What are the problems arising from the Public Housing Act and Regulations?

Housing rents: For at least 60% of civil servants, rents have reached half their salary and even exceeded it; for all civil servants, unless they are married to a working spouse, the situation has become unbearable.

Continuing to work as a civil servant while single, widowed, or married to a non-working spouse is fraught with great difficulties.

This problem is not only a problem for civil servants but for all tenants.

According to recent developments, while civil servants' salaries are increasing by 15-20% annually, rents continue to increase by an average of 50% based on the CPI.

The negative difference between the salary increase rate and the rent increase rate will soon lead to a chaotic situation: civil servants spending their entire salary on rent; ultimately, decent people falling into crisis and being ruined by taking on extra jobs, while those who consider all means permissible resort to illegal methods.

For civil servants striving to live with dignity and honour without resorting to dishonesty, a process has begun: those in major cities are fleeing to smaller cities, while others, if possible, are not requesting transfers to major cities and are requesting transfers to smaller cities.

It is also clear that this chaotic and vicious cycle will not reach equilibrium in the short term and will continue for at least another five years.

I do not believe I am mistaken.

In such chaotic times, it is of great importance that the Public Housing Law and its subordinate legislation be urgently reviewed and that the unfair scoring system be changed to a fair one.

While the Law sets as its objective the creation of public housing ‘wherever and for whatever personnel is needed’: The Regulation determining the implementation method has been transformed into a system where ‘even a wolf would not adopt such a scoring principle’ and ‘the mouse strangles the cat and the jackal strangles the lion,’ contrary to the spirit and purpose of the relevant Law.

It is unclear ‘with what mindset’ the main authorities that determine the legislation, including the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, and the subordinate authorities whose opinions were sought, created such a scoring system.

The opposition parties, which claim to oversee the government and defend rights and justice, are preoccupied with their own special interests and have turned a deaf ear; they are unaware of anything and none of it matters to them!

Regardless of its colour, shape, or the source it leans on and feeds from: Whether internally sourced or externally supported, green, yellow or red, supporter or funder, almond or crescent, or moustachioed, none of the civil servant unions, who seek rights under the guise of seeking justice and who are enemies of the state and cause chaos, have taken up this issue!

95% of civil servants are unaware of the scoring system used for allocation. Those who do not want housing are not concerned; those who do want housing are busy waiting anxiously for the commission allocation list and feeling happy or sad when the list is published!

Those who could contribute to solving the problem, or those whose ‘raison d'être is to solve civil servants' problems’, have all taken what they can get, done their bit, and hung up their hats, either happily and contentedly or drugged up or put under anaesthetic!

Although serious gains have been achieved for civil servants thanks to the persistent efforts of the unions, many issues that should have been addressed and resolved long ago continue to bother employees like a speck in the eye, a broken nail, a splinter in the foot, or a stone in the shoe, yet they remain unattended and neglected!

My criticisms and suggestions regarding the fundamental problems of public employees will continue at regular intervals, along with other topics.

After a brief dig at the ‘gentlemen’ who ‘earn salaries at the level of general manager’ and ‘use trade unionism as a stepping stone to enter the political arena,’ who are supposed to produce solutions, let us now turn to our topic.

In order to write about this subject, the Public Housing Law and Regulation No. 2946, which was adopted on 09/11/1983 and published in the Official Gazette No. 18218 on 11/11/1983, and the public housing application forms and scoring systems of certain public institutions were examined.

In this article, without touching upon other technical and legal methods and relationships, I will try to address the unfair, complicated and contradictory situation experienced in the allocation of public housing with priority allocation.

Here, the general logical framework of the legislation will be criticised. Therefore, any omissions or errors in my writing should be disregarded.

To borrow the slogan of a car company, we can say:

‘Until someone comes up with a better criticism and suggestion, this is the best criticism and suggestion!

In order for the personnel of the institutions mentioned in Article 2 of the relevant Law No. 2946, who ’work at home and abroad," to benefit, public housing is created through construction, purchase, and rental.

As can be seen here, when creating public housing, the ‘need’ is taken into account in all types of allocation, and the ‘social assistance purpose’ is not pursued for personnel working in the relevant institutions and experiencing economic hardship.

Housing allocated by queue is housing allocated in accordance with the procedures and principles specified in Article 9, taking into account the points status shown in Schedule 4 attached to the Regulation.

If the points of the beneficiaries are equal, the housing is allocated to the one with the longer service period; if the service periods are also equal, the housing is allocated by drawing lots by the authorised housing distribution commission.

Civil servants who are eligible to apply for public housing under the queue allocation system are subject to scoring and ranking based on the following questions and criteria in the public housing allocation process.

This article does not cover the entire scoring system used to determine the queue, but rather focuses on the issues that should be criticised and for which recommendations should be made.

A) Scoring Related to Housing in Institutions and Organisations Covered by the Public Housing Law No. 2946

1) Spouse Status of Employees Working in Institutions Subject to the Public Housing Law (Exclusion from the queue)

2)-Scoring Related to the Period of Previous Housing Benefit (3 points deducted for each year)

3)-Expected Waiting Period for Housing Allocation (1 point added for each year)

In this regard, the ‘current and previous relationship with public housing’ of the civil servant wishing to benefit from public housing is sought to be understood.

1)-If the other spouse has obtained the right to reside in public housing, public housing will not be allocated to the other spouse requesting public housing. This approach is fair and just.

2) The scoring logic in this regard is correct, and in order to increase the chances of those who have never benefited from the scheme, the score of those who have previously benefited from public housing should be increased further, with a negative score of (-10) points.

It is not a fair approach to deduct (-15) points from those who own a house, while deducting only (-3) points from those who have previously lived in public housing, thereby increasing their chances of benefiting from public housing a second time.

3)-As is known, public housing is not available in every location where civil servants work. In this context, since applications for public housing cannot be made where there is no public housing and applications can only be made where there is public housing, a situation such as ‘having benefited from public housing’ and ‘waiting period formation’ cannot occur for civil servants who have worked in the same place or in another place of the same nature for a very long time.

In this context, civil servants who do not have public housing where they work but who wish to apply for public housing should also be granted the right to apply in order to benefit from public housing; points should be awarded for the expected waiting period by formally accepting applications from everyone who wishes to apply, and these points should be automatically transferred and evaluated when they start working in a location where public housing is available.

B)-Scoring Related to Marital Status, Number of Dependents, and Health Qualities

1)-Marital status (Married: +6 points)

2)-Number of dependent children (Up to 2 children: +3 points per child)

3)-Number of family members other than children and spouse who will live together and for whom they are responsible (1 point for each person)

In this section, the ‘voluntary social burden’ of public employees has been taken into account, and the aim is to provide an advantage in return for this social burden. The scoring logic in this regard is based on a correct approach. However:

1) Considering aspects such as the sustainability of national and spiritual values, the contribution to the social and demographic structure, and the contribution to development and culture, the points should be increased to (+10) to increase the chances of married couples benefiting from public housing.

2) Given the current trend of population decline and ageing, coupled with the unbearable rise in rental prices and marriage costs, which has led to marriages being delayed, postponed, or even abandoned, the most appropriate approach would be to award points for all children, including biological, stepchildren, and adopted children, without any restrictions.

3)-In terms of the continuity of the family as a whole, in accordance with Turkish customs and traditions, and ensuring the care and feeding of the elderly, the character of ‘choosing to live with an elderly family member who is experiencing more problems than the children in terms of health and understanding’ is a valuable character and should be rewarded.

For many civil servants living with their offspring, particularly their mothers, the main reason for staying with the family member in question is to eliminate the cost of childcare.

Even if it is for the care of the child, carrying out this process in cooperation with the main family members is also a valuable behaviour, and the most appropriate method would be to raise it to at least the child point level (+3).

C) Scoring Related to the Regular Income and Savings Assets of the Civil Servant, Their Spouse, Children, and Family Members Legally Obligated to Care for Them and Living Together in the Residence

1)-The situation where the annual total of all other regular income, excluding housing rental income, exceeds the specified amount (if Income > (15,000 index figure × civil servant salary coefficient), -1 point)

2) Number of dwellings suitable for habitation within the municipal and adjacent area boundaries of the province or district where the public housing is located (15 points deducted per dwelling)

3) Number of dwellings suitable for habitation outside the municipal and adjacent area boundaries of the province or district where the housing is located, or in other provinces or districts (10 points deducted per dwelling)

This 3-point scoring system, used to determine the income and savings of the civil servant, their spouse, children, and persons they are legally obliged to support, constitutes the most trivial, convoluted, ugly, illogical, and unfair part of the scoring system.

In this section, the economic assets of the civil servant and the social burden they bear are assessed ‘as a whole,’ and every asset identified is used against the civil servant.

That is to say:

1) - Continuous income other than housing rental income may be considered as income from land, fields, gardens, or business premises.

However, the meaning of the term ‘continuity’ is not clearly defined. Even if it appears to be ‘continuous income’ for a certain period, ‘temporary’ income such as royalties, patents, improvements, know-how rights, alimony, and compensation income may also be considered as continuous income.

Furthermore, the increase in value during the year of liquid assets such as treasury bonds, shares, foreign currency, precious metals, cryptocurrency, etc., constitutes income but is not considered continuous income.

This aspect prevents the assessment from being realistic.

2)-If the issue in question is the ‘protection of civil servants with weak economic status,’ the value of the workplace, land, field, garden, vehicle, cooperative share, company share, bank assets, cash assets, copyrights, patents, improvements, etc., registered to the family members mentioned in the legislation, whether subject to asset declaration or not, should be taken into account and scored accordingly. know-how rights, etc. should be taken into account, and scoring should be done accordingly.

3)-In any case, it is wrong to include in the calculation the assets belonging to the civil servant's family members who remain with the civil servant and constitute a social burden.

Even if they are to be included in the assessment, it is incorrect to consider only the residence owned by the social burden remaining with the civil servant, without taking into account the balance of assets and liabilities.

4) While being married (+6 points) and having social responsibilities (+1 and +3 points) appear to be rewarded with points, deducting (-15) points from the individuals in question due to their home ownership is a contradiction in itself.

Moreover, the number of children for which points are awarded is limited to two, and a deduction of (-15) points is made for each child above two due to the property owned by one of them; there is no exception/exemption stating that no points will be deducted due to property ownership if there are more than two children.

5) Since it is not possible to allocate all income to savings, the income earned is either spent entirely or partially converted into savings.

Therefore, using both the income and the savings created together in a ‘double negative calculation’ against the civil servant is an absolutely unfair, erroneous and incorrect approach.

With this application, an employee is penalised twice, receiving a total of up to (-25) points: (-1) point for earning income and (-10 / -25 points) for evaluating their income as housing.

A civil servant who uses savings assets that are more valuable and more liquid than housing, and who is wealthier than a homeowner, obtains the right to benefit from housing with a clear point difference.

6) As a fundamental principle: EQUAL PAY IS GIVEN TO PUBLIC SERVANTS WITH EQUAL DUTIES, EDUCATION AND STATUS.

Therefore, it is not possible for the same amount of pay to enrich one public servant while impoverishing another.

It is natural for a civil servant with a higher status to receive a higher salary than a civil servant who has not demonstrated the desire and success to reach the same level, since the former has already incurred many costs and hardships to reach that level.

However: An employee who is at the same income level but becomes wealthier than another does so as a result of their own attitude, driven by a sense of responsibility and awareness; the employee who becomes poorer does so because of their own extravagance and incompetence.

One civil servant may have squandered their earnings, perhaps engaging in illegal and unethical activities and spending all their income on consumption; while another civil servant may have shown great responsibility and thriftiness, sacrificing all kinds of social and cultural opportunities, saving money by paying off loans over many years.

This positive attitude, which can be described as ‘successful and responsible life and money management,’ also applies to the civil servant's family members whom they are responsible for and with whom they reside.

In this context, by applying the aforementioned scoring principle, which is far from justice and fairness:

- The prudent and responsible civil servant who transforms their earnings into an economic force that provides housing security and generates income, as well as the person they are responsible for and their family members, should be recognised and rewarded for their ‘successful and responsible life and money management’ and ‘rewarded with extra points’; this thrifty and responsible behaviour has been turned into a matter of punishment against them.

- Civil servants who squander their money, live for the moment, and demonstrate ‘unsuccessful and irresponsible life and money management’, who are short-sighted, irresponsible, wasteful, and insensitive, have been rewarded.

- Furthermore, there is no professional classification in this scoring system used for queue allocation.

Civil servants with high-income careers are also being penalised, as it were, for their high savings capacity.

This approach, which ‘punishes those who live responsibly and, in contrast, rewards and protects those who live irresponsibly,’ is neither fair nor logical.

Therefore, the criteria that apply negative points (-1; -10 / -15) should, from the perspective of civil servants who live responsibly, be applied in the opposite direction (+15) points.

Proposed Solutions

In general terms, there are two solutions to the problem of difficulties in renting housing, excessively high rents, and the need to create public housing in other necessary circumstances:

A) Making procedural adjustments

B) Making adjustments to the acquisition of public housing

1) Paying a rent contribution

2) Creating public housing

a) Constructing

b) Purchasing

c) Renting

In this context:

1) First and foremost, the unfair scoring method used in the allocation procedure must be urgently abolished and a fair method implemented.

2) As seen in all other applications implemented with the aim of ‘providing cash or in-kind contributions to the target audience’: Cash payments, tax deductions, grant contributions and interest subsidies made by the state are quickly absorbed by ‘price increases made by the blood-sucking elements of the system in the market’ that provide the goods and services in question, and the benefit in question is not provided to the target audience at all.

With such an application, the state is, in effect, feeding and funding the bloodsuckers of the system.

In this context, ‘cash rent assistance’ will never reach its target and will cause serious losses in the public budget ‘unnecessarily but continuously’.

Therefore, cash rent assistance should not be implemented in any way.

3)-Due to the impracticability of cash rent assistance, increasing the number of public housing units through ‘ownership’ or ‘rental’ is seen as the most appropriate solution. However:

a)-Due to reasons such as the very high cost of acquiring land and constructing public housing, and the serious maintenance and staffing costs involved, the ‘policy of acquiring public housing through construction or purchase’ is not considered a very appropriate method.

b) In this situation, due to the meaninglessness, impossibility, or economic unfeasibility of other methods, the most practical and least expensive method is considered to be the rental method.

Although not widely implemented, Article 4 of the relevant Regulation stipulates that public housing is to be provided by ‘renting’ or ‘the institution paying the difference between the market rent and the public housing rent’.

The nationwide expansion of this rental practice, carried out in a public and transparent manner through the ‘rental by tender method,’ is considered the most appropriate solution to the problem of providing public housing.

In this context: At a time when housing rents exceed 50% of salaries, the provision relating to housing rental, which is generally applied to those working abroad, should also begin to be applied extensively to civil servants working domestically.

The regulation to be made in this regard will have no cost to the State budget.

On the contrary, the regulation to be implemented will increase the happiness and satisfaction of the people with their State!

I would like to specifically remind you that in this series of articles, I have not addressed issues that I consider necessary, logical, and fair in terms of subject matter and point value.