Finding a new rental property is challenging for tenants, with limited options available. Buying a home is difficult due to high bank requirements, and returning to monthly rent poses a financial burden. As a result, many tenants feel they have no choice but to stay in their current homes. The distinction between wanting to remain in a place and being forced to stay due to a lack of alternatives is crucial for housing policy, which must address both stability and insecurity.
The government has announced a housing stability plan to provide 1.19 million public housing units by 2030. While the intention to increase public responsibility for tenant housing is commendable, what tenants urgently need is a way to navigate their next lease expiration, rather than just focusing on long-term totals. The question remains: how much will this large number of units actually open up pathways for tenants currently facing closed housing options?
Not all of the 1.19 million units will be newly constructed and ready for immediate occupancy. The count includes public sales and publicly supported private rentals, with construction units being counted based on when they break ground, while purchased units are counted based on acquisition and agreements. Although the government’s supply plan presents a unified figure, the waiting time for tenants varies significantly. It is also essential to consider existing homes that the public can buy or rent to lower rental costs. However, equating increased public support with a direct increase in market housing is misleading.
According to the government, 150,000 units will be available for occupancy nationwide from the fourth quarter of this year through the end of next year, with 100,000 of those in the metropolitan area. To transform this into real options for tenants, factors such as living conditions, household size, and affordable rent must align. If families must relocate for schools or jobs or cannot secure a deposit, they cannot access the homes listed in the supply plan. It is also crucial to differentiate between overlapping supply from existing measures and newly added units. Simply counting the same home twice in the plan does not double the options available.
The introduction of universal public rentals is therefore vital. The plan aims to provide spacious, high-quality homes in transit-accessible areas and city centers, allowing even middle-class families to live there long-term. Stability in housing is essential to alleviate the pressure to secure loans for home purchases. However, despite a target of 190,000 units, the criteria for income, assets, and rent have been postponed for announcement until later this year. Tenants are more concerned about whether they qualify and how much they will need to pay than the label of 'universal.' Promises to maintain and expand units for vulnerable populations must also be backed by funding and tangible results.
Those unable to access public housing will still need to navigate the private rental market. Solutions for these individuals should not be pushed to the back of the supply plan. If first-time homebuyers are unable to find rentals and face closed doors for loans, they are left with the choice of enduring the burden of monthly rent or giving up on moving altogether. While it is necessary to manage housing prices and household debt, it is unacceptable to dismiss the costs of restricting housing mobility for genuine demand as an unavoidable side effect of policy.
This is not a call to indiscriminately loosen lending standards. It is essential to distinguish between assessing repayment ability and the closure of lending avenues due to overall bank management. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and financial authorities must jointly examine where the actual demand for moving or purchasing homes is being obstructed and ensure that necessary funds are connected in a timely manner within the limits of repayment capacity. Even if the Ministry of Land’s supply goals and financial authorities’ lending management yield results, if tenant options disappear, it signifies a failure in achieving housing stability.
There is an urgent need to expedite the expansion of housing benefits and rental support, as well as to connect existing public rental vacancies with demand. Promises to reduce the selection period for tenants must be fulfilled, and schedules, qualifications, and rental prices should be made public to allow tenants to plan their moves. The expansion of public rentals, stability in private rental contracts, and financing for genuine demand must be addressed together.
While the government’s timeline extends to 2030, tenants’ lease expirations will come much sooner. If tenants are forced to abandon their moves, resulting in decreased transactions, this cannot be labeled as market stability. The promise of 1.19 million units will only become a viable solution for tenants without options when they can actually access homes.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.