LA TRIBUNE – For two years, you’ve been talking about the “social bomb” surrounding housing. Do you think this bomb exploded?
Robin Rivaton- Yes, there is a crisis, but it is difficult to tell if a bomb has exploded, because we are not all equal when it comes to the house. Owner-occupiers who have already paid off their loans are not in the same situation as tenants in private housing. In France, the gap between the share of income spent on housing by owners and that spent by renters is the highest in the OECD.
Who is most affected by this crisis?
First-time buyers who want to become first-time owners or new tenants, students leaving the family home, divorced couples, people needing to move or change the region. For all these people, the market freezes and residential mobility declines sharply.
Over the past twenty years, France has produced many good quality housing units. However, this increase in housing stock has masked underlying problems. Despite historically low interest rates, homeownership rates have not changed in 17 years. Today, we have gone from 400,000 additional homes to 250,000 per year, leading to a loss of one million homes by the end of the decade. Incidentally, this puts the construction sector, whose good health has contributed to the decline in unemployment, in big trouble.
Why are public authorities not taking steps to address the challenges despite warnings?
The problem is that Bursey has been convinced for nearly 15 years that real estate prices are too high and the only way to bring them down is to reduce demand. However, this approach did not work and housing prices increased in all developed countries. Furthermore, a section of the administration believes that housing has not contributed enough to the environmental transition and has implemented strict catch-up regulations such as the ZAN and DPE regulations. Both these approaches have contributed to the current crisis.
Is there no contradiction between the desire to reindustrialize regions and the absence of a coherent housing policy?
Housing is becoming a major obstacle in the economic development of the country. In the 2000s, price dynamics led to wage increases that emphasized competitiveness. Today, the problem is even worse: there is not enough housing for people to move to when they look for work in another area, which contributes to structural unemployment of 7%. To attract people, you have to house them.
The supply shocks announced by the government are just words. What concrete steps should be taken to resolve the situation?
It is necessary to go back to some environmental regulations, such as ZAN and DPE, which emphasize the housing stock. We should also encourage municipalities to find a financial interest in building new housing or welcoming new populations into their territory. Today, local authorities do not have the right to take equity stakes in civil construction-sale companies, except for fixed-term structures. The law needs to be changed to allow municipalities to access the capital of build-sell SCIs for an indefinite period, so that they can buy land, develop it and sell it. This will allow them to earn money and help the project progress.
The new minister, Guillaume Kasbarian, knows the subject well. Do you have hope in him?
Yes, I have high hopes for him. He seems to understand that market stability is the main risk. If the market stops, it spells disaster, especially in terms of access to employment and educational mobility. If people start dropping out of education because they can no longer afford housing, that means giving up their potential talent.
Isn’t it time to take more radical steps to unblock the market? Should we be more liberal when it comes to housing?
It is not a priority. Although the ratio between landlords and tenants is not perfectly balanced, it is not at an intolerable level either. On the other hand, we have a problem with environmental regulations. In the name of so-called universalism, we have set ourselves goals that are beyond our reach. It is necessary to go back, exempt small areas from DPE and order a moratorium on ZAN. We must also stop the bleeding into new housing construction. We need 400,000 new homes every year, whether through construction, renovation or office conversion, and everyone agrees on this figure.
Will the rate cut have an impact?
This will stimulate demand. However, without supply, this would cause prices to rise as soon as people become solvent again. People who are in affordable housing are no longer moving out, creating a vicious circle: low supply, strong demand, stagnant prices and a shortage of available goods. To get out of this, many levers need to be moved simultaneously to align the interests of all stakeholders. This is the complexity of the situation.