Anti-gentrification in (Southern) European cities
Introduction:
The scope of our paper is to analyze housing policies implemented after the crisis in relation to their potential to prevent housing deprivation, displacement, and eviction. We will focus on Italy and Greece and on their capital cities, Rome and Athens, severely impacted by seven years of austerity policies and housing distress. Austerity assumes different forms and is impacting Italy and Greece in different ways. A common point for departure in this comparative paper is that these countries well exemplify the terms of the (new) housing crisis and the ‘intensification’ of a problem affecting many communities around Europe. Housing scholars seem to agree that the crucial point of the (new) housing crisis is not related to lack of supply, but rather to the erosive effects of impoverishment, unemployment, and indebtedness that challenge access to housing and, even worst, threaten eviction tenants in rental housing as well as homeowners with mortgages.
Anti-gentrification in European cities:
The paper explores the anti-gentrification in housing policies in Rome, Italy and Athens, Greece, assuming a specific focus on durable tenancy and housing stability considered to be fundamental components for the prevention of displacement (European Commission 2016). Also international studies on how to prevent eviction, displacement and homelessness have proven the importance of housing policies and prevention measures as a way to face the current increase of housing deprivation (FEANSA 2011, 2007). Rome is a special case in the geography of the Italian housing crisis. It is the city with the larger number of eviction orders, the highest social housing demand, the richer public residential stock, the longer housing movement.
Housing policy agendas in the two countries after the economic crisis:
As a result of the global financial crisis, which in Italy and Greece was translated into a Sovereign Debt crisis with consequent implementation of austerity policies, housing distress is on the rise and it is mainly interpreted as a crisis of affordability, namely the impossibility to meet the cost of living (in any type of tenure, homeownership or market rented housing). As a way to cope with the situation, targeted and temporary measures have been implemented both in Italy and Greece. These attempts did not lead to a structural policy reform, they represent however the starting point for an enquiry on the premises upon which housing policies are implemented, their effects and potentials.
The case of Italy and Rome:
In Italy the housing crisis is not new. However, rather than a structural crisis, it has been perceived and described as an emergency and temporary problem mainly related with affordability and anti-gentrification. This interpretation framed the measures implemented by the State in the recent years. These have been based on: temporary laws that protect indebted homeowners, emergency-style housing solution for those experiencing severe housing distress and eviction, special taxation regimes and incentives aimed at reducing the financial burden of property owners, targeted housing allowances for tenants. Among the countries that have the highest GDP/Public Debt ratio in Europe (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain) the rising indebtedness for access to housing is the main factor determining the features of the new housing crisis globally: crisis-induced mortgage insolvencies and repossessions.
The case of Greece and Athens:
The economic recession and imposed austerity policies had important effects upon the Greek housing and property system, turning small-scale, fragmented and socially dispersed immobile assets from important resources in the family economy into a burden. The protection of first residence and small-scale patrimony has become central in the agenda due to the introduction of heavy property and income taxation. A moratorium on auctions for debt towards the banks was introduced unconditionally already. Following that, an insolvency law for physical persons was introduced in 2010, allowing over indebted households to apply to courts for a rearrangement of debt according to their ability to repay. With this measure, Greece has avoided the mass foreclosures and evictions experienced for example in Spain, nevertheless the issue of private debt remains crucial.
Conclusion:
As a conclusive remark we would like to explore what the cases can tell to each other, what we can learn, regarding housing policies in a time characterized by severe dispossession, anti-gentrification and housing exclusion. We summarize strengths/elements of stability, weaknesses and future trends deriving from the policies we have analyzed in the two countries.
The strong predisposition to homeownership that characterizes both the Southern European countries under study, represents at the same time a strength and a weakness in terms of policy innovation. The proprietary regime strongly influenced policies in the field of homeownership protection, with a relative stable situation in Italy and a more burdensome one in Greece given the higher levels of over indebtedness. The protection of private property is thus at the core of the agenda, as a measure that will consequently prevent eviction, anti-gentrification and dispossession of homeowners.