We already knew that municipalities subject to the SRU law, which requires large French cities to have 20 or 25% social housing, barely respected it. We now know in what proportion: only 4 out of 10 fulfill their legal obligations.
Twenty years after the entry into force of the Solidarity and Urban Renewal (SRU) law, which requires the cities concerned to have 20 or 25% social housing, we are therefore still far from the mark. “Does that surprise me? No”responds frankly Thierry Repentin, PS mayor of Chambéry and president of the national SRU commission.
“We are in a historically low year for the construction of social housing, with around 85,000 housing units built whereas, three years ago, we were at 115,000. And next year, all the specialists expect so that we are more around 60,000″, explains Thierry Repentin. This is a division by two in four years.
“A success”
In detail, there are 1,163 towns which are below the imposed social housing threshold, out of the 2,157 where this law applies. It only concerns municipalities with more than 3,500 inhabitants (or 1,500 inhabitants for the Paris region), which belong to an urban area of more than 50,000 inhabitants, including a municipality of at least 15,000 inhabitants. Clearly, this law applies in medium and large towns located in large urban areas.
“However, I want to tell you that it is a success. More than half of the social housing built today is in catch-up municipalities”, adds Thierry Repentin. And in fact, this law works. Since its entry into force, even though the number of municipalities concerned has increased, the proportion of towns with a SRU rate of less than 15% of social housing has decreased. This now represents 30% of the municipalities concerned, compared to 43% in 2004.
Among the good students, there is the town of Saint-Denis-les-Bourg, on the outskirts of Bourg-en-Bresse, in Ain. The municipality has gone from 3 to 17% social housing in 20 years. The result of a proactive policy on the subject, assures the mayor of the town, Guillaume Fauvet. “Today, I challenge you to look and identify at first glance what is social housing or what is housing in access to private housing”, launches the elected official, who defends quality social housing, equipped with a parking space and storage. Is it a source of pride to have progressed in this way? “A pride, I don’t know, but it’s a satisfaction. I consider that the right to live is a fundamental right. And then, it’s a certain form of recognition of the efforts that we have been able to make. That didn’t happen by itself.”
“The last operation which was delivered, we had 21 housing units, we had 400 requests.”
Guillaume Fauvet, mayor of Saint-Denis-les-Bourgat franceinfo
Conversely, other municipalities are struggling to raise their SRU rate to get closer to their legal obligations. This is the case of Générac, in Gard, near Nîmes. The town of 4,000 inhabitants has capped between 2 and 3% of social housing since 2011, and pays “between 100 and 120,000 euros per year”said the mayor LR, Frédéric Touzellier. “It’s a road that goes away every year”deplores the councilor, elected since 2008. “When the law was passed, the legislator took the number of housing units and said: ‘we need 20% social housing’. As I was short 350, I left with a significant deficit”notes Frédéric Touzellier.
He denounces the method of calculation of the SRU law. “As for the existing situation, we are starting with nothing. We should have said, from 2011, that we look at what is being done in the municipality and that we need between 20 and 25% social housing compared to new housing “pleads the elected official.
“How do you expect us to catch up with 350 housing units? Firstly, we would disfigure the village, we would create ghettos. Secondly, there is not enough land. In this Jacobin state, we install something and then we get on with it. cuckolds, it’s always the same.”
Frédéric Touzellier, LR mayor of Généracat franceinfo
While there are many reasons that can make the construction of social housing more complex, Thierry Repentin especially notes a form of resistance to the SRU law. “It is undoubtedly, of the Jospin mandate, the law which was fought the most”notes the PS mayor of Chambéry. “There are sometimes territories where, during electoral campaigns, we say that we want a city which is a city where there are no problems and therefore no social housing. Even though these cities function because you have people who get up in the morning to clean the offices in which you work, take care of your children at school to feed them, take care of your elderly people in independent residences to care for them.”
“Today, a teacher is eligible for HLM housingadds Thierry Repentin. And in my department of Savoie, the police director calls me saying: ‘Mr. Mayor, can you help me house police officers?’
“I don’t know if the resistance to the SRU law is hypocritical, but it is politically engaged.”
Thierry Repentin, PS mayor of Chambéry, president of the SRU national commissionat franceinfo
:quality(50)/2023/11/21/essai-allegement-sru-carte-ok-2x-655c7b19808ca861533016.png)
“When you don’t have available land, where do you build?”
In the Paris region, the town of Jouy-en-Josas, in Yvelines, owes its salvation only to HEC. The city plateaued below 10% of social housing until 2016, before making a spectacular jump. As of January 1, 2022, the municipality had 47.87%. What happened between the two? “HEC has rehabilitated and approved its student rooms, which have become social housing”says the city’s mayor, Marie-Hélène Aubert. “We couldn’t see the end of the tunnel”she confides, arguing about the constraints in a town where land is lacking, expensive and there are numerous constraints due to numerous listed buildings.
“When the prefect told me: ‘You are deficient in 2020,’ I had the impression that a cage was being opened for me.”
Marie-Hélène Aubert, mayor of Jouy-en-Josasat franceinfo
The lack of land and the high cost of land are constraints that many mayors mention. Overall, the national context is complicated for social housing, explains Isabelle Le Callennec, mayor of Vitré, in Ille-et-Vilaine, and co-president of the Housing working group of the Association of Mayors of France (AMF). “The national environment is not at all favorable to the construction of new social housing”, she asserts. She cites in particular the drop in APL, which put a strain on the budget of landlords and HLM offices, the abolition of the housing tax, which deprived municipalities of part of their financial resources, or even the “zero net artificialization” . “When you don’t have any wasteland or you don’t have available land in your territory, where do you build?”asks Isabelle Le Callennec. “The Prime Minister announced 1.2 billion euros for social housing in Dunkirk over three years. But we have already heard these figures dozens of times”scathes the elected LR.
Expanding the SRU law, a bonus for builders… Mayors have ideas for changing things
In addition to the constraints, the mayor of Générac also denounces an injustice, a “inequality“between the municipalities. “Social housing must be everywhere. I have municipalities nearby which have 10,000 or 12,000 inhabitants, which are not in the law and which do not have social housingdeplores Frédéric Touzellier. We have proven, at the Scot du Gard level, that there is a lack of social housing also in communities of municipalities with less than 50,000 inhabitants.” He would therefore like to remove this agglomeration criterion for a simpler rule: all municipalities with more than 2,000 inhabitants should be subject to the SRU law. Thus, he assures, it would be possible to eliminate the lack of social housing more quickly.
“We could, on the allocations, have a bonus for the building mayors. There must be encouragementdefends Isabelle Le Callennec. Today, nothing is done to encourage you to do, really.”
“By removing the housing tax, the government shot us in the foot. So it’s really important, when we respect our commitments, that we are rewarded financially.”
Isabelle Le Callennec, LR mayor of Vitréat franceinfo
The objective would thus be to move from a stick policy to a carrot policy in terms of social housing.