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.

——–

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,

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.

——–

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,