The central government is supposedly working on new measures to deal with the ballooning vacant home problem, and it’s no secret they would prefer local governments handle the matter, even though most local governments don’t have any extra money to throw at it. Recent media reports, however, indicate that Maebashi, the capital of Gunma Prefecture, is working on a very ambitious program for not only addressing the vacant home problem, but increasing the city population at the same time.
According to a 2013 survey, the vacancy rate in Maebashi is 15.9 percent, which is higher than the national average of 13.5 percent. Officials decided they had to do something about it and boldly earmarked a ¥200 million budget program. The idea is that the owner or purchaser of a vacated property receives subsidies for renovating an existing structure. Under such circumstances, the owner would receive either ¥1 million from the city or one-third of the cost of renovation, whichever is higher.
Other local governments have similar programs, but what makes Maebashi’s different is the “special cases” that offer even more money. For instance, the city will pay a resident of Maebashi ¥200,000 toward the renovation of a vacant home if it is within one kilometer of the person’s parents’ home, thus encouraging the children of elderly or soon-to-be-elderly city residents to be in close proximity so as to be able to take care of them. In the same spirit, ¥200,000 extra will also be given to people who renovate a vacant property into a two-generation abode as well as to extended families who tear down a vacant house and replace it with a new two-generation home. Read More
We’ve often talked about how the media has glossed over the worsening housing crisis. Though newspapers, magazines, and TV will occasionally run stories about specific cases of foreclosure in order to illustrate structual economic problems, they almost never connect these examples to the structural problems inherent in the nation’s housing policy, which hasn’t really changed for forty years. Our feeling is that the media itself has too much at stake in terms of advertising to point out these structural problems and that, fundamentally, the idea that new housing fuels the economy as a whole is so unassailable that it doesn’t even occur to many reporters that problems related to housing could be systemic and related to other social problems. But a few weeks ago, Shukan Bunshun ran an article that reflected, at least in part, much of what we’ve been trying to explain on this blog.
The article was about properties as legacies, which most people tend to view as “assets.” However, the reporter discovered that in many cases properties have turned out to be considerable liabilities for heirs, some of whom would prefer not inheriting them at all. The first illustration they give is the most potent. A 53-year-old man who lives and works in Tokyo recently traveled to his home town in Hiroshima Prefecture to dispose of his parents’ house, a 50-year-old wooden structure built on a steep grade. His father died six years ago and his mother, who suffers from dementia, entered a nursing home two years ago. The house is in disrepair and the small piece of land around it is overgrown with vegetation. The neighbors have repeatedly complained to local authorities, and the son understands that he has to do something. He decided to tear the structure down, but the lowest demolition estimate he could get was ¥2 million, owing to the fact that access to the property is difficult. Since he had no intention of using the land and couldn’t afford the demolition, he put it off. One could reasonably assume the cost might have been covered by selling the land, but that was another problem. The title was still under his father’s name, which meant, according to the law, it belonged to his mother. Since she was not legally competent to handle the matter, it fell to the next in line, his older brother, who had been estranged from the family for many years. No one knew how to get in touch with him. So in order for the second son to dispose of the property, he would first have to go to court to assume title, a process that would require a great deal of time and money, neither of which he had. Meanwhile, the neighbors become more angry, but the local authorities can’t do anything. Read More