De Alliantie melkt Indische Buurt uit

Hoe een Amsterdamse woningbouwcorporatie tijdelijke verhuur naar haar hand zet in een Amsterdamse volksbuurt

Niet lang geleden werd de aandacht van het SPOK getrokken door een posting op Indymedia van Kraakgroep Molukkenstraat. De Amsterdamse woningbouwcorporatie De Alliantie zou in de Amsterdamse Indische Buurt veelvuldig gebruik maken van dubieuze tijdelijke huurcontracten. Voor het SPOK reden om achter de computer vandaan te kruipen en old skool speculanten onderzoek veldwerk te doen. Met stuitende resultaten: exorbitant hoge huurprijzen en structureel gebruik van tijdelijke contracten. Het is op zich al heftig dat een corporatie op deze manier woningen uitmelkt en aan het distributiestelsel onttrekt. Maar het staat ook in een bredere sociale context: Deze handelswijze vergemakkelijkt de omstreden “herstructurering” van de buurt. Lees verder…

Het onderzoek begon in het Alliantie complex Molukkenstraat 91-101, waarvan het Indymedia bericht afkomstig was. Gesprekken met enkele bewoners in dit complex leverde al heel wat informatie op. De bewoners, veelal buitenlandse
studenten, vertelden over hun huurprijs en lieten hun contract (waarvan hier een voorbeeld) en woning zien. De woningen worden met de Universiteit van Amsterdam als ‘bemiddelaar’ door De Alliantie als onzelfstandige woonruimte verhuurd. Een drie-kamer woning wordt via een in de huurprijswetgeving zwaar gesanctioneerde “all in” huurprijs aan twee studenten verhuurd voor de huurprijs van E340 pér kamer. Dat maakt een totale prijs van E680 voor de woning. Deze woningen,
zonder dubbelglas en geen CV, doen via het woningwaardering systeem hoogstens E300 kale huur per maand.
Twee straten verderop in de Soendastraat staat ook een blokje van De Alliantie. Een piep-kleine etagewoning woning, die via het woningwaardering systeem een maximale prijs doet van E280, wordt door De Alliantie verhuurd voor E680. Even verder wandelen naar een Alliantie blok in de Madurastraat geeft het voorbeeld van een etage die ook zeker voor E150 euro boven de maximaal redelijke huurprijs verhuurd wordt.

De huurprijzen zijn erg hoog. Ver boven het maximale wat voor een dergelijke woning gevraagd mag worden. De buitenlandse studenten die vaak niet op de hoogte zijn van de Nederlandse regelgeving rond huurprijs en woning waardering betalen de tol. Maar er is nog een belangrijk punt. De woningen worden allemaal op tijdelijke basis verhuurd. Even nabellen bij de Dienst Wonen van de Gemeente Amsterdam levert de informatie op dat er geen vergunning tot tijdelijke verhuur is afgegeven voor de Molukkenstraat en de Soendestraat. De woningen zouden dus gewoon regulier verhuurd moeten worden via het distributiesysteem. En zelfs met een vergunning voor tijdelijke verhuur hoort huurprijs niet hoger dan 80% van de maximale huurprijs te zijn, en niet 100-300%!

We kunnen het niet laten om naar de bredere context van de Indische Buurt te kijken. Het waren immers de uitwassen met tijdelijke huurcontracten in de Berlageblokken (eigendom van YMERE) in dezelfde buurt die er in 2005 juist toe leidden dat de regels omtrent tijdelijke verhuur aangescherpt werden. Naast deze studentencontracten zijn er aanwijzingen dat De Alliantie ook veel gebruik maakt van (excessief langdurige) gebruiksovereenkomsten, een soort van lagere vorm van tijelijke verhuur. Gebruik van zo’n overeenkomst mag volgens Dienst Wonen alleen voor maximum zes maanden in afwachting van (bijvoorbeeld) renovatie. Maar in de zaak tegen de Molukkenstraat krakers geeft De Alliantie zelf toe (zie paragraaf 3.2 van het vonnis) dat zij dit instrument juist toepast omdat “formele” tijdelijke verhuur nog niet toegestaan is. Dat is zeker niet wat
het beleid omtrent tijdelijke verhuur beoogt…

Hoe dan ook is het een feit dat hoe meer tijdelijke contracten in een blok gebruikt worden, hoe makkelijker het voor een corporatie is om de begeerde 70% instemming van zittende bewoners te krijgen voor ingrijpende renovatie/sloop. Mensen met een tijdelijke huurcontract hebben hierin formeel geen stem en worden zowieso bij de 70% ‘instemmers’ gerekend. De herstructurering van de Indische Buurt (lees: massaal omzetten van sociale huurwoningen in vrije sector huurwoningen en koopwoningen) wordt op deze manier makkelijker door te drukken. Een reguliere huurder die er niet is hoeft immers niet terug te keren in het complex en kan geen bezwaar maken tegen het omzetten van zijn huurwoning in een duurdere huurwoning of koopwoning.

Het valt verder op dat enkele blokken van De Alliantie in de Indische Buurt, voornamelijk in het noordwesterlijk kwadrant van de buurt, een erg verwaarloosde indruk maken. Bij geen van deze blokken is planvorming voor renovatie of sloop rond. Er is geen peildatum voor een plan waardoor de Dienst Wonen dus ook geen vergunning voor tijdelijke verhuur heeft afgegeven en de woningen op de Soendastraat staan bij de Dienst als wisselwoning geregistreerd. Waarschijnlijk zijn wij te cynisch, maar je zou kunnen zeggen dat een combinatie van achterstallig onderhoud en overmatig, langdurig gebruik van tijdelijke verhuur,
een heel goede manier is om eventueel buurtverzet tegen herstructurering, in de kiem te smoren.

De studenten (met die Alliantie huurcontracten) worden aangeraden bij het huurteam van het Wijksteunpunt Wonen Groot Oost langs te gaan om advies in te winnen over huurverlaging procedures en de juridische basis van hun contracten. Door middel van een simpele procedure bij de Huurcommissie is de huurprijs te verlagen naar maximaal redelijk en in veel gevallen bekijkt een Kanton rechter een onterecht afgegeven tijdelijke huurovereenkomst gewoon als huurovereenkomst voor onbepaalde tijd!

Nu de krakers van de Molukkenstraat en het SPOK de boel hebben aangezwengeld lijkt het gepast dat De Alliantie, Stadsdeel Zeeburg en de Universiteit van Amsterdam iets van zich laten horen over de bovengenoemde schendingen van huurprijs- en huurbescherming.

11 Reacties op De Alliantie melkt Indische Buurt uit

  1. babel en zijn vis

    De Alliantie milks the Indische Buurt dry

    How an Amsterdam housing corporation uses temporary renting contracts to its advantage in a traditional Amsterdam neighbourhood.

    Not long ago the SPOK’s attention was drawn by a posting on Indymedia from the squatting group of the Molukkenstraat. The Amsterdam housing corporation De Alliantie was reported to be making frequent use of dubious temporary renting contracts in the Indische Buurt of Amsterdam.

    This was a reason for the SPOK to drag ourselves away from our computers and to head out to do some old-school speculation fieldwork. With shocking results: exorbitantly high rents and structural use of temporary contracts. It is already serious enough that a corporation milks, in this way, the
    houses dry, and makes them unavailable to the distribution system (through which social renting houses are
    allocated). But this fits also into a broader social context: such practices facilitate and smoothen
    the disputed ‘restructuring’ of the neighbourhood. Read further!

    The research began in the Alliantie complex Molukkenstraat 91-101 i.e. where the Indymedia posting originated from. Conversations with several residents of this complex generated quickly a considerable amount of information. The residents, mostly foreign students, told us about the rents they paid, and showed us their contracts (click here for an example) and their houses. The houses are rented out
    by De Alliantie – with the University of Amsterdam as ‘mediator’ – as shared living space. A 3-room
    house is rented out (via an “all in” contract – which is heavily penalised in renting legaislation) to
    two students for E340 per room. That makes makes a total price of E680 for the house. These houses, without double glazing or central heating, would not be rented out in the regulated renting system for more than at most E300 basic rent per month. There is also a block of Alliantie houses two streets further up, in the Soendestraat. A tiny flat there, that under the regulated rent system would not be rented out for more than E280, is being rented out by De Alliantie for E680. Wandering a little further to another Alliantie block, in the Madurastraat, produces the example of another flat that is surely being
    rented out for E150 above the maximum regulated rent.

    The rents are very high. Far above the maximum that such houses are allowed to be rented out for. The foreign students, who are often not familiar with Dutch housing legislation concerning regulated rents, pay the price. But there is another important point. The houses are all rented out on a temporary basis. A brief telephone call to the Housing Division of the city council produces the information that no permits have been issued to permit the temporary renting out of these houses. The houses should thus simply be rented out via the standard, regulated housing distribution system. And, even with such a permit allowing temporary rent, the rent is anyway not supposed to be more than 80% of the maximum regulated rent. Not 100-300%!

    We couldn’t resist the temptation to look at the broader context of the Indische Buurt. It was, after all, the misuse of temporary contracts in the “Berlageblokken” blocks of houses (property of YMERE) in this
    neighbourhood that explicitly led, in 2005, to the sharpening of the rules for regulating temporary rent. In addition to these student contracts there are indications that De Alliantie is also making considerable use of (excessively prolonged) “user agreements”, a type of lower form of temporary rent. The use of a “user agreement” should be, according to the Housing Division of the city council, limited to a maximum of six months in anticipation of (for example) renovation. But in the legal case against the Molukkenstraat squatters De Alliantie readily admits (see paragraph 3.2 from the verdict) that they use this
    instrument precisely because -formal- temporary rent is not yet permitted. This is certainly not what the
    policy regulating temporary rent intends!

    Whichever way one looks at it, it is a fact that the more temporary contracts are used in a block, the easier it is for a corporation to secure the much sought-after 70% approval from residents for heavy renovation / demolition. People with a temporary renting contract have no formal voice in this process and are assumed anyway to belong to the 70% who approve of the transformation. The restructuring of the Indische Buurt (read: the massive transformation of social rental houses into free-market rental houses
    and sale appartments) becomes, as a result of this, easier to push through. A normal renter that isn’t
    there does not, after all, have to be re-housed in the block, and will make no complaints against the
    transformation of his rental house into an expensive renting house or sale appartment.

    It is also striking that several blocks from De Alliantie in the Indische Buurt, mainly in the north-western quarter of the neighbourhood, have a rather dillapidated appearance. Plans for renovation or demolition are not yet ready for any of these blocks. There is no formal indication that building activities will definitely commence within a short, well-defined period of time, which would be the basis upon which the Housing Division could allow the houses to be rented out temporarily. The houses on the Soendestraat are registered as ‘wisselwoningen’ (houses which people can move to temporarily while their own house is being renovated) in the database of the Housing Division. Perhaps we are too cynical, but you could say that a combination of maintenance backlogs and excessive, prolonged use of temporary renting contracts is a good way of nipping any potential neighbourhood resistance against restructuring in the bud.

    It is recommended that the students (with the Alliantie contracts) drop by the renting team of the
    Wijksteunpunt Wonen Groot Oost to get some advice about rent-lowering procedures, and the legal basis of their contracts. A simple procedure by the Renting commision can lead to the lowering of the rent to regulated levels, and in many cases a magistrate views an incorrectly issued temporary contract as a standard, permanent (i.e. not limited by time) contract!

    Now that the squatters from the Molukkenstraat and the SPOK have raised this issue it seems appropriate that De Alliantie, the local council of Zeeburg and the University of Amsterdam issue a response regarding the aforementioned breaches of rent regulation and rent protection.

  2. Dit is geen goed nieuws.

  3. Onderstaande Engelstalige brief werd in 2005 door een boze buitenlandse student aan een afdeling van
    de Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) gestuurd. Het ging toen over een woning in het (inmiddels gesloopte)
    Borneoblok aan het Javaplein. Min of meer hetzelfde verhaal! (De Alliantie heette toen De Dageraad).

    ——–

    November 7, 2005

    To Whom It May Concern:

    I am writing to protest against the Dageraad’s, and in particular
    [dageraad employee]’s, treatment of international PhD students who rent
    from them through the University of Amsterdam’s agreement with the
    Dageraad.

    I am a PhD student in [subject, university] and I am currently an
    affiliate with the [UvA department] while I am doing my field research
    in Amsterdam. I had arranged to rent through the Dageraad since it
    offered the most affordable option for me at 650 euros a month (compared
    to 800 euros a month or more advertised on the internet for housing in
    Amsterdam).

    However, upon arrival to the flat, which was located in Javaplein in
    Zeeburg, I was horrified by the condition of the apartment. The
    staircase smelled like dead animals and was filled with dog hair. The
    carpet on the hallway outside my flat was filled with animal hair and
    dog feces.

    The apartment itself was minimally furnished. However, there was no
    closet space or wardrobe for me to store my clothing. I had been told
    that I was renting a two-bedroom apartment, but the second ‘bedroom’
    could not fit a bed or any furniture since it was too tiny. The
    bathroom was tiny, smelled terribly, and had never been renovated.

    The next day, I went to see [dageraad employee] to sign the contract. I
    decided to discuss the terrible condition of the apartment. She refused
    to listen to my concerns and said that she would not discuss the
    apartment’s condition, emphasizing that I was responsible for cleaning
    the animal feces in the hallway. She refused to argue about this issue
    any longer. I then stated that I was a foreigner and new to Holland and
    wanted to discuss my concerns with her. She responded by lifting up her
    leg, pointing at her shoe, saying, “Number 1: We don’t all wear clogs.
    Number 2: I’m Dutch, not Norwegian, Swedish, or German.” I was shocked
    by this treatment.

    She then presented two contracts, one for the month of August, and
    another for one year, beginning in September. She stated that she was
    allowing me to sign both contracts at the same time to avoid the
    inconvenience of having to return in the beginning of September. Due to
    the poor condition of the apartment, I was reluctant to sign the
    year-long contract and told her that I only wanted to sign for the month
    of August. She told me that this was not possible and if I did not sign
    both contracts immediately, she would take away the keys to the
    apartment. Once again, I was shocked and had not to be bullied into
    signing an agreement that I was not happy with. I did not feel
    comfortable with her treatment and asked to speak with [UvA department
    employee] from the [UvA department] over the phone to consult with her
    prior to signing the year-long contract. [dageraad employee] dialed the
    number and stood in front of me during my conversation with [UvA
    department employee], which did not allow me to have a private
    conversation with [UvA department employee]. Not having any other
    options, I signed the contract.

    I was very unhappy with the condition of the apartment and decided to
    move as soon as I could find another, more suitable flat for the amount
    of money that I was paying. I soon found out that my neighbors paid
    between 150 and 200 euros. Thus, at 650 euros, nearly five times the
    amount that my neighbors were paying, I was being exploited as an
    international student. Eventually, I found another apartment that was
    fully-furnished, had central heating, and was located in the center for
    700 euros inclusive and left the Dagraad apartment on Javaplein.

    I am writing this letter because the [UvA department] and the University
    of Amsterdam have a responsibility to ensure and protect the welfare of
    its international students. The Dagraad housing agreement exploits the
    vulnerabilities of international students and [dageraad employee] in
    particular seems to enjoy bullying and mistreating international
    students. As an [nationality] who is conducting research on [topic] in
    Amsterdam, I feel more empowered to protest these conditions. I shudder
    to think about the treatment of students from the Global South by
    [dageraad employee]. I hope that the [UvA department] and the University
    of Amsterdam rectify this situation as soon as possible.

    Sincerely,

  4. babel en zijn vis

    De Alliantie milks the Indische Buurt dry

    How an Amsterdam housing corporation uses temporary renting contracts to its advantage in a traditional Amsterdam neighbourhood.

    Not long ago the SPOK’s attention was drawn by a posting on Indymedia from the squatting group of the Molukkenstraat. The Amsterdam housing corporation De Alliantie was reported to be making frequent use of dubious temporary renting contracts in the Indische Buurt of Amsterdam.

    This was a reason for the SPOK to drag ourselves away from our computers and to head out to do some old-school speculation fieldwork. With shocking results: exorbitantly high rents and structural use of temporary contracts. It is already serious enough that a corporation milks, in this way, the
    houses dry, and makes them unavailable to the distribution system (through which social renting houses are
    allocated). But this fits also into a broader social context: such practices facilitate and smoothen
    the disputed ‘restructuring’ of the neighbourhood. Read further!

    The research began in the Alliantie complex Molukkenstraat 91-101 i.e. where the Indymedia posting originated from. Conversations with several residents of this complex generated quickly a considerable amount of information. The residents, mostly foreign students, told us about the rents they paid, and showed us their contracts (click here for an example) and their houses. The houses are rented out
    by De Alliantie – with the University of Amsterdam as ‘mediator’ – as shared living space. A 3-room
    house is rented out (via an “all in” contract – which is heavily penalised in renting legaislation) to
    two students for E340 per room. That makes makes a total price of E680 for the house. These houses, without double glazing or central heating, would not be rented out in the regulated renting system for more than at most E300 basic rent per month. There is also a block of Alliantie houses two streets further up, in the Soendestraat. A tiny flat there, that under the regulated rent system would not be rented out for more than E280, is being rented out by De Alliantie for E680. Wandering a little further to another Alliantie block, in the Madurastraat, produces the example of another flat that is surely being
    rented out for E150 above the maximum regulated rent.

    The rents are very high. Far above the maximum that such houses are allowed to be rented out for. The foreign students, who are often not familiar with Dutch housing legislation concerning regulated rents, pay the price. But there is another important point. The houses are all rented out on a temporary basis. A brief telephone call to the Housing Division of the city council produces the information that no permits have been issued to permit the temporary renting out of these houses. The houses should thus simply be rented out via the standard, regulated housing distribution system. And, even with such a permit allowing temporary rent, the rent is anyway not supposed to be more than 80% of the maximum regulated rent. Not 100-300%!

    We couldn’t resist the temptation to look at the broader context of the Indische Buurt. It was, after all, the misuse of temporary contracts in the “Berlageblokken” blocks of houses (property of YMERE) in this
    neighbourhood that explicitly led, in 2005, to the sharpening of the rules for regulating temporary rent. In addition to these student contracts there are indications that De Alliantie is also making considerable use of (excessively prolonged) “user agreements”, a type of lower form of temporary rent. The use of a “user agreement” should be, according to the Housing Division of the city council, limited to a maximum of six months in anticipation of (for example) renovation. But in the legal case against the Molukkenstraat squatters De Alliantie readily admits (see paragraph 3.2 from the verdict) that they use this
    instrument precisely because -formal- temporary rent is not yet permitted. This is certainly not what the
    policy regulating temporary rent intends!

    Whichever way one looks at it, it is a fact that the more temporary contracts are used in a block, the easier it is for a corporation to secure the much sought-after 70% approval from residents for heavy renovation / demolition. People with a temporary renting contract have no formal voice in this process and are assumed anyway to belong to the 70% who approve of the transformation. The restructuring of the Indische Buurt (read: the massive transformation of social rental houses into free-market rental houses
    and sale appartments) becomes, as a result of this, easier to push through. A normal renter that isn’t
    there does not, after all, have to be re-housed in the block, and will make no complaints against the
    transformation of his rental house into an expensive renting house or sale appartment.

    It is also striking that several blocks from De Alliantie in the Indische Buurt, mainly in the north-western quarter of the neighbourhood, have a rather dillapidated appearance. Plans for renovation or demolition are not yet ready for any of these blocks. There is no formal indication that building activities will definitely commence within a short, well-defined period of time, which would be the basis upon which the Housing Division could allow the houses to be rented out temporarily. The houses on the Soendestraat are registered as ‘wisselwoningen’ (houses which people can move to temporarily while their own house is being renovated) in the database of the Housing Division. Perhaps we are too cynical, but you could say that a combination of maintenance backlogs and excessive, prolonged use of temporary renting contracts is a good way of nipping any potential neighbourhood resistance against restructuring in the bud.

    It is recommended that the students (with the Alliantie contracts) drop by the renting team of the
    Wijksteunpunt Wonen Groot Oost to get some advice about rent-lowering procedures, and the legal basis of their contracts. A simple procedure by the Renting commision can lead to the lowering of the rent to regulated levels, and in many cases a magistrate views an incorrectly issued temporary contract as a standard, permanent (i.e. not limited by time) contract!

    Now that the squatters from the Molukkenstraat and the SPOK have raised this issue it seems appropriate that De Alliantie, the local council of Zeeburg and the University of Amsterdam issue a response regarding the aforementioned breaches of rent regulation and rent protection.

  5. Dit is geen goed nieuws.

  6. Onderstaande Engelstalige brief werd in 2005 door een boze buitenlandse student aan een afdeling van
    de Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) gestuurd. Het ging toen over een woning in het (inmiddels gesloopte)
    Borneoblok aan het Javaplein. Min of meer hetzelfde verhaal! (De Alliantie heette toen De Dageraad).

    ——–

    November 7, 2005

    To Whom It May Concern:

    I am writing to protest against the Dageraad’s, and in particular
    [dageraad employee]’s, treatment of international PhD students who rent
    from them through the University of Amsterdam’s agreement with the
    Dageraad.

    I am a PhD student in [subject, university] and I am currently an
    affiliate with the [UvA department] while I am doing my field research
    in Amsterdam. I had arranged to rent through the Dageraad since it
    offered the most affordable option for me at 650 euros a month (compared
    to 800 euros a month or more advertised on the internet for housing in
    Amsterdam).

    However, upon arrival to the flat, which was located in Javaplein in
    Zeeburg, I was horrified by the condition of the apartment. The
    staircase smelled like dead animals and was filled with dog hair. The
    carpet on the hallway outside my flat was filled with animal hair and
    dog feces.

    The apartment itself was minimally furnished. However, there was no
    closet space or wardrobe for me to store my clothing. I had been told
    that I was renting a two-bedroom apartment, but the second ‘bedroom’
    could not fit a bed or any furniture since it was too tiny. The
    bathroom was tiny, smelled terribly, and had never been renovated.

    The next day, I went to see [dageraad employee] to sign the contract. I
    decided to discuss the terrible condition of the apartment. She refused
    to listen to my concerns and said that she would not discuss the
    apartment’s condition, emphasizing that I was responsible for cleaning
    the animal feces in the hallway. She refused to argue about this issue
    any longer. I then stated that I was a foreigner and new to Holland and
    wanted to discuss my concerns with her. She responded by lifting up her
    leg, pointing at her shoe, saying, “Number 1: We don’t all wear clogs.
    Number 2: I’m Dutch, not Norwegian, Swedish, or German.” I was shocked
    by this treatment.

    She then presented two contracts, one for the month of August, and
    another for one year, beginning in September. She stated that she was
    allowing me to sign both contracts at the same time to avoid the
    inconvenience of having to return in the beginning of September. Due to
    the poor condition of the apartment, I was reluctant to sign the
    year-long contract and told her that I only wanted to sign for the month
    of August. She told me that this was not possible and if I did not sign
    both contracts immediately, she would take away the keys to the
    apartment. Once again, I was shocked and had not to be bullied into
    signing an agreement that I was not happy with. I did not feel
    comfortable with her treatment and asked to speak with [UvA department
    employee] from the [UvA department] over the phone to consult with her
    prior to signing the year-long contract. [dageraad employee] dialed the
    number and stood in front of me during my conversation with [UvA
    department employee], which did not allow me to have a private
    conversation with [UvA department employee]. Not having any other
    options, I signed the contract.

    I was very unhappy with the condition of the apartment and decided to
    move as soon as I could find another, more suitable flat for the amount
    of money that I was paying. I soon found out that my neighbors paid
    between 150 and 200 euros. Thus, at 650 euros, nearly five times the
    amount that my neighbors were paying, I was being exploited as an
    international student. Eventually, I found another apartment that was
    fully-furnished, had central heating, and was located in the center for
    700 euros inclusive and left the Dagraad apartment on Javaplein.

    I am writing this letter because the [UvA department] and the University
    of Amsterdam have a responsibility to ensure and protect the welfare of
    its international students. The Dagraad housing agreement exploits the
    vulnerabilities of international students and [dageraad employee] in
    particular seems to enjoy bullying and mistreating international
    students. As an [nationality] who is conducting research on [topic] in
    Amsterdam, I feel more empowered to protest these conditions. I shudder
    to think about the treatment of students from the Global South by
    [dageraad employee]. I hope that the [UvA department] and the University
    of Amsterdam rectify this situation as soon as possible.

    Sincerely,

  7. Bewoner Amsterdam

    Ik schaam me om een Nederlander te zijn! Hier moet toch iets tegen te beginnen zijn? Dit is oplichting, crimineel en onmenselijk. Ik betaal heel weinig huur, maar het krot is zelfs dat niet waard.
    Wij zijn niet alleen naar tegen elkaar, we dragen het gewoon aan alle kanten uit.
    We zijn gemeen naar onze voormalige gastarbeiders, naar politieke vluchtelingen, buitenlandse studenten buiten we uit, intimideren ze, beledigen ze, en dat in het verlengde van onze geschiedenis die we niet meer willen kennen. Nu staat ook nog eens Joran vrolijk als de bekendste Nederlander breed in de pers uitgemeten, waarna meneer Wilders trots op nummer 2 prijkt. Nou nou nou. Ik walg gewoon van mijn eigen volk weet je dat. Sorry hoor. Niet iedereen natuurlijk. Ik heb geen woorden meer!

  8. Een vriend van me woont via een dergelijke Alliantie en UvA contructie in de Soendastraat. Hij betaalde eerst een huurprijs van 660 euro all-in en had een ‘tijdelijk contract’. De Huurcommissie was van mening dat het hier geen tijdelijk contract betreft en heeft de huurpijs verlaagd naar 170 euro per maand en nog 42 euro servicekosten.
    Gelukkig is een procedure bij de Huurcommissie gestart voor rechtvaardigheid. Ondertussen blijft de titel van jullie artikel wel als een paal boven water staan “De Alliantie melkt de Indische Buurt uit”.

  9. Een vriend van me woont via een dergelijke Alliantie en UvA contructie in de Soendastraat. Hij betaalde eerst een huurprijs van 660 euro all-in en had een ‘tijdelijk contract’. De Huurcommissie was van mening dat het hier geen tijdelijk contract betreft en heeft de huurpijs verlaagd naar 170 euro per maand en nog 42 euro servicekosten.
    Gelukkig is een procedure bij de Huurcommissie gestart voor rechtvaardigheid. Ondertussen blijft de titel van jullie artikel wel als een paal boven water staan “De Alliantie melkt de Indische Buurt uit”.

Geef een reactie

Je e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Verplichte velden zijn gemarkeerd met *

Captcha Captcha Reload

De volgende HTML tags en attributen zijn toegestaan: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>