The Socialist Party wants tenants to have a voice within the city

"We propose that the city encourages tenants within Félagsbústaðir to form an association to protect their interests against the company, and that this new tenants' association be allowed to appoint three observers to the board of Félagsbústaðir," says Sanna Magdalena Mörtudóttir, a city councilor for the Socialist Party, who will present this proposal at the first meeting of the new city council on Tuesday next week, June 19.

Sanna herself has experience with the powerlessness of tenants at Félagsbústaðir; her single mother was allocated a social housing apartment after several years of housing struggles. After Sanna recently completed her university studies, she lost her student apartment and has moved back in with her mother.

"Tenants at Félagsbústaðir experience great powerlessness, as do those who are stuck on the waiting list for social housing," says Sanna. "There are long lines of communication from those who rent from Félagsbústaðir to those who make decisions. Tenants have nothing to do with the company's development; they are not involved in decisions about its policy and have no influence on the service. This is not only bad for the tenants but also for the company itself. It is not possible to build good service except through active dialogue and consultation with those who use the service."

"During the neoliberal years, social housing apartments were moved out of the city system into a special company, which is wholly owned by Reykjavík City," says Daníel Örn Arnarsson, a substitute city councilor for the Socialist Party. "This arrangement is a kind of first step towards privatization. A public institution is transformed into a limited company, and the formulation of policy and operations is moved from the democratically elected forum of the city council to the board members of a limited company, who are accountable to the city as a shareholder rather than to a community of people. Social housing apartments are placed in a company that acts as if it were a company in the general market owned by some capitalist."

Daníel points out that this makes the social role of institutions secondary, while their role is defined by the limited company. Their goal becomes future financial independence and to deliver profit to their owner, or at least not to need his financial support. "What kind of decision is that?" asks Daníel, "to shape Félagsbústaðir like any other rental company on the market where the rent is not only supposed to cover operations and loan repayments, but to pay down the loans significantly faster than the lifespan of the housing. This means that the rent from the poorest people in Reykjavík is intended to build up Félagsbústaðir's equity and finance the company's purchase of new housing. The poor are, in other words, supposed to finance their own social housing system."

Daníel says this is the core of neoliberalism. "First, taxes and fees are abolished for companies, capital, and the rich. Then the state and city are indebted to finance what corporate taxes, capital, and the rich previously covered. When no more loans can be taken, services are cut and/or fees are increased for those who use the services, who in all cases are the poor and weak, elderly, disabled, and marginalized. We have entered a period where the worst-off are expected to support their own welfare system," says Daníel.

"Of course, it is the goal of the Socialist Party to reverse this corporatization of public services," says Sanna, "but we do not have enough power to do so today. Instead, we propose that Reykjavík City encourages tenants at Félagsbústaðir to form an association around their common interests and be given the opportunity to wage the necessary struggle for their interests. Companies and the rich can wage fierce lobbying battles in society, and the corporatization of Félagsbústaðir is one consequence of this. If we do not want society to be entirely shaped by the interests of the rich, we must strengthen the collective power of the public and promote the development of associations for the common good. People must have the tools to defend themselves against the overwhelming power of the rich."

Sanna says that few groups in society are as powerless as tenants at Félagsbústaðir and those on the waiting list for social housing. Each tenant faces the power alone and unsupported, without any backing. "No one gets an apartment from Félagsbústaðir unless they are in economic distress, and in most cases, that is not even enough. Félagsbústaðir tenants are therefore among the worst-off people in society. Each of them has little power against the authorities. United, however, the tenants can form a strong organization of up to two thousand families. But since these are poor people who have no spare resources, these organizations will not be formed without the support of the city," says Sanna.

"And it's easy to justify that support," says Daníel. "If only to ensure that Félagsbústaðir's service is built up in a normal way. Which do you think is better: to build it on interactions where each tenant faces the company alone and unsupported, or on interactions where Félagsbústaðir has to take into account the demands and suggestions of powerful tenant organizations?"

"The public sector has emphasized the responsibility of the poor, that poverty is their personal problem," says Sanna. "We are told to educate ourselves out of poverty, work our way out of poverty, and strengthen ourselves so we can escape it. But while it is important to support those who experience poverty personally, poverty is not a personal problem. Poverty is a social problem, a consequence of inequality, for which society is responsible. If we do not view poverty as a personal problem but as a social problem, it becomes obvious how urgent it is to strengthen the poor as a group, give them the opportunity to find solidarity and organize themselves, formulate demands and methods of struggle, and form active solidarity around their interests," says Sanna.

She points out that in the discussion following the fire in a privately owned apartment block with social housing in London, Grenfell Tower, it emerged that before neoliberalism dismantled the social system in England, the residents sat on the tower's board. "Neoliberalism has undermined the less fortunate in so many ways," says Sanna. "Their wages have worsened, they have to pay higher rents, enjoy fewer rights, and are cut off from societal decisions, including decisions that matter most to them. A mindset has seeped in that was called The White Man's Burden during the colonial era, the white man's responsibility for unwise and helpless people in the colonies. The same attitude has been reflected in the treatment of the poor in our society. The elite considers itself competent to make all decisions for the less fortunate. And sighs when it raises its own salaries because of the great responsibility it bears. This is an absurd attitude. The problem of the less fortunate is powerlessness. And they are much better suited to make decisions about their own situation than anyone else."

"Active solidarity of the poor is not only necessary for poor people but also good for society as a whole," says Daníel. "History shows that good societies are built on the solidarity of the less fortunate. Societies are broken down by giving all power to the rich."