Are you a lodger?

[imomus]

Does your way of life need a room? Are you an owner... or a lodger?

I've always been a lodger. I mean I've always lived in private rented accommodation. People ask me why. Rent is money down the drain, they say. My reasons are many. I like spending a couple of years here, a couple of years there, moving around the world with minimal fuss. In the last ten years I've lived in London, Paris, Tokyo, New York and Berlin. Could I have done that if I'd bought property?

It's also a cultural thing. The people who "want me to buy" are people like Margaret Thatcher. I don't like owning stuff. I feel like we're all lodgers in this world, we pass through it, we shouldn't become too attached to objects or imagine we have dominion over them. Students rent, and Europeans rent, and I feel very much like a student and a European. What's more, "home" to me is increasingly a digital place. Who needs bricks and mortar when you have zeroes and ones? Who needs to survey a physical space when you can survey your computer desktop and feel at home wherever you happen to be physically?

So I'm proud to be a lodger. But it's getting increasingly difficult. Here are some statistics I found in Private Rental Housing in Europe: The View from Australia by Dr Andrew Beer.

* Britain has swung massively away from renting in the last one hundred years. In 1914 90% of dwellings in Britain were let privately. In 1950, some 53% of UK households were still renting privately, by 1961 this had fallen to 31%, and by 1971 it had declined to 18.9%. By 1992 the private rental sector was down to 9%. Now it hovers around 6%.

* The UK private rental section is now a motley thing comprised of students, elderly people in secure tenancies, young single mobile people who move on quickly or "households of multiple occupation... strangers living in poor quality housing" together. 80% of these households are in dwellings defective on the grounds of poor management, inadequate amenities or over-occupation".

* "For much of the post-War period," writes Beer, "the rising price of housing (especially in London) has encouraged landlords to 'winkle' protected tenants out of their lets, encouraged others to ignore repairs and maintenance in the expectation that deteriorating conditions will force the sitting tenants to leave, keep dwellings empty, or circumvent rent controls by charging 'key money' or shifting from unfurnished to furnished accommodation."

I see evidence of the degradation of private rented accommodation whenever I go to London. "The lift has a sign in it that says 'Please do not use this lift as a toilet'. What do they take us for? Why not say 'You are a cunt, aren't you'? The assumption of guilt. But our hosts later tell us that the lift is used as a toilet. Often. Fuck. Welcome to Britain!" I wrote in Welcome to Britain. "Most of the buildings will be peely-wally, chopped around, subdivided and ruined by mean insensitive landlords with exchange value rather than use value in mind, full of blind corners, pointless steps, awkward bathrooms, and ghastly grey fitted carpet," I wrote in For Whom the Siren Wails.

Some think I'm just being prim or prissy when I make these observations about London. But you need to live in a city like Berlin to see how systematically British private rented accommodation has been run down, and how tawdry and terminal it looks. It isn't this way in Berlin.

Beer again: "The private rental sector is largest in Switzerland and West Germany where it accounts for 66 per cent and 43 per cent of households respectively."

That 43% German figure rises to astonishing levels here in Berlin, the city of the lodger, where only 12% of accommodation is owner-occupied. Trying to explain this situation to its astonished readers, The Times recently described "a long-entrenched renting culture among the locals".

"Housing in the east was owned by the state during the communist years, and after the Wall came down in 1989, blocks of flats were largely sold en masse to big corporations rather than to the tenants who lived in them. West Berliners, too, were traditionally reluctant to buy — rents were heavily subsidised, while the prospect of Russian tanks rolling in made the city seem anything but a safe investment. Home ownership was also rejected as “petit bourgeois” by students and other denizens of Berlin’s thriving hippie scene."

"It is worth bearing in mind that the market is very different from in Britain — not least because renting is a long-term option for the majority. Contracts are therefore usually for an unlimited period and, although there is generally a three-month break clause on either side, it can be extremely difficult to get rid of a tenant," the Times lamented, before heading into a premature gloat about anticipated regime change. "Things may be about to change, especially if today’s general election brings a new government... there are hopes the feel-good factor could feed through to the property market. Much depends on the prevailing mood — which, in turn, brings us back to Merkel and today’s election."

I don't appreciate The Times telling its "investors" to come over here and snap up undervalued property, bringing their British attitudes to lodging with them. My rent here is £250 per month for a 62 metre square apartment in a delightful neighbourhood (one The Times mentions by name as an "up-and-coming investment tip", fuck you very much!) and I want things to stay exactly as they are.

Out of interest, I looked up the figures for ownership versus renting in Asia. Here they are, courtesy Global Tenant. Surprise surprise, my beloved Japan is the country with some of the highest private rental rates in Asia.



But, you know, one of the best things about the situation here in Berlin is that conversation around a Berlin supper table is much more likely to be about art than property. In other words, it's much more likely to resemble yesterday's Click Opera entry than today's.

Comments

Huh?

[diggets.livejournal.com]

I find it incomprehensible that you would rather that 90% of homes were rental -- presumably owned by a fraction of the other 10%. Ah, the good ole days of serfdom.

Why don't you buy property and rent it out when you do your globe-trotter thing? That way you can contribute to the rental pool while still building equity. And you will need that equity some day, trust me.

Re: Huh?

[imomus.livejournal.com]

In a speech (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4281456.stm) he's about to deliver to the Labour Party Conference in Brighton, Gordon Brown will call for "a home-owning, share-owning, asset-owning, wealth-owning democracy, not just for some but for all". Everyone's a winner, baby! Great! Everyone's a fat cat, everyone gets the cream, hey presto, inclusive exclusivity! The shareholder society instead of the sharing society!

Except for the fact that shares can go down as well as up. All you're doing by making more people property owners is exposing more people to the very real risks associated with capitalist speculation.

Re: Huh?

[mcgazz.livejournal.com]

> Gordon Brown will call for "a home-owning, share-owning, asset-owning, wealth-owning democracy, not just for some but for all".

Didn't Margaret Thatcher 'call for' something similar 20 years ago? Anyone in the UK who thinks that we'll see any change for the better when Brown takes over from Blair deserves everything they get.

[mcgazz.livejournal.com]

> Who needs to survey a physical space when you can survey your computer desktop and feel at home wherever you happen to be physically?

But you can't spend your retirement in cyberspace when the capitalist state that wants you to be a home-owner fails to provide you with a pension :(

[qscrisp.livejournal.com]

There's something disgusting about the property-buying culture in Britain, it has to be said. Actually, I was watching Panorama last night on the telly, which was taking a look at Gordon Brown's so-called 'economic miracle'. What they didn't pay very much attention to (at least in the bit I saw) was the way people have been encouraged to take out higher mortgages on their property and simply spend money that they don't have. It's a house of cards, I'd say.

Britain is becoming a country divided between those who got a foot on the property ladder in time, and those who were too late (like myself). I'm not sure which group is more fortunate. There is something umpleasant about the divide itself, which you soon realise when you go to the wrong social gathering and find yourself surrounded by property ladder people who wonder what the fuck you're doing with your life.

[svenskasfinx.livejournal.com]

I don't like the fact that most people who own property make it into a big economic deal.. I feel that EVERYONE should have the right to not only own property but have enough money to do so and without risk of it being repossessed due to one missed payment, ect.. as in America it happens sometimes.

I think the care for property and a place and a space lends much to the pride one has of one's unique place within society.. I hate the idea of some kind of ideosyncratic monoculture of "normal" people going on doing, 9 to 5 things.. and everyone does exactly the same thing, desires the same thing and buys the same thing...

No.. I would like it easier for everyone to own and sell their own property.. as well as the ablity to insure it... (I lived through hurricane Andrew.. some very poor people who inharited ownership had no money left to insure what they had.. thus, they couldn't make the repairs to their homes which were nessisary to keep them.. then finally the STATE took it and knocked it down..with signs on the building saying "condemned" as the first stage.

Across the street later it wasn't much different.

No.. I don't want to see the ownership of property as a "statius symbol" but a choice for being part of something.... a place to live life the way you want to live it. Its something people desire (or at least the handful of people who have very little)

and just as with anything else, there are high ends and low ends, but to condemn people for the desire for the ownership of a place to live.. sounds a bit off scale to the ideas of the real world..

..right now in India, Kris is looking for an apartment to buy for his wife and 3 children to live together and not have to communte so far or go to a boarding school.. right now the children and his wife are huddled together in a one room rental, not so elegant or nice.. just because its all they can find at the moment. He hasn't seen his family for several days a week because he can't find anything closer to his job.. is it wrong that he should want to have a home for his family? Is it an elite dream of ownership for the sake of some kind...

I don't see that most people WANT to be moved about.. I moved about over 16 times under my childhood due to the fact that we had to go with the econimic difficulties and had no rights to own property if we couldn't come up with the down payment or a bank to help..and without a steady job and two small children, how do you think my mother got by in America? Not too well...

Yet all over the world.. its like that...and the cost of ownership is often much less than renting..

Unless of course you live in Moscow.. (a friend told me they were astounded by the prices in Sweden and how high they were.. and I on the other hand were astounded by how low they were in comparison to 4 cities in the US... and what you get for that..)

[(Anonymous)]

Your argument about cramping your globetrotting lifestyle doesn't wash. I own my own flat in Paris where I live. I'm thinking of spending a year in Australia next year, in which case I'll rent out my flat, and what's more be able to return to Paris without the hassle of having to find accommodation. In that respect, it actually makes globetrotting easier.

I own my own flat, and collectively all of us owners in the building own the building, and once a year we get together to make collective decisions about the building. Surely this quasi-anarcho-syndicalist arrangement is far better than what you're proposing as a model, ie property moguls or pensions funds owning the property stock? Long-term private renting is in fact impoverishing, and in my perfect world people who have lived X amount of years in a property then should have the right to purchase it if they want to at minimal interest. I think it's a pretty basic desire to want more control over your own living environment than some anonymous investment fund.

[mcgazz.livejournal.com]

> Britain is becoming a country divided
Britain's always been divided by property ownership, from feudal manors to enclosure acts.

> those who were too late (like myself). I'm not sure which group is more fortunate.
Fancy buying my crumbling ruin for its exchange value, rather than its use value? ;-)

Re: Huh?

[(Anonymous)]

Shares can go down as well as up, yes. But so can rents, and just as dramatically. As a private renter, you're hardly opting out of the capitalist economy. I'm a home-owner with a fixed interest home loan, which in fact makes me far less exposed to the vicissitudes of the market than you.

[urban-ospreys.livejournal.com]

The whole British economy seems geared around turning brick income into a right, a 'property pension'. It doesn't matter that this money has to come from the next generation's pocket, it doesn't matter than it flood-barriers the entire 'may go up or down' ethos of investment (come back an actual free-market, all is forgiven), it means a holocaust for small shops and there isn't a single newspaper (or even journalist) disagreeing with it all.

Re: Huh?

[relaxing.livejournal.com]

There is a fundamental difference between owning real estate and owning common stock in a corporation, however. With real estate, you're banking on there being mainted bare minimum level of stability in the UK. Meaning barring mass exodus, famine, disease -- some drastic long-term reduction in the population -- your property will be worth more in the future than when you bought it. Even if the market is "down" when you have to sell, you'll get more than you did if you had been renting (which would be nothing.) And if there is some global catastrophe, at least you'll have a place to come home to when globetrotting is no longer sustainable.

[qscrisp.livejournal.com]

"Britain's always been divided by property ownership, from feudal manors to enclosure acts."

Well, perhaps so, but recently the trend seems to be towards greater division than has been the case in the recent past. Honestly, home ownership seems as unlikely for me as a trip to the Moon.

[sparkligbeatnic.livejournal.com]

Another reason to consider buying is that it avoids having to deal with rental agencies and landlords. In Japan this can be considerable hassle. Renting an apartment in requires nearly as much start up money as the downpayment on a housing loan in the West. Add to that reams of paper work, requirement for guarantors, additional deposits to extend the lease every two years, and the fact that most places don't want gaijin who are not employed full-time with a major company or institution. It's not something you really want to go through more than once.

With interests rates as low as they are in Japan (probably the lowest in the world) the 27% rate for private rentals is puzzling. It may reflect the fact that people live within a train-commute of work, but expect to move after marriage or retirement. Many move from the inaka to the dense urban centers, particularly Tokyo, for the duration of their career, but do a "u-turn" and return to the furusato when they get older.

Re: Huh?

[caoilte.livejournal.com]

Not true. People are expected to purchase property at prices inflated by a low interest rate environment. When minor changes in market conditions dictate a rise in interest rates it will both severely damage their ability to pay their mortgage interest and the price they can expect to get for selling it.

No one expected a property crash in 1987 either.

And it's not that owning or renting is better or worse, but that owning is not the magic bullet that the middle class obsessively treat it as.

[nicepimmelkarl.livejournal.com]

O the sisters of mercy they are not
Departed or gone,
They were waiting for me when I thought
That I just can’t go on,
And they brought me their comfort
And later they brought me this song.
O I hope you run into them
You who’ve been traveling so long.

Yes, you who must leave everything
That you cannot control;
It begins with your family,
But soon it comes round to your soul.
Well, I’ve been where you’re hanging
I think I can see how you’re pinned.
When you’re not feeling holy,
Your loneliness says that you’ve sinned.

Well they lay down beside me
I made my confession to them.
They touched both my eyes
And I touched the dew on their hem.
If your life is a leaf
That the seasons tear off and condemn
They will bind you with love
That is graceful and green as a stem.

When I left they were sleeping,
I hope you run into them soon.
Don’t turn on the light
You can read their address by the moon;
And you won’t make me jealous
If I hear that they sweeten your night
We weren’t lovers like that
And besides it would still be all right
We weren’t lovers like that
And besides it would still be all right.

that's what i'm talking about.

[23doves.livejournal.com]

I find the rights for tenants in Britain absolutely dispicable. It became more noticeable when I moved to Australia - there, the Government actually guards your deposit for the accommodation, and if the landlord wants to take it from you due to damage to his or her property, it has to proven to them. This isn't an entirely foolproof system, of course, but it's far better than the British approach. I estimate I've lost several thousand pounds over the last ten years in the UK due to deposits being snatched for no good reason (or invented reasons).

The laws in Britain that protect tenants are few and far between, and when the ones that exist are broken it's very hard to get affordable legal aid to contest the landlord's decision. London in particular is over-run by dodgy letting agencies with no ethics whatsoever.

[henryperri.livejournal.com]

Momus hasn't toiled a single day in his life. Tell me why he deserves a pension.

[mcgazz.livejournal.com]

I believe a truly civilised society should provide for everyone, and give everyone both the right to work and the right *not* to work.

[mcgazz.livejournal.com]

Where do you live, q?

[spoombung.livejournal.com]

No one in the UK seems remotely alarmed that houses cost 10 times the average salary. Renting is hugely expensive due to buy-to-let owners covering big mortgages...not to mention making a healthy profit. Now ,only those who already own property can buy new property. I find it astonishing that the housing market is constantly referred to as "healthy' by politicians, economists and journalists. It's horrific.

[dzima.livejournal.com]

It's not something you really want to go through more than once.

Sparklig, put your money where your mouth is and buy that dream monastery in Uji for once!

[mcgazz.livejournal.com]

> I find the rights for tenants in Britain absolutely dispicable.
Agreed. And I work in Social Housing.

"Deposit" is something of a misleading term, suggesting as it does, that you get it back when you move out.

[mcgazz.livejournal.com]

> No one in the UK seems remotely alarmed that houses cost 10 times the average salary.

In a lot of places they don't - it varies massively across the country.
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=154263

Guns and flights out are still cheap

[urban-ospreys.livejournal.com]

The whole UK thing needs an overhaul. The fact you can't settle, not knowing where you are going to be from one six months to the next, the lack of rent-capping, deposit-stealing.

Re: Huh?

[relaxing.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, and don't sign up for an adjustable-rate mortgage, or other adjustable-rate loans. Duh.

Tell me, what's better: being forced to sell in a down market, or flushing away your money while your landlord gets fat for 60 years?