It is now done: the parliamentary committee study of the controversial Bill 31, which reviews, among other things, relations between tenants and owners, is complete. The trajectory of this legislative text, presented as a remedy to the housing crisis, has so far been a saga in both form and substance. On the eve of its adoption, a return to a bumpy journey whose result will have serious consequences in the lives of many households.
After weeks of rumors about the announced end of the lease transfer, this bill, presented as a structuring plan aimed at stabilizing a housing market in the context of an unprecedented crisis, was tabled by the minister responsible for ‘Habitation, France-Élaine Duranceau, in June 2023, on the very last day of the parliamentary session. The text effectively vindicated the hearsay by granting a right of veto to the owners.
The outcry was immediate, fueled by the minister’s recent statements on the subject of tenants’ rights.
Questioned about lease transfers, Mme Duranceau explained in an interview with Noovo that “ [tu] cannot use a right that is not yours, to transfer a lease to someone else, on terms that you decide, when it is not your building”, concluding with his now proverbial advice addressed tenants to invest in real estate if they want to make this type of decision.
His tone and his condescension were enough to make any communications advisor shudder. Fundamentally, the minister’s statements also betrayed a misunderstanding of the structure, fine mechanics and legislative materials in question.
These statements suggest that the minister did not understand that the right to transfer does indeed arise from the rights of a contract (here, a lease) – including that, since the Civil Code allowed it until now, to transfer one’s obligations without changing the terms of the agreement. She simply repeated that an owner can dispose of his property as he wishes, which is not absolutely false, but acted as if the contractual obligations which temper the exercise of this right were not only a favor, a view of the mind.
No matter, this is the line that was imposed and which remains: lowering the bar of constraints to be respected by owners when they choose to live off the income on a property – even when it meets to a fundamental need — while claiming to correct an imbalance.
In recent months, Minister Duranceau has constantly repeated that the restriction on the transfer of leases was only an insignificant detail compared to the vast protections that the bill puts in place to counter evictions. However, these protections are based on only one thing: the reversal of the burden of proof for evictions. The project does not put in place any additional substantial protection for tenants. This means that it offers nothing to people who are unfamiliar with their rights or who do not feel the strength to wage a war of attrition against an owner who is trying to evict them.
They say: if an owner wants to get rid of a tenant, he must obtain authorization from the court. Very good. But can you imagine how it feels to live somewhere when we know that the owner is trying to evict us? It’s not exactly conducive to growth. For young people with strong backs who know their rights, this discomfort can still be felt. But for a family that wants to plan for the future? For an anxious senior who doesn’t know their rights?
On this subject, in the wake of the closures of private residences for the elderly in recent weeks, Françoise David, to whom we owe the 2016 bill which limits the evictions of seniors, clearly explained in an interview with RDI that it It is also in informal relationships that they materialize. She explained that an isolated, precarious elderly person, unfamiliar with legislative developments, would have the reflex of wanting to speak to their landlord upon receiving an eviction notice. To try to work things out, to understand, to find a compromise… To end up, too often, by giving up your rights.
This illustrates the limitation of procedural protections, compared to protections clearly set out in law. The oppositions tried to have amendments adopted in this direction, in particular on the evictions of elderly tenants. They were not taken into account.
On the other hand, Minister Duranceau added an amendment at the last minute allowing municipalities to deviate from their urban planning regulations to encourage the construction of buildings. An off-topic graft in this hastily adopted bill, which, according to some observers, opens an opening for corruption.
On the eve of the adoption of the law, we are left with the unpleasant impression that it was thought of as a string of proposals whispered into the minister’s ear by real estate developers and owners’ groups. In government, we seem to be betting that real estate development will solve all the problems that undermine citizens’ right to housing.
The alibi is perfect for presenting such tinkering in place of a coherent and structured public policy. The lack of seriousness, on the other hand, is striking.