Hústökulög! Taka 3

Fyrir tæpu ári síðan skrifaði ég bréf sem ég sendi til Jóhönnu Sigurðardóttur, þáverandi félagsmálaráðherra. Ég fékk ekkert svar, enda gleymdi ég lykilorðunum svar óskast.

Mér datt í hug að senda svipað bréf í dag - í tilefni af hústökunni á Vatnsstígnum- en nú nálgast kosningar, þinglok eru handan við hornið og því varla mikið upp úr því að hafa að bombardera vesalings Ástu Ragnheiði með mínum sundurlausu pælingum.

Önnur hugmynd er að senda bréf til stjórnmálaflokkanna og hvetja þá til að beita sér fyrir lögum um hústökurétt. Ég hef því miður ekki mikla trú á því að stjórnmálaflokkar beiti sér fyrir einhverju sem peningamennirnir eru ósáttir við. Þetta er kannske óþarfa svartsýni hjá mér. Kannske er núna einmitt rétti tíminn: fasteignabraskararnir þora ekki að segja neitt, því þjóðin er ekki enn búin að fyrirgefa þeim. Það er betra fyrir þá að hafa hægt um sig. 

 

Hvað finnst ykkur? 

 ---

Hér er afrit af bréfinu:

 Sem kunnugt er standa fjölmörg hús auð og ónotuð víðsvegar um borgina. Á sama tíma eru margir heimilislausir, hugsanlega yfir hundrað manns. Auk þeirra er stór hópur fólks sem vart hefur efni á leiguíbúðum.

Í ljósi þessa þykir mér undarlegt að enginn hafi komið með þá tillögu sem ég útlista hér að neðan. Hugsanlega er þar um að kenna hugmyndaleysi þó sjálfsagt komi þar að fleiri þættir, svo sem mótstaða húsnæðiseigenda - þeirra sem hvað mest græða á hinu háa leiguverði- og verktaka sem láta hús drabbast niður í þeim tilgangi að fá leyfi til niðurrifs.

Hver svo sem ástæðan er breytir það ekki stöðunni. Því kem ég með þá tillögu að slá þessar tvær flugur í einu höggi: nýta það húsnæði sem autt stendur og minnka fjölda heimilislausra í borginni. Lausnin er einföld, svo einföld að það er ótrúlegt að enginn hafi borið fram tillögu þessa efnis á hinu háa Alþingi. Lausnin er að setja hústökulög.

Í Bretlandi, Hollandi og víðar hafa hústökulög verið við lýði í lengri tíma, víða með góðum árangri. Þó fjöldi heimilislausra í þessum löndum sé meiri en hér leyfi ég mér að fullyrða að staðan væri verri ef ekki væri fyrir hústökulögin. Í löndunum í kringum okkur er að finna fjöldann allan af yfirteknum húsum -jafnvel heilu hverfin- og nægir þar að nefna Kristjaníu í Kaupmannahöfn, Ernst-Kirchweger-Haus í Vín og Can Masdeu í Barcelona.

Í Hollandi er leyfilegt að yfirtaka hús hafi það staðið autt í tólf mánuði eða lengur og eigandinn hafi ekki brýna þörf fyrir notkun þess (svo sem útleigu sem hefst innan mánaðar). Hústökufólkið sendir síðan eiganda og lögreglu tilkynningu um að húsið hafi verið yfirtekið og geta þeir aðilar þá skoðað húsnæðið og gengið úr skugga um að ekki hafi verið unnar skemmdir á því. Einnig staðfesta þeir að viðkomandi hústökuaðili búi þar, þ.e. að á staðnum sé rúm, borð og stóll, sem og lás sem hústökuaðili hefur lykil að.

Í Bretlandi eru svipuð lög, hústökuaðili verður að hafa lyklavöld að húsnæðinu og eigandi má ekki vísa hústökufólki á dyr án dómsúrskurðar þess efnis. Varla væri erfitt að setja svipuð lög hérlendis og hef ég tekið saman nokkra punkta sem mættu vera til staðar í lögum:

1. Hafi hús staðið autt og ónotað í eitt ár (12 mánuði) eða lengur má aðili annar en eigandi setjast þar að án sérstaks leyfis.

2. Hústökuaðili skal skipta um lása, gera við brotnar rúður með viðeigandi hætti, greiða fyrir vatn og rafmagn sem hann kann að nota (og hugsanlega skrá lögheimili sitt í húsnæðinu). Séu þessi skilyrði uppfyllt má eigandi ekki vísa hústakanda úr húsnæðinu án dómsúrskurðar þess efnis.

3. Þegar hústakandi hefur uppfyllt þau skilyrði sem nefnd eru í 2. lið skal hann tilkynna eiganda um hústökuna, sem og lögreglu, og skulu þeir aðilar (ásamt félagsráðgjafa ef svo ber við) staðfesta að húsnæði og hústakandi uppfylli skilyrðin.

4. Til að eigandi fái dómsúrskurð skal hann sýna fram á með fullnægjandi hætti að hann eða leiguaðilar muni nýta húsnæðið innan mánaðar, og skulu tvær vikur þess mánaðar vera "uppsagnarfrestur" hústakanda, en hinar tvær seinni nýttar til að gera úrbætur á húsnæðinu ef þess þarf.

5. Hústakandi má ekki vinna aðgang að húsinu með ólöglegum hætti, svo sem innbroti, en skal njóta vafans hafi skemmdir áður verið unnar á húsnæðinu án þess að sannað verði hver hafi staðið þar að verki.

 

Ég trúi því að setning hústökulaga verði til góðs, bæði fyrir heimilislausa og borgina alla. Nú þegar kreppa er í sjónmáli má búast við því að heimilisleysi aukist frekar en hitt og því nauðsynlegt að bregðast við með lagasetningu til verndar málsaðilum. Það er til háborinnar skammar að hér á landi skuli finnast heimilislausir á sama tíma og tugir húsa standa auðir og yfirgefnir, sérstaklega í ljósi þess hve auðvelt væri að ráða bót á vandanum.

 

Hústökufólk á Vatnsstíg

Athugasemdir

[Vésteinn Valgarðsson, 10.4.2009 kl. 14:13]

Ég segi já -- hústökulög væru framfaraskref.

[Hildur Helga Sigurðardóttir, 10.4.2009 kl. 17:23]

Þarft framtak -og gott hjá krökkunum !

[Þorsteinn Valur Baldvinsson, 10.4.2009 kl. 21:45]

Áhugaverð lausn, miklu betra en löglaus hústaka eða réttara sagt innbrot.

[Salvör Kristjana Gissurardóttir, 11.4.2009 kl. 09:00]

Frábært hjá þér að vekja athygli á þessu. Við þurfum hústökulög! Sérstaklega hérna í Reykjavík og á höfuðborgarsvæðinu þar sem búast má við að stórar byggingar fari að breytast í einhvers konar slömm af því að eigendur eru einhvers staðar týndir á torula eyjum.

[Jóhann Róbert Arnarsson, 11.4.2009 kl. 11:25]

A Commonsense Plan
In this country we have a general drift toward ever increasing social
programs. Such programs not only come from the Democrats, but also
Republicans. Even conservative Ronald Reagan increased Social
security taxes and Bush 43 added increased federal participation in
education and initiated the costly free prescription drug plan.

There is a lot of division about this drift. One extreme is happy
about it and for them the more the better. The other side thinks
there are too many social programs already and many would be happy to
have them all eliminated.

The majority would not support either extreme so if we want to create
real change we have to work with what the majority would support.
There no way to please everyone, but if the majority is satisfied
then, as a general principle, dangerous policy and irresponsible
spending will be avoided.

Now I do not focus on the will of the majority because I personally
always agree with the majority, but I will say this. I would much
rather work with the will of the majority than be ruled by most of
the extremes. Granted, it is possible that there are those out there
who would be labeled as extreme that may really have the most correct
vision of the final good. Since there is no way to settle who this
is, for the immediate future the best thing to do is to work with the
highest that the majority will accept.

An important social ideal that that the majority wants is this: They
desire that all those who are willing to work, but cannot find a job,
obtain assistance so their basic necessities will be met. They also
desire that those who are disabled and elderly receive help.

I believe we can streamline the system, save money and still meet the
basic needs of citizens who are unable to work.

Now some will want more than the solution offered and some less but
one thing is sure. Our current spending is out of control and an
overhaul of the system is long overdue. If the majority can see that
those who have the greatest need are taken care of, while financial
responsibility for the nation improves, then they will support the
plan.

We spend many billions in Health and Welfare. All together this is a
staggering amount.

Let us examine the welfare part first. Under this umbrella are all
those payments and entitlements that give assistance to citizens to
help them to retire or just live normal lives with a disadvantage.

Social Security is normally not thought of as welfare because
citizens paid into it, but nevertheless it technically aids in the
welfare of our senior citizens. The 2009 budget for Social Security
was $644 billion and is under the office of the President. In
addition, the agency has a discretionary budget of $8.4 billion.

The budget for unemployment and welfare is $360 billion. In addition
the Department of Health and Human Services has a discretionary
budget of $70.4 billion and the Department of Labor, which supervises
unemployment insurance, has a discretionary budget of $10.5 billion.

These expenditures do not count the money contributed by the states
and unemployment payments from business. The concrete amount is
difficult to ascertain, but it is in the hundreds of billions of
dollars.

The reader now needs to open his or her mind to what will be
considered a radical solution. To prepare one's mind this is the
question that must be asked.

What is the purpose of all the fifteen welfare programs as well as
social security?

Fifteen welfare programs? Hard to believe there are that many. Here they are:

1. Food Stamp Program (FSP)
2. National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
3. School Breakfast Program (SBP)
4. Special Milk Program (SMP)
5. Summer Food Service Program (SFSP)
6. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
7. Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP)
8. Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP)
9. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
10. Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)
11. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
12. Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
13. Pacific Island Assistance Program
14. Nutrition Assistance Block Grants, including Nutrition Assistance
for Puerto Rico
15. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program

Then we have Social Security and its various subprograms. The purpose
is similar, which is this to give financial assistance at a time in
life when one is unable to secure an income through normal means.

In the end there is only one kind of essential assistance that is
needed. And what is that?

Unemployment assistance.

The one assistance that is needed is financial help for the person
who is either unable to work or obtain work. If a person is able to
maintain a reasonable source of income then he can take care of his
basic necessities without the need of having many other costly
government programs to assist him.

The plan then is to do away with all the many welfare programs as we
know them, and combine them both into a single efficient cost
efficient program. In addition we would streamline Social Security.

Here is how it would work, looking at Social Security first.

Those currently receiving retirement benefits would be unaffected and
the program would continue as currently administered for them. Then
for five years from the time this plan is implemented new retirement
benefits would continue as is but with the retirement age moved up
two years from 62 to 64.

After five years has elapsed there will be only one age for benefits
and that will be that of 70 years.

In 1935 when the Social Security program began the life expectancy
was a mere 63. Today it is 77. That's 14 extra years for which the
government was not planning on paying. Also unplanned was the stark
number of baby boomers we have facing retirement - about 76 million.

Taking this into consideration 70 is a reasonable age to begin
receiving Social Security. The 70 today is comparable to age 56 in
1935.

Immediately after the plan is implemented the only Social Security
benefit that will be paid out will be for retirement. Any other
benefit such as disability will be merged in with welfare, which will
be greatly altered.

The one person who needs government assistance is he or she who
cannot get a full time job or is unable to work.

Currently, we pay into unemployment insurance that assists many
people, but the state funds often run out. The Federal Government
will sometimes step in and throw in some additional money that
extends payments. But the real tragedy happens when the person's
unemployment compensation expires and he is still unable to obtain
work. In this case the family can be financially devastated.

In addition to these people there are numerous others who are
unemployed through no fault of their own. Among them are:

(1) Young people leaving school who are unable to land that first good job.

(2) Self-employed individuals and small business owners who have
fallen upon hard times and have to look for other work. Most of
these will not be covered by unemployment insurance.

(3) Those who have been out of the workplace for a period of time who
wish to enter it again. This would include housewives with older
children wanting to go back to work as well as other men and women
who voluntarily withdrew from the workforce and need to enter it
again.

(4) Those who are disabled and unable to work. This would include not
only those disabled by accident, birth or disease but those suffering
from infirmities of age before the new retirement age of 70.

In the past we have spent many billions on various forms of
assistance and received nothing in return. This is not right when
one considers that the money comes from taxpayers that have worked
hard for it and deserve something in return for their investment.

Here is how we put that assistance money to good use: Each able
person under the age of 70 who receives federal aid will be required
to work three days a week in some type of labor benefiting the
people, the government or his community. This gives him two working
days off to look for a regular job.

This work requirement will have the tremendous advantage of
discouraging freeloaders from taking advantage of the system. If a
person is willing and able to work he can then receive enough
compensation on which to survive. Like unemployment compensation, he
will not make as much as a good full time job so he has incentive
look for regular work. If he is not disabled he would be required to
seek a full time job similar to regular unemployment insurance.

Many people who are partially disabled are capable of doing many jobs
that do not require a lot of physical exertion. For instance, all it
takes is a good voice and a free hand to do telephone work or a free
hand to do computer work.

I remember one of the most financially bleak times of my life I
bumped into an old college roommate who had been stricken with
blindness since I had last seen him. He told me that he was very
depressed for about two years after he went blind, but then snapped
himself out of it and started making the best of the talents he had.
Then he told me how much he was making in a management position.

My jaw dropped. He was making several times what I had ever made. My
friend was now happy and prosperous and had his financial life
together much better than I did.

The point is that many with a disability are capable of obtaining a
full time job and many of those who are not are still capable and
willing to do some things.

It is in the nature of most human beings to wish to be of service of
some kind for that which they receive. This principle was drummed
into me when I had an advertising business back in the Seventies and
in the course of drumming up new customers I came across a very
unusual business that was ran by a blind woman with a terminal brain
tumor named Helen. Helen explained to me that her business couldn't
afford any advertising, but they could surely use my help if I was
willing to give it.

Helen showed me around her facility and I saw the workers were very
severely disabled individuals struggling to manufacture simple toys
and dusters.
One individual in particular caught my eye. He sat in an old school
chair and on the arm of the chair he had a square the size of a
checkerboard with the letters of the alphabet and numbers.

The guy looked in terrible shape. His body was disfigured and I
wondered if about his mental state.

Helen must have read my mind and said: "This fellow is as intelligent
as you or I. A number of years ago he fell off a cliff and severely
broke up his body. About all he can move is his right arm. He can
point to the letters on his board to talk to you.'

After saying this I talked to the fellow. It was a slow process and
we took about fifteen minutes to communicate a few things. I could
tell Helen was right. The guy had a fine mind, but had wound up in a
terrible circumstance.

I turned to Helen and asked her, "Are you telling me that this poor
fellow with only partial movement of one arm still wants to work?"

Helen answered emphatically, "Indeed he does. More than anything in
the world - he wants to be useful."

"He wants to be useful," went through my head several times. As I
thought about it I realized this must be true. No human being, no
matter how disabled wants to be a burden, but wants to be of service
somehow. Closer to our time period Christopher Reeve wanted to die
after his accident until he saw that he could be useful and inspired
millions with his courage.

Helen then took me around and introduced me to other workers, about
twenty of them - all of them severely disabled but happy to be at the
facility with an opportunity to work.

I then asked Helen why she needed my help for I understood the State
supplied some assistance to help the disabled do some manufacturing.
I told her I recently bought a broom from the disabled.

Then she explained that state funds only went to assist people who
were partially disabled such as the blind, or people in wheelchairs
with full use of their upper body. "The State thinks the money would
be wasted on our group, so we receive nothing," said the blind woman
in front of me with a terminal brain tumor. "I had to start this as
a regular business with no advantages. We are at the end of our rope
and if there is anything you can do it would really be appreciated."

At that time I was struggling with my own business which was a one
man operation - me. I had a wife and kids to feed, but there was no
way I could resist her plea for help. I organized an auction for
them and for the next couple weeks contacted businesses to donate
something to be sold for Helen and her workers. It went reasonably
well and we raised enough funds to help them keep going for a while
longer.

Helen became a good friend that I kept bumping into again and again
until she died. I marveled at her desire to be a useful part of
society that stayed with her until her last breath.

I have since concluded that the people in our society who seem to be
lazy and perform no useful function had to be conditioned to be that
way. As kids growing up we all wanted to be useful and contribute to
society. That desire stays with us until wrong-minded incentives
take it away.

The good news is that the natural desire can be restored in most of us.

The fruits of our labor pays into Social Security and unemployment
insurance so there is justification in receiving payments without
giving back any more in return. On the other hand, when taxpayer
money is used, which represents the labor of others, then the State
is justified in requiring recipients to do some type of service for
the money.

Here are some things that those who have been assisted can do.

(1) Assist on public construction projects such as building roads,
buildings, bridges etc. The unskilled can assist as laborers, but
others will have skills and can assist on a higher level.

(2) The State could create its own or work through private day care
centers and workers could be supplied to assist in caring and
entertaining the children.

(3) Assist teachers in various capacities as needed.

(4) Helping to manage public land, our forests and our parks.

(5) Working at recycling centers to reduce the cost of the process.

(6) Reading to children in the Library.

(7) Creating web pages of use to the public.

(8) Cleaning up our streets, buildings, parks etc.

Where workers are supplied to private businesses the business could
pay a reduced hourly rate to the state creating a win win situation.

This is far from a complete list. The point is this. We have spent
many billions on welfare and demanded nothing in return. If we could
receive labor in return there are many ways to apply it so the
taxpayers receive some value for their investment.

Of course, people who are disabled will not be asked to do something
beyond their ability. However, the disabled should not be dismissed.
Many of them could assist in a day care, read to children or other
jobs. Each person should be given a task equal to his ability and
those unable to work will not need to work for assistance. Some
people confined to their home could even be given tasks to be done
there, like some type of telephone work or data entry on a computer.

Overall the need to be met is this. Those who are unable to work or
find a job will receive assistance. Streamlining Social Security and
placing all other assistance under one umbrella will save an enormous
sum. How much is impossible for me as a single individual to
calculate, but I would guess that it would allow us to balance the
budget, lower taxes and start paying off the national debt.

[Tinna Gunnarsdóttir Gígja, 11.4.2009 kl. 12:10]

Jóhann: settu þetta inn á þitt blogg, plís, í stað þess að spamma mitt.

[Jóhann Róbert Arnarsson, 11.4.2009 kl. 13:01]

"Helen answered emphatically, "Indeed he does. More than anything in
the world - he wants to be useful.""

Og það sama með hústökufólkið. að gefa þeim tækifæri til þees að sanna sig og að vera góðir og nýtir þegnar í þjóðfélaginu of það er það sem flest fólk vill.

Ef að það sé spam þá er það þín skoðum sem þér er velkomið að hafa þó as ég sé ómsamála þér hér, að ná því besta úr úr fólkinu sjáfra síns vegna og fyirir allmanna hag einning og það í örðusæti.

Ef að þú telur að lausn sem er win-win eða í allra þáu sé spam þá er það eitthvað sem þú veruður að eiga við sjálfa þig.

[Einar Þór (IP-tala skráð) 12.4.2009 kl. 12:45]

Copy-paste langlokur eru betur settar inn sem hlekkir á upprunalegu síðuna (enda um huxanlegt höfundarréttarbrot að ræða að nota texta annarra óbreyttan)

[Jóhann Róbert Arnarsson, 12.4.2009 kl. 22:09]

A Commonsense Plan

Hlekkur.