ms. Dana Chlupová, MSc, Ms. Marie Polešáková, MSc, PhD, Ms. Ludmila Rohrerová, MSc
In 2011, the Brno Institute for Spatial Development carried out the 12th questionnaire survey of the development of municipal housing stock, collecting and updating the necessary data and information on the municipal housing stock for the Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic (hereafter the “MinRD CR”). Based on the agreement with the assignor of the research - the Dwelling Policy Department of the MinRD CR - the this year’s research has taken into consideration the same sample of towns as in 2010. So, addressed was the Capital Prague including its selected districts, the 23 statutory cities (status as per the date of the task submission), and 30 other towns - "Map of Addressed Towns“. Yet in last year the map has been updated in accordance with the applicable classification of towns to size categories, i.e. for this purpose the towns have been classified, as to size, according to the Message of the MinRD CR No. 180/2009 Coll. applicable for the years 2010 to 2012. As in previous years, the questionnaire survey was aimed at the exploration of 5 kinds of data that are usually not explored by the Czech Statistic Office: I.e. the privatisation of the municipal housing stock, shifts within the municipal housing stock, payments for the usage of the municipal housing stock, maintenance costs of the municipal housing stock, and additional data.
The additional part of the questionnaire was focused on questions about the rent of municipal dwellings and the rent of municipal dwellings for selected resident groups and the related filing system of the demand for such dwellings, as well as whether the criteria of their allocation, and for their allocation to selected resident groups, have been determined. Other questions explored methods to decrease the numbers of rent debtors and the amounts of rent and service debts. Also scrutinized were whether municipalities offered indemnity to those who left their dwellings and whether the private sector participated in the financing of newly built dwellings in 2010. Also, the respondents could indicate their recommendations as to what the questionnaire should be aimed at next year.
The responding municipalities/city/town districts, addressed by the research this year, have maintained a total of 167,942 municipality dwellings, representing only 4.4 % of the total of 3,827,678 dwellings of permanent inhabitation in the Czech Republic (2001 census) (hereafter the CzR), however, at the same time, approximately 60 % of all the total of 281,649 municipal dwellings in the CzR (status as per December 31st, 2010)1). The numbers of dwellings assessed in the questionnaire investigation differed in relation to the topic assessed, mostly being lower than the overall number of the dwellings owned by the addressed cities/towns, as not all respondents have replied to all questions and not all replies could have been included in the respective topic.
The main objective of the research was to investigate the actual results of the ongoing privatisation of municipal dwellings, started in 1991, till the end of 2010.
The development of the privatisation, between its start with the transfer of the housing stock from the State to Municipalities in 1991 and 31 December 2010, is shown in Diagram 1, Development of the municipal housing stock privatisation in the cities/towns under observation, 1991 to 2010.
The Diagram indicates that of all the dwellings transferred to the ownership of the Municipalities in 1991, at an average 47.1 % were privatised before the end of 2001, 51.9 % of them before the end of 2002, 56.1 % before the end of 2003, 60.6 % before the end of 2004, 64.6 % before the end of 2005, 68.8 % before the end of 2006, 72.1 % before the end of 2007, before the end of 2008 privatized were 73.9 %, before the end of 2009 privatized were 76.4 %, and 79.7 % were in question before the end of 2010.
The development of the total of municipal dwellings in the towns and cities under observation (including new constructions) between 1991 and 2010 and the supposed situation after the privatisation of the municipal housing stock is shown by Diagram 2, Total number of municipal dwellings in cities/towns under observation (including new constructions) between 1991 and 2010 and supposed situation after the finalization of the privatisation of the municipal housing stock.
The percentage of the dwellings, which the Municipalities intend to keep in their ownership, is related to the overall number of dwellings transferred from the State to the Municipalities in 1991.
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
Note:
The data in the Diagram were obtained from 8 respondents in Prague;
in Brno data provided by the City Council for the whole city were assessed;
in Ostrava data from 14 respondents were assessed;
for Ústí nad Labem data were assessed from 3 respondents;
in Pilsen data provided by the City Council for the whole city were assessed;
in other towns ranking to the category populated 50,000 and above data from 9 respondents were assessed;
in other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 assessed were data from 14 respondents;
in other towns from the category populated 2,000 to 9,999 data were assessed from 10 respondents.
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
Note to Diagram 2:
Expected numbers of municipal dwellings after the finalisation of the municipal housing stock privatisation are specified as per the latest date of the privatisation finalisation, as specified by respondents of a given group of towns.
Supposed figures for Prague as in 2016 (as the latest date, mentioned by the District of Prague 3), supposed figures for Brno as in 2015 (as the latest date, mentioned by the Brno - Židenice and Brno - Bystrc Districts), supposed figures for Ostrava as in 2018 (as the latest date, mentioned by the District of Ostrava - Jih), supposed figures for Ústí nad Labem is not specified (the District Severní Terasa has finished the privatisation in 2008), The city Council of Pilsen indicates, for the whole city, that the privatization in compliance with the Statute No. 72/1994 Coll. was finalized in 2009, supposed figures for towns populated 50,000 and above as in 2020 to 2021 (as the latest date, mentioned by the town Zlín), supposed figures for towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 as in 2023 (in question is the latest term of the privatisation end as specified by the town Kyjov), supposed figures for towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 as in 2015 (as the latest date, mentioned by the towns Velká Bíteš and Valtice).
The data in the diagram have been acquired:
in Prague - assessment of data from 8 respondents;
in Brno - assessment of data for the whole city as provided by the City Council;
in Ostrava - assessment of data from 14 respondents;
in Ústí nad Labem - assessment of data from 3 respondents;
in Pilsen - assessment of data for the whole city as provided by the City Council;
in other towns - populated 50,000 and above - assessment of data from 9 respondents;
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 14 respondents;
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 10 respondents.
Of the total number of municipal dwellings constructed between 1991 and the end of 2010, 62.2 % were built between 1991 and the end of 2002, 10.1 % during 2003, 7.3 % during 2004, 9.6 % during 2005, 2.8 % during 2006, 5.7 % during 2007, 0.9 % in the course of 2008, 1.1 % during 2009, and 0.3 % in the course of 2010.
Diagram 3, Number of newly constructed (approved) municipal dwellings in the cities/towns under observation between 1991 and December 31st, 2010 shows the totals of newly constructed dwellings between 1991 and 2010, per 1,000 residents, in Prague, Brno, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, Pilsen, and in the three size categories2) of the rest of the towns under observation. (For Prague, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, and three size categories of other towns data only for selected city/town districts or selected cities/towns were used for the diagram so that they would correspond with the sample of respondents used on the assessment of other queries of the privatization sphere. In the case of Prague data have been thus distorted as the dwellings built by the city council have not been included. For the whole city of Prague the number of newly constructed municipality dwellings amounts to 11.00 dwellings per 1,000 inhabitants for the period between 1991 and December 31st, 2010.)
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
Note:
Specified figures are only approximate. Some municipalities disregard subsidized dwellings which are more than 50 % co-owned by themselves.
The Diagram 3 has included:
in Prague - assessment of data from 8 respondents;
in Brno - assessment of data for the whole city as provided by the City Council;
in Ostrava - assessment of data from 14 respondents;
in Ústí nad Labem - assessment of data from 3 respondents;
in Pilsen - assessment of data for the whole city as provided by the City Council;
in other towns - populated 50,000 and above - assessment of data from 9 respondents;
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 14 respondents;
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 10 respondents.
The structure of the municipal dwellings, newly built in 2009 and in 2010, is shown in Chart 1, Structure of newly constructed municipal dwellings approved in 2009 and in 2010.
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
Cities/towns | % of newly constructed municipal dwellings, approved in 2009 | % of newly constructed municipal dwellings, approved in 2010 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
in newly constructed buildings | in reconstructed buildings | in newly constructed buildings | in reconstructed buildings | |
Prague | 4,8 | 95,2 | 0,0 | 100,0 |
Brno - City Council for the whole city | 0,0 | 100,0 | 45,9 | 54,1 |
Ostrava | 93,0 | 7,0 | x | x |
Ústí nad Labem | x | x | x | x |
Pilsen - City council for the whole city | 0,0 | 100,0 | x | x |
Cities/towns populated 50,000 and above | 0,0 | 100,0 | 0,0 | 100,0 |
Towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 | 0,0 | 100,0 | 0,0 | 100,0 |
Towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 | 0,0 | 100,0 | x | x |
Mean value | 44,0 | 56,0 | 30,4 | 69,6 |
The Chart 1 has included:
in Prague assessment of data from 8 respondents;
in Brno assessment of data for the whole city, as provided by the City Council;
in Ostrava assessment of data from 14 respondents;
in Ústí nad Labem assessment of data from 3 respondents;
in Pilsen assessment of data for the whole city, as provided by the City Council;
in other towns - populated 50,000 and above - assessment of data from 9 respondents;
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 14 respondents;
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 10 respondents.
Between 1991 and the end of 2001, the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 44.8 %, between 1991 and the end of 2002, the decrease was of 49.4 %, between 1991 and the end of 2003, the decrease was of 53.2 %. Between 1991 and the end of 2004, the decrease was of 57.3 %, between 1991 and the end of 2005 the decrease was 61.0 %, between 1991 and the end of 2006 the decrease was 65.0 %, between 1991 and the end of 2007 the decrease was 68.1 %, between 1991 and the end of 2008 the decrease reached 69.9 %, between 1991 and the end of 2009 the decrease amounted to 72.3 % and in the course of the period between 1991 and 2010 the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 75.5 %. In the course of 2002, the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 8.3 %, as related to their number in 2001, in the course of 2003, there was a decrease of 7.5 %, as related to 2002, in the course of 2004, the decrease was of 8.9 %, as related to 2003, in the course of 2005, the decrease was 8.6 %, as related to 2004, in the course of 2006, the decrease was 10.4 %, as related to their number in 2005, in the course of 2007 the total number of the municipal dwellings decreased by 8.9 %, as related to 2006, in 2008 the decrease of the total number of the municipal dwellings was 5.4 %, as related to their number in 2007, in the course of 2009 the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 8.2 %, as related to 2008, and during 2010 the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 11.6 %, as compared to their total number in 2009.
Most respondents have supposed to finish the privatisation of municipal dwellings in 2011 and 2012. Other terms of the privatization completion specified by the respondents are the years 2013 (City District Prague 1 and the towns/cities Hradec Králové, Cheb and Uherské Hradiště), 2014 (City District Prague 6, City District Prague - Letňany, and City District Ostrava - Poruba), 2015 (City District Prague 5, Brno - Židenice and Brno - Bystrc Districts, the District of Ostrava - Slezská Ostrava, and the towns Velká Bíteš and Valtice), 2016 (City District Prague 3, and the town Svitavy), 2018 (City District Ostrava - Jih), 2020 to 2021 (the city Zlín). The farthest term of privatization specified by the respondents is the year 2023 (the town Kyjov - in this term expected is the privatisation of the dwellings built on the basis of subsidies from 2000 to 2003, where the municipality and the tenants participated in the construction; the subsidy included a condition that these dwellings could not be sold by the municipality within 20 years). Some respondents still have not fixed their deadlines.
30 respondents have already completed the privatisation (or at least its 1st stage and now have reassumed the privatization again), i.e. the town Kroměříž finished the privatisation of the municipal dwellings in 1998; the town Třebíč has finished the 1st privatisation wave of the municipal dwellings in 1998 as well (the final term of the present wave has not been determined); the City District Prague 9 has finished the privatisation stage I in 1999 and the final term of the further privatisation stage has not been decided yet; the town Tišnov has finished a general privatisation in 2000 (now selling its dwellings either to natural persons who dwell in such dwellings, particularly for 70 % of assessed price, or to natural persons for market prices, after having announced its intent) and in this year also the town Teplice has finished the privatisation. In 2003 the privatisation has been finished by the District of Polanka nad Odrou in Ostrava. In this year also the Prague District 8 has finished the wave I of the privatisation (the finalization term of another wave has been specified for 2012), in 2004 the privatization of the municipal dwellings was finished in the City District Prague - Horní Počernice and in the town Třinec; in 2005 the City District Prague 15; moreover, the City District Ostrava - Svinov, and the town Otrokovice (the dwellings are being sold within a public competition since 2006); in 2006 the City Council of the Capital Prague and the towns Liberec and Velké Meziříčí; in 2007 the City District Prague 2 and the town České Budějovice; in 2008 the City District Brno - Jundrov, City District Ústí nad Labem - Severní Terasa, the town Chomutov and the town Vodňany and in 2009 the city of Pilsen, which completed the privatization in compliance with the Statute No. 72/1994 Coll.; then also the town Písek, which has specified that the privatization had been in fact finished and dwellings have been sold for market prices since 2009, as well as the town Polička; in 2010 the City Districts Brno - Bohunice, Brno - Komín, Brno - Líšeň, the district Ostrava - Michálkovice, and the towns Frýdek-Místek and Příbram.
The privatisation has reached a highly advanced stage in Ústí nad Labem where 97.5 % of these dwellings have been privatised from the 1991 transfer to the end of 2010. In the towns populated 50,000 and above the privatisation reached 94.6 % of municipal dwellings, by then in the city of Pilsen privatized were 86.4 % of dwellings, in the capital Prague 78.8 % of dwellings were in question, in the towns populated 10,000 to 49,999, 78.1 % were privatized. In the city of Ostrava this concerned 74.9 % of dwellings, in the towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 it is 68.4 %. The slowest pace of privatisation is in the city of Brno where mere 45.6 % of municipal dwellings have been privatised so far.
The comparison of the numbers of municipal dwellings and the total of dwellings, as given by the censuses of 1991 and 2001, is shown in Diagram 4, Share of municipal dwellings as related to the total number of dwellings in the cities/towns under observation in 1991 and in Diagram 5, Share of municipal dwellings as related to the total number of dwellings in the cities/towns under observation in 2009 and in 2010.
The per cent share of municipal dwellings, as compared to all dwellings in the cities/towns under observation, is gradually decreasing. In 1991, 40.2 % of all dwellings were municipal. 21.2 % were in question in 2001, 19.3 % in 2002, and in 2003, 17.7 % were municipal, in 2004, 16.2 %, in 2005, 14.6 %, in 2006, 13.2 %, in 2007, 12.7 %, in 2008, 12.0 %, in 2009 in question were 11.2 %, and in 2010, 9.9 % of all dwellings were municipal.
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
Note:
Numbers of municipal dwellings were compared to the total number of dwellings as per the 1991 census.
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
Note:
Numbers of municipal dwellings were compared to the total number of dwellings as per the 2001 census.
Notes to Diagrams 4 and 5:
The both diagrams were calculated without Prague and they summarize data from the identical number of respondents.
The data were collected from:
Prague was not included to the Diagrams as the numbers of municipal dwellings had to be added up from the data provided by the Prague City Council and individual city districts that were, however, incomplete (included were the city districts Prague 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, and Horní Počernice); in the 1991 census cell numbers of all dwellings cannot be added up for the City Council of the Capital Prague and for the city districts that provided us with responses related to the numbers of municipal dwellings (the administrative division of the Capital Prague has changed since 1991 census; we have got the total numbers of the dwellings only for the whole city).
In the city of Brno data were assessed for the whole city that were provided by the Brno City Council.
In Ostrava data were assessed from 14 respondents.
In Ústí nad Labem data from 3 respondents were assessed.
In Pilsen data, as provided by the Pilsen City Counci,l were assessed for the whole city.
For the towns populated 50,000 and above data from 9 respondents were assessed.
For the towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 data from 14 respondents were assessed.
For the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 data from 10 respondents were assessed.
The Municipalities intend to hold in their ownership 17.5 % of the dwellings (as related to those transferred to their ownership in 1991).
As related to the number of dwellings the Municipalities owned as per 31 December 2010, they intend to keep 71.6 % of the dwellings (the number of dwellings the Municipalities owned as per 31 December 2010 is the sum of those dwellings that remained, to the Municipalities, after the privatisation of the housing stock transferred to them in 1991 and of newly built municipal dwellings).
Chart 2, Prices in CZK/m2, for which dwellings are being sold in 2011, or possibly the prices applied in 2010 on condition the privatisation has been already ended in 2010, indicates the lowest and the highest prices reported by individual respondents:
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
City/town | 2011 | |
---|---|---|
Lowest price in CZK/m2 specified by respondents | Highest price in CZK/m2 specified by respondents | |
Prague | 5,700 (City District Prague 12) - price per m2 of built up area, or 5,800 (City District Prague 10) | 20,000 (City District Prague 4) |
Brno | 2,096 (City District Kohoutovice) | 14,000 (City Council of Brno) |
Ostrava | 1,495 (City District Petřkovice) | 2,492 (City District Moravská Ostrava and Přívoz) |
Ústí nad Labem | 7,125 (City District the City) - in 2010 | 8,396 (City District the City) - in 2010 |
Pilsen | 4,211.35 (data for the whole city for 2010) | 4,211.35 (data for the whole city for 2010) |
Other cities/towns populated 50,000 and above | 1,042 (Most), or 900 without lot (Karlovy Vary) | 12,500 (Pardubice), or 19,396 (Zlín - so-called direct sale) |
Other towns populated between 10,000 and 49,999 | 442 (Jablonec nad Nisou) | 13,606 (Jablonec nad Nisou); or 12,326 (Tábor - vacant flats in public selection procedure) |
Other towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 | 2,431 (Velká Bíteš) | 11,105 (Zruč nad Sázavou) |
Responses to the question “How your municipality proceeds in the privatization of the dwellings”, which solves the method of privatization of the dwellings in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU, in May 2004, and therefrom following necessity to adhere to the Community law in the field of public support so as not to take the risk of providing public subsidy prohibited by the community law.
On privatization of the municipality dwellings the respondents proceed as follows:
The results of the research in the shifts within the housing stock show that situations in larger cities (Prague, Brno, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, Pilsen) and smaller towns are not very different. The movements are rather insignificant, at an average of below 4.5 % of the total number of municipal dwellings. Such situation may be considered typical for the whole country.
The development of the numbers of debtors in rentals and/or in services between 2002 and 2010 is shown in Diagram 6, The development index of the number of debtors in respect of municipal dwellings between 2002 and 2010 (the year 2001 = 100). The development between the years 2002 and 2010 shows that as of 2001 the number of debtors was gradually decreasing as long as to 2008, except for the minor variation (increase) in 2004 in Prague, in 2004 and 2005 in Brno, in 2005 in Ostrava, in 2007 and 2008 in Pilsen, and in 2005 in the group of towns populated 10,000 to 49,999. However, in 2009 this trend has stopped in most towns/cities (except for Ústí nad Labem) and the number of debtors, in turn, increased. In 2010, as compared to 2009, the number of debtors decreased again (except for the towns populated 10,000 to 49.999 where another increase was seen). As compared to 2001, the most significant decrease of the number of debtors occurred in Ústí nad Labem (by 86 %), in Prague (by 61 %), in Brno (by 60 %), and in the towns populated 50,000 and above (by 59 %).
The development of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings in the cities/towns under observation between 2001 and 2010 is evident from Chart 3, The number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) between 2001 and 2010 (summarising table).
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
Note:
Data on the debtors in Prague, Brno, and in Ústí nad Labem apply to selected districts only.
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/towns districts.
Prague (selected districts) | Brno (selected districts) | Ostrava (all districts) | Ústí nad Labem (selected districts) | Plzeň (whole city) | Other towns | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
populated 50,000 and above (selected towns) | populated 10,000 to 49,999 (selected towns) | populated 2,000 to 9,999 (all towns) | |||||||
Share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings in cities/towns (city/town districts) under observation as per Dec 31st | 2001 | 26,2 | 29,0% | 29,4% | 74,3% | 27,3% | 34,3% | 20,0% | x |
2002 | 24,1% | 17,3% | 31,4% | 75,0% | 24,0% | 34,3% | 21,6% | x | |
2003 | 22,1% | 16,7% | 31,3% | 61,9% | 18,9% | 29,9% | 21,6% | 8,8% | |
2004 | 24,9% | 18,1% | 33,1% | 93,1% | 19,6% | 22,0% | 21,2% | 8,7% | |
2005 | 20,1% | 21,3% | 41,5% | 111,0% | 28,1% | 22,5% | 23,5% | 9,1% | |
2006 | 16,5% | 19,5% | 37,6% | 85,2% | 33,4% | 22,4% | 22,9% | 11,2% | |
2007 | 15,1% | 13,3% | 41,0% | 72,2% | 41,6% | 18,5% | 19,7% | 10,8% | |
2008 | 14,6% | 12,7% | 37,6% | 97,7% | 65,0% | 17,9% | 19,1% | 12,5% | |
2009 | 23,9% | 18,3% | 44,8% | 89,2% | 70,2% | 22,0% | 24,1% | 14,0% | |
2010 | 24,7% | 17,2% | 41,0% | 92,7% | 66,8% | 33,0% | 28,4% | 14,4% | |
Change index of the number of debtors | 2002/2001 | 86,8 | 57,0 | 99,3 | 88,5 | 84,1 | 95,3 | 97,0 | x |
2003/2002 | 85,2 | 92,3 | 92,9 | 78,3 | 78,3 | 83,1 | 90,1 | x | |
2004/2003 | 103,5 | 102,3 | 97,7 | 80,1 | 95,6 | 71,0 | 89,6 | 100,0 | |
2005/2004 | 76,7 | 112,4 | 111,1 | 98,7 | 98,4 | 95,6 | 106,3 | 105,0 | |
2006/2005 | 73,1 | 87,5 | 78,6 | 55,3 | 100,1 | 91,1 | 92,6 | 115,8 | |
2007/2006 | 73,8 | 67,6 | 97,6 | 78,1 | 103,3 | 81,8 | 79,7 | 94,1 | |
2008/2007 | 89,8 | 92,9 | 82,7 | 91,1 | 134,8 | 95,4 | 88,3 | 106,5 | |
2009/2008 | 145,0 | 139,1 | 114,9 | 84,2 | 109,0 | 110,3 | 115,0 | 111,9 | |
2010/2009 | 93,4 | 87,4 | 88,2 | 79,7 | 92,2 | 96,2 | 110,4 | 99,6 |
Note:
The share of the debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of the municipal dwellings has reached values higher than 100 % in some cities/towns, i.e. these towns have had either old claims against the debtors even in relation to dwellings sold to new tenants, who are not debtors any more, in the privatisation, or they have recorded more than one debtor per one dwelling.
From the table follows that, since 2001, in the cities/towns under observation (hand-in-hand with the proceeding privatisation) a great difference of the values of the indicator “share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings” occurs. In 2010 the share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings, in the cities/towns under observation, varied between 14.4 % (the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999) and 92.7 % (Ústí nad Labem). However, the predictive value of the indicator of the share of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings is markedly influenced by an advanced stage of the privatisation of the municipal dwellings. Therefore this indicator is completed, in the table, by the “interim change index of the number of debtors”; in contrast to 2009 when most towns/cities (except for the city Ústí nad Labem) experienced an increase of the absolute number of debtors, most towns/cities (except for the towns populated 10,000 to 49,999) indicated a decrease of the absolute number of debtors in 2010. The highest annual decrease of the number of debtors was recorded in Ústí nad Labem, namely by 20.3 % (index 79.7). The group of towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 the annual increase of the number of debtors, reached 10.4 % (index 110.4).
Diagram 7, Development indexes of the number of municipal dwellings and of debtors in the towns under observation between 2002 and 2010 (the year 2001 = 100) without the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 shows the relation between the development of the number of debtors and the development of the number of municipal dwellings in the towns under observation between 2002 and 2010. It is clear from the diagram that, between 2002 and 2008, the number of debtors decreased more rapidly than the number of municipal dwellings, while in 2009 a temporary increase of the number of debtors occurred, however, in 2010 the number of debtors decreased again, but the pace of decrease of the number of debtors was reduced and approached the pace of decrease of the number of municipal dwellings. (The evaluation has not included the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999, out of which some were addressed first within the investigation in 2005; therefore data on the number of debtors for a longer period have not been available.)
The number of debtors in the municipal dwellings, in relation to the overall number of dwellings in the cities/towns under observation as per 31 December 2009, is given in the Diagram 8, Number of debtors in the municipal dwellings as related to the total number of dwellings as per December 31st, 2009 and as per 31 December 2010 it is given in the Diagram 9, Number of debtors in the municipal dwellings as related to the total number of dwellings as per December 31st, 2010.
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts
Note:
Data on total dwellings, total municipal dwellings, and debtors in Prague, Brno, and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected districts only.
Data on total dwellings as per the census of 1st March 2001.
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts
Note:
Data on total dwellings, total municipal dwellings, and debtors in Prague, Brno, and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected districts only.
Data on total dwellings as per the census of 1st March 2001.
The question of the numbers of “short-term” debtors (in rentals and/or in services) who did not meet the condition to be given notice to quit, by the lessor, without assent by the court pursuant to Sec. 711(2)(b) of the Statute No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code as last amended, was answered by rather a lower number of respondents only, as the most frequent system of evidence of debtors cannot easily identify “short-term” debtors. In general it may be stated that the share of the “short-term” debtors was relatively high both in 2010 as well as in 2009. It may be caused by the influence of the persisting economic crisis combined with the already finished (by December 31st, 2010) or, in some cases, still proceeding (till December 31st, 2012) gradual deregulation of rentals when the number of inhabitants who find themselves in a short-term financial distress increases.
In 2009 the average prescribed net rental per dwelling was of 2,886 CZK/dwelling/month, while in 2010, 3,315 CZK/dwelling/month were in question.
In 2009 the average prescribed monthly payment for services per dwelling was of 1,815 CZK/dwelling/month, while in 2010, 1,905 CZK/dwelling/month were in question.
So, the average monthly payment for the use of a municipal apartment was of 4.701 CZK/dwelling/month in 2009, while in 2010, of 5,220 CZK/dwelling/month.
Thus the 2010 payments for the both average prescribed net rental and average prescribed net payment for services increased, as compared to 2009, thus also the total amount to be paid for the use of an apartment.
The average debt on the net rental per a municipal apartment was of CZK 3,582 as by 31 December 2009, while of CZK 4,612 as by 31 December 2010.
The average debt on services in a municipal apartment was of CZK 2,685 as by 31 December 2009, while of CZK 3,011 as by 31 December 2010.
So, the average debt on the use of a municipal apartment was of CZK 6,268 as by 31 December 2009, while of CZK 7,623 as by 31 December 2010.
Thus the 2010 mean debts for the net rentals per one municipal apartment increased, as compared to 2009, whereas the total debts in payments for the services increased as well, thus increasing the total mean payment for the use of a municipal apartment. Such increase may partly be caused by the decrease in the number of municipal dwellings due to the privatisation of the housing stock.
The percentages of municipal dwellings for which the rental is applied to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. was related, the number of municipal dwellings the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30th, 1993 and to the financing of which a subsidy was provided to municipalities from the state budget or from state funds, and the number of municipal dwellings with contractual rent is shown in Diagram 10, Municipal dwellings by types of applied rentals, 2009 and Diagram 11, Municipal dwellings by types of applied rentals, 2010.
In the previous years the shares of the dwellings the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30th, 1993 and for the financing of which subsidy was provided to municipalities from the state budget or from state funds, and the shares of the number of dwellings with the contractual rentals kept increasing gradually, while the share of the dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. applied, has been gradually decreasing. In this year the diagrams indicate that the share of the number of dwellings with the rentals to which applied the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. and the share of the number of dwellings with contractual rentals slightly decreased in 2010, as compared to 2009, whereas the share of the number of dwellings the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30th, 1993 and to the financing of which municipalities were provided subsidies from the state budget or from state funds increased on the other hand.
As related to the total number of municipal dwellings, the share of the municipal dwellings, for which the rental is applied to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. applied, reached 77.7 % in the towns under observation in 2009 and 75.8 % in 2010.
As compared to the total number of the municipal dwellings, the share of the municipal dwellings, the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30th, 1993 and for the financing of which the municipalities were provided a subsidy from the state budget, was 10.7 % in 2009 and 12.8 % in 2010 in the towns under observation. Significantly higher was the share of this type of dwellings in Ústí nad Labem (23.7 % in 2009 and 43.1 % in 2010) and in the category of towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 (24.5 % in 2009 and 25.5 % in 2010). In 2010 a high share of the dwellings built with the state subsidy was also in the category of towns populated 50,000 and above (24.2 %). On the other hand, the lowest share of such dwellings was in Brno (1.6 % in 2009 and 1.8 % in 2010).
The share of the municipal dwellings with contractual rent in the total number of municipal dwellings was 11.6 % in 2009 and 11.4 % in 2010 in the towns under observation. A significantly higher share of such dwellings was in the category of towns populated between 10,000 and 49,999 (20.5 % in 2009 and 22.4 % in 2010) and in the category of towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 (20.6 % in 2009 and 22.1 % in 2010). On the other hand, the lowest share of such dwellings was in Brno (4.3 % in 2009 and 4.8 % in 2010).
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
The Diagrams 10 and 11 have included:
in Prague assessment of data from 10 respondents;
in Brno assessment of data from 19 respondents;
in Ostrava assessment of data from 15 respondents;
in Ústí nad Labem assessment of data from 3 respondents;
in Pilsen assessment of data for the whole city, as provided by the City Council;
in other towns - populated 50,000 and above - assessment of data from 11 addressed respondents;
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 15 addressed respondents;
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 8 addressed respondents.
Unilateral increase of rentals on the basis of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral increase of rentals from a flat and on the amendment of the Statute No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code, as last amended, as amended by the Statute No. 150/2009 Coll., and on the basis of the Announcement of the MinRD No. 180/2009 Coll. [On the basis of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. the lessor was entitled to increase the rent once a year and, after that, always as per January 1st, or later, within the period of time that started on January 1st, 2007 and ended on December 31st, 2010. By the amendment of the Statute, i.e. by the Statute No. 150/2009 Coll., the option for the municipalities to unilaterally increase the rentals was prolonged till December 31st, 2012. Concerned are dwellings in the Capital Prague, in the municipalities of the Central Bohemian County populated above 9,999 as per January 1st, 2009 (within our investigation identified were the towns Kladno, Mladá Boleslav, and Příbram), and in the towns/cities České Budějovice, Pilsen, Karlovy Vary, Liberec, Hradec Králové, Pardubice, Jihlava, Brno, Olomouc, and Zlín]::
Chart 4, The share of dwellings owned by municipalities (for that the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. applied), for which the unilateral increase of rentals was used in 2010, and Diagram 12, Respondents as per their response to the question whether they applied the maximum increase of rentals, or the value of the target rentals as the case may be, in 2010, indicate the attitude of the respondents to the unilateral increase of the rentals in 2010.
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
Town/city | The share of dwellings owned by municipalities, for which the unilateral increase of rentals was used in 2010 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 - 24% | 25 - 49% | 50 - 74% | 75 - 99% | 100% | |
Number of respondents | Number of respondents | Number of respondents | Number of respondents | Number of respondents | |
Prague | 8 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
Brno | 12 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 3 |
Ostrava | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7 |
Ústí nad Labem | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Pilsen | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Other cities/towns populated 50,000 and above | 4 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 7 |
Other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 10 |
Other towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
Total | 31 | 6 | 9 | 14 | 42 |
Share | 30,39% | 5,88% | 8,82% | 13,73% | 41,18% |
Note:
Prague - 2 respondents did not specify any answer, 8 respondents did not unilaterally increase rentals in municipal dwellings in 2010.
Brno - 1 respondent did not specify any answer, 12 respondents did not unilaterally increase rentals in municipal dwellings in 2010.
Ostrava - 1 respondent (the City Council) referred to individual City Districts, 1 respondent did not specify any answer, 2 respondents did not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. applied.
Ústí nad Labem - 1 respondent did not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. applied.
Pilsen City - data for the whole city as delivered by the City Council of Pilsen.
Cities/towns populated 50,000 and above - 4 respondents did not unilaterally increase rentals in municipal dwellings in 2010.
Towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 - 2 respondents did not specify any answer, 3 respondents did not unilaterally increase rentals in municipal dwellings in 2010.
The table shows that in 2010 41 % of the respondents unilaterally increased the rentals in all municipal dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. applied. In total, 27 respondents did not utilise the contingency to unilaterally increase the rentals in 2010. These were mostly respondents for which the option was prolonged, as far as till December 31st, 2012, to unilaterally increase the rentals by the Statute No. 150/2009 Coll.
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
Note:
Ostrava City - 3 respondents did not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral increase of rentals applied; therefore they have not been included in the evaluation of this range of questions.
Ústí nad Labem City - 1 respondent did not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral increase of rentals applied; therefore it has not been included in the evaluation of this range of questions.
Pilsen City - data for the whole City provided by the City Council of Pilsen.
From the diagram follows that in 2010 nearly half of the respondents (46 %) utilised the maximum increase of the rentals, or of the value of target rentals, for all dwellings, for which the unilateral increase of the rentals was used. In total 11 % of the respondents utilized the maximum increment of the rentals, or of the value of the target rentals, however, not for all dwellings. Other 11 % of the respondents did not utilize the maximum increment of the rentals, or of the value of the target rentals. In 2010, 25 % of the respondents did not unilaterally increase the rentals in municipality dwellings and 6 % did not specify whether they utilized the unilateral increase of the rentals, or the maximum increment of the rentals.
The highest share of respondents who did not unilaterally increase the rentals in 2010 was in Brno (55 %) and in Prague (42 %). At the same time, there was the highest share of respondents who did not utilize the maximum possible increment of the rentals.
The interest of the cities/towns in the unilateral increase of the rentals in 2011 is documented by the Diagram 13, Unilateral increase of rentals in 2011. From the diagram follows that in 2011 as much as 50 % of the respondents used the contingency of the unilateral increase of the rentals in the municipal dwellings. Totally 18 % of the respondents did not specify any answer to this question and the remaining 32 % of the respondents did not unilaterally increase the rentals in the municipal dwellings in 2011.
Terms of the unilateral increase of the rentals in 2011 are shown in Diagram 14, Respondents by the term of the unilateral increase of rentals in 2011.
Data for selected cities/towns or for selected city/town districts.
Note:
The diagram includes only those towns/cities that are concerned by the extension of the period of time (till December 31st, 2012) within which the unilateral increase of rentals may be applied.
Included were not the other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 as the extension of this period of time when the unilateral increase of rental may be applied concerns only two respondents from this group of towns.
City of Brno - 1 respondent does not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral increase of rentals applied, therefore it has not been included in the evaluation of this question.
Pilsen City - data for the whole city as provided by the City Council of Pilsen.
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
Note:
The diagram includes only those towns/cities that are concerned by the extension of the period of time (till December 31st, 2012) within which the unilateral increase of rentals may be applied.
Included were not the other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 as the extension of this period of time when the unilateral increase of rental may be applied concerns only two respondents from this group of towns.
Brno City - the City Council replies this issue is in power of city districts.One respondent does not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral increase of rentals applied, therefore it has not been included in the evaluation of this question.
Pilsen City - data for the whole city provided by the City Council of Pilsen.
Towns populated 50,000 and above - 2 respondents did not answer this question.
For a standard dwelling after the unilateral increase in 2008, the rental charges varied within the range from 12.37 CZK/m2 in the town Most to 70.00 CZK/m2 referred to in the City District Prague 4; in 2009, they varied between 13.00 CZK/m2 in the town Příbram and 95.46 CZK/m2 as specified by the City District Prague 7 and in 2010 the rentals for a standard dwelling reached the levels between 12.91 CZK/m2 in the town Most and 110.44 CZK/m2 as specified by the City Council of the Capital Prague. In 2011 the unilateral increase of rentals concerned only a part of the respondents where the option to increase the rentals was prolonged as long as till December 31st, 2012. For these respondents the rentals charges varied, in 2011, between 13.72 CZK/m2 in the town Karlovy Vary and 110.44 CZK/m2 as specified by the City Council of the Capital Prague.
For lower quality dwellings the rentals after the unilateral increase in 2008 reached the levels between 7.89 CZK/m2 in the town Teplice and 54.82 CZK/m2 as referred to by the City District Prague - Řepy; in 2009, they varied between 7.89 CZK/m2 in the town Teplice and 76.53 CZK/m2 specified by the City Council of the Capital Prague and in 2010 the rentals for low quality dwellings reached the levels between 7.19 CZK/m2 in the town Děčín and 91.67 CZK/m2 as referred to by the city Council of the Capital Prague. In 2011 for the respondents for whom the option to unilaterally increase the rentals was prolonged the rentals for a lower quality dwelling varied between 7.60 CZK/m2 in the town Karlovy Vary and 97.77 CZK/m2 in the City District Prague 7.
From the comparison of the rentals after the unilateral increase of 2011 and of the rentals in dwellings built with a state subsidy and with contractual rentals may be deduced that the highest dispersion of values, between the minimum and maximum amount of the rent in individual groups of towns/town districts/city districts, is recorded for the contractual rentals.
From the knowledge and comments of respondents to the issue of the unilateral increase of rentals may be collectively stated:
In most cases, towns manage their municipal housing stock through one or more specialized private businesses, hired by the municipality, entitled to a consideration for the management. In 2009, such type of care-taking was with 53.1 % of the total of municipal dwellings, while in 2010, 50.9 %.
The average monthly costs of the management of a municipal dwelling through a caretaker were of CZK 236.54 per dwelling/month in 2009, while of CZK 249.76 in 2010. The average costs for dwellings maintained directly by one of the Municipality’s departments were of CZK 177.06 per dwelling/month in 2009, while of CZK 198.46 in 2010. As for the management of the municipal dwellings by means of a caretaker, the mean costs of the management of the municipal dwellings increased in 2010, as compared to 2009, in the case of the City of Prague, in the towns populated 50,000 and above, and in the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999. Furthermore, it slightly increased in the cities of Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, and Pilsen. In the city of Brno the amount of costs for the provision of the management of municipal dwellings by means of a caretaker decreased in 2010, as compared to 2009. A slight decrease was also seen in the category of towns populated 10,000 to 49,999. Six of all the investigated groups of respondents specified the provision of the management of the municipal dwellings through a respective department. Five of them indicated an increase of the costs for such management of the municipal dwellings in 2010, as compared to 2009 (i.e. in Prague, Brno, and in all three size categories of other towns/cities). On the other hand, the costs decreased in Ostrava. The cities of Ústí nad Labem and Pilsen do not specify such management of municipal dwellings. At the same time, from the given data follows that if a town manages its dwellings by its own, through a respective department, it is cheaper for the cities/towns than the provision of the municipal dwellings management through a caretaker.
The average monthly costs of the management of municipal dwellings increased in 2010, compared to 2009, the same as the average income from rentals of municipal dwellings in 2010, compared to 2009. The average monthly management and maintenance costs invested by towns/cities in municipal dwellings were CZK 2,285 in 2009, while CZK 2,455 were in question in 2010; the average monthly income from rentals of municipal dwellings was CZK 3,114 in 2009, while the amount CZK 3,471 was in question in 2010. The average costs of management and maintenance of municipal dwellings was lower than the average incomes from the rentals of municipal dwellings both in 2009 and in 2010, whereas the difference between these two amounts increased in 2010, compared to 2009.
Diagram 15, Comparison of respondents by their responses to the question whether the present incomes from rentals cover the maintenance costs of the municipal housing stock so as deterioration of its technical status would not occur, shows the evaluation of the responses of individual respondents to this question.
Data for all cities/towns or city/town districts.
The issue of letting municipal dwellings and of letting municipal dwellings to selected groups of residents:
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
Note:
Figures of Prague, Brno, Ostrava and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected city districts; data for Pilsen are data as provided by the City Council of Pilsen for the whole city;
in Prague assessment of data from 14 respondents (without the city districts Prague 3, 6, 8, 11, and 14);
in Brno assessment of data from 16 respondents (without the City Council, City Districts Central District, Černovice, Komín, Medlánky, and Tuřany);
in Ostrava assessment of data from 13 respondents (without the City Districts Hrabová, Mariánské Hory and Hulváky, Stará Bělá, and Svinov);
in Ústí nad Labem assessment of data from 1 respondent (without the City Districts Město, Severní Terasa, and Střekov);
in Pilsen assessment of data for the whole city, as provided by the City Council;
in other towns - populated 50,000 and above - assessment of data from 8 respondents (without the City of Olomouc and the towns České Budějovice, Hradec Králové, Kladno, Most, Karviná, Karlovy Vary, and Teplice);
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 16 respondents (without the towns Příbram, Znojmo, Písek, Hodonín, Český Krumlov, and Lanškroun);
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 10 respondents (without the town Vodňany).
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
Note:
Figures of Prague, Ostrava and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected city districts; data for Brno and Pilsen are data as provided by the City Councils for the whole cities;
in Prague assessment of data from 11 respondents (without the city districts Prague 1, 3, 6, 8, 11,14, Horní Počernice, and Letňany);
in Brno assessment of data for the whole city as provided by the City Council;
in Ostrava assessment of data from 8 respondents (without the City Districts Hošťálkovice, Hrabová, Mariánské Hory and Hulváky, Michálkovice, Petřkovice, Proskovice, Stará Bělá, Svinov, and Třebovice);
in Ústí nad Labem assessment of data from 1 respondent (without the City Districts Město, Severní Terasa, and Střekov);
in Pilsen assessment of data for the whole city, as provided by the City Council;
in other towns - populated 50,000 and above - assessment of data from 7 respondents (without the City of Olomouc and the towns České Budějovice, Hradec Králové, Kladno, Most, Karviná, Frýdek-Místek, Karlovy Vary, and Teplice);
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 14 respondents (without the towns Třinec, Příbram, Znojmo, Písek, Kroměříž, Hodonín, Český Krumlov, and Lanškroun);
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 6 respondents (without the towns Vodňany, Zruč nad Sázavou, Kdyně, Velká Bíteš, and Valtice).
Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.
The issues of municipal housing have been monitored through questionnaire surveys since 2000, then exploring data of 1998 and 1999. Since then this investigation is performed on an annual basis and this year's one mapped the situation in 2009 and 2010. For the assignor of the task - the MinRD CR’s Dwelling Policy Department - such research is one of the ways to collect up-to-date information on municipal housing, for the Czech Statistic Office does not routinely record such data.
The research of the developments in the privatisation of the municipal housing stock offers the comparison of the dynamics of this process between its beginnings in 1991 and today, giving estimations of its prospects in future years. From this year's research (i.e. for 2010) followed that most respondents expected the finalization of the process of the municipal dwellings privatisation in 2011 and 2012. The most distant dates of the privatisation finalization mentioned in this year’s questionnaire investigation were 2020 to 2021 and 2023 (this term includes the privatisation of the dwellings that were constructed on the basis of subsidies provided between 2000 and 2003 where the municipalities and tenants participated in the construction of the dwellings; the subsidy included, among others, the condition that the municipality must not sell these dwellings within the period of 20 years).
The printed version of the final report of the 2011 questionnaire survey is available at the Dwelling Policy Department of the MinRD CR and at the Brno Institute for Spatial Development. A brief report from the research Results of the 2009 and 2010 Questionnaire Survey in the Developments of Selected Towns’ Municipal Housing Stock is presented on the Institute for Spatial Development’s web site (www.uur.cz → Bytová politika a regenerace sídel → Monitoring komunálního bydlení → Municipal Housing Stock → Municipal Housing Stock 2009 and 2010).
Following the requirements of the MinRD CR, the survey will be repeated at the beginning of 2012. Together with the task assignor, the questions in the questionnaire will be updated.
The task “Monitoring of Municipal Housing”, comprehensively analysing the municipal housing stock, is an important part of the continuous activities of the Institute for Spatial Development, which means it is repeated annually on a regular basis. The results of this research are widely used by housing policy makers.
The assignor of the task - the Dwelling Policy Department of the Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic - and the researching staff of the Institute for Spatial Development wish to thank all the respondents for their collaborative approach and the information, by which they have contributed to the final report, making thus a coherent picture of the situation of the municipal housing stock in the Czech Republic.
1) The total number of municipal dwellings in the Czech Repubic, as provided by the Czech Statistic Office, markedly differs from the data from previous years as the Czech Statistic Office revised the overall time series on the basis of new data.
2 Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on unilateral advance of rent from a flat and on the amendment of the Statute No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code, as last amended, and the Announcement of the MinRD No. 333/2006 Coll. on the classification of municipalities in respect of size categories according to the number of inhabitants, on the territorial classification of municipalities by grouping of cadastral districts, on the height of prices per 1 m2 of floor area of dwellings, on target values of monthly rents per 1 m2 of a dwelling floor area, on a maximum increment of a monthly rent and on the procedure when searching for a maximum rent increment for a concrete flat.