Woonopstand finds the national demolition and renovation statute anti-social and does not understand that the Woonbond dares to present this to its members. It undermines real control that many housing association tenants have been fighting for for years. As Woonopstand, we demand that this statute be scrapped immediately and that the democratization of housing associations must be put on the agenda. We will not rest until tenants are given real control.

Read our letter to the Woonbond association council below.

Dear members of the Woonbond,

We'll just get straight to the point. The national demolition and renovation statute must be scrapped immediately and we explain why in this letter.

It is written from the position of housing associations within a framework in which you should not place tenants. It is written by people who are far removed from reality and by people who know little about things.

We will limit ourselves to the most important criticisms, because there are too many to mention.

• There is no real control, but rather participation. Tenants are tired of participation and only want a seat at the table if they can participate in decisions, otherwise not. The Housing Association should have known this.
• It violates the right to adequate housing
• It was written based on a paternalistic and hierarchical attitude of housing associations towards tenants
• Renovation and especially demolition are the most drastic measures in people's lives. These drastic events are described as drastic, but the rights that follow the recognition of these drastic measures are lacking. If there is one intervention in which you can mobilize tenants, it is demolition. This national statute undermines this mobilization and gives housing associations a stick to beat tenants with. We must not allow that.
• The list of points that should be included or removed is too long to mention, but here are a few that are important:

1. The statute aims to “take the interests of residents into account”, but it is not only about their interests but also about their vision, arguments, social networks, cohesion, knowledge, right to adequate housing, etc.
2. This statute aims to “create support among concerned residents” if a corporation wants to intervene. The starting point should be that residents can also take initiative and submit a plan and that a residents' plan should also be able to receive serious attention and research.
3. If this statute is based on the principle that there must be support for the corporation's plans, then the Woonbond should not sign this.
4. This statute says that local statutes can also remain in effect. Ultimately, the judiciary will mainly look at this national statute. The ministry was involved in the preparation. Lawsuits to get residents out will always continue to arise, this statute really does not put an end to that. On the contrary.
5. This statute does not apply to work that must be completed within one week. In such a case, residents do NOT have to participate in the discussion. Is there work that can be completed within a week? No, it almost always runs late, so it doesn't make sense that this is included.
6. In this statute, the corporation determines who its consultation partner is / who the tenant representation is. That is very dangerous, because 9 out of 10 times the corporation chooses the resident group that agrees with it or is simply not critical. This is already happening, soon with the approval of the Woonbond!
7. In this statute they conduct a “housing needs survey among residents”, but that is not good if it is not very clear to everyone what the consequences are of demolition-new construction or renovation in an occupied or unoccupied state, whether or not there is a right of return, etc. Do no housing requirements survey BEFORE it is clear whether people have a right to return!
8. During demolition or renovation, residents who want to do so must always be able to return to their own street/neighborhood (which is defined by themselves)! This statute does not guarantee a return for residents. That should be included!
9. Under this statute, residents are not given the opportunity to draw up their own alternative plan and have it tested.
10. The “orientation phase” ends with a decision by the corporation whether it will be demolition, new construction or renovation. This statute does not require a measurement of support for this, so residents no longer have a say about it. They are also not allowed to give advice on the decision that directly goes against the Consultation Act! The corporation's decision whether to demolish or renovate must be tested against the residents via a support base measurement. This should be stated in this statute.

To top it all off, you, the members of the Woonbond who know better how things work in practice, are only allowed to "sign the cross" after this statute has already been established. You can no longer make changes to the content. Because the statute is so bad, we ask you to look at it very carefully and vote against it.

Non-members of the Woonbond also have to deal with this statute and they certainly have no say in the matter. In short, this statute is very undemocratic in many ways.

We assume that the Woonbond will come to its senses and will fight for real control from now on. We want the democratization of housing associations to be higher on the agenda of the Woonbond. There lies the key to changes that are now very much needed.

We also assume that the Woonbond will not make the same mistake again as when establishing the National Performance Agreements with regard to, among other things, rent increases and the sale of social housing. This pain is now felt by tenants every day. Many tenants' organizations now have to fight this and housing action groups are also fighting to undo this. Hopefully it is clear that we will do everything we can to get this statute off the table. Left or right.

Hopefully you, the members of the Woonbond, will be by our side.

Yours sincerely,

Woonopstand