12 mai 2009
Europride
A good oportunity to visit Zurich : Europride 09
A big and tide event program in Mai and June.
The 6 of June : parade in town.
Be there !
31 juillet 2008
HOUSING POLITICS IN FRANCE : BADWILL CONFIRMED
Few years ago, the french minister for the "cohésion sociale" Jean-Louis Borloo proposed a plan to make as much french as possible owning their own house. It was called "the house for 100 000€". And few days ago, our loved minister of housing and city (she is pretty homophobic by the way) Christine Boutin proposed a magical plan, "the house for 15 €" (a day during 40 years). (people that do understand french please read the article from liberation.fr below)
This dream petit bourgeois to make all french people own their own individual house is shared by a big part of the population, but I would expect from minister, presidents and co to think a bit further, in bigger scales. It's their job for heaven's sake !
Basically, I am not against individual housing. But I think that it shouldn't be the majority.
Here are my reasons.
1) Ecology, sustainability
Imagine what means when everybody (or every family) has his/her own house.
As you can see, more indivual houses lead to increasement of the distances between home and everything (schools, shops, offices, friends, facilities...) (and it is even more extrem with individual houses from rich people with more land) First of all, people will loose a lot of time everyday.
> Big distances increase the costs of a good public transportation net, and since it is well known that cities and states usually don't swimm in the money, more distance will become less public transportion pro person.
> And bad public transportation = more personal cars = more traffic jam = more pollution = less social interaction with other humans
Another point is the building ecology. You will use more energy to heat (or cool) 120m2 in a one family house, than the same surface in a multi-family house. Indeed, 10 x one family house has more exterior walls than a 10 apartements building.
A further point is the costs for the cities, the region and the state : more distances means more telefon cables, more gaz and water installation, longer electricity cables etc. This is not only expensive to install, but also to maintain.
More distandes means also longer distances for the carbage trucks and the school busses. All that is expensive and goes against sustainability.
> To build a lot of individual houses, you need more territory than to build few housing buildings with the same m2. If you incitate the citizens to build indivual houses, your country will consum more territory.
This means less place for nature, and we know how important nature is for our planet. A country like France has quite big territory, but it is an illusion to think that we can just spread uncontrolled without any consequences. We are lucky to have this, and we should protect it.
2) loosing the capacitiy of compromises, unlearning the social behavior/ ruining the urbanity
Not everybody might share this aspect of human interaction with me, but for me, it is an essential point.
Human is a social animal. Since always, humans search contact to other humans. They build their house close to each other, it becomes a village, sometimes a town. We had to learn how to live with each other. Respect the privacy of other, even though we live close to each other. We created places to meet outside the house, public space where we can meet our friends. The variety of public space is unlimited and that is why we enjoy so much to walk through the old town in european cities. Small streets, and suddently a place with small dimensions, and later a huge one. In this public space you can go to markets where you learn to know other people, you will be part of a big crowd during celebreations (religious, sportive, politic, musical etc).
In the public space you can search signatures for a politic reason, you can join a demonstration, you can dance, you can kiss your same sex partner and open minds, you can do so much things that are essential !
In the public space you can also see some calls to peace hanging from a window, a communist paper sticked on a wall, a feminist logo painted on a sign, a heart with initials graved on a bank or a tree. We might say this is visual pollution. But it is also communication. The allowed communication like public information, parties events, or concerts posters stiked on the public board also takes place in the public space. The public space is basically a place of individual expression.
Public space is essential, and individual housing areas kill the public space. You have to take your car to buy bread for the breakfast. On the way, no chance to meet somebody. No oportunity to claim you ideals, or to answer to other ideals that are not yours. No chance to read that small poster hanging next to the bus stop that proposes cheap private spanish courses, language that you want to learn since long time already.
Individual housing might be nice because you have your own barbecue on your own terrace. But what is so bad to do your barbecue on the roof terrace from your building ? The view is better !
The society becomes more individual, and people unlearn the social behavior. We become more sensitive to everything (the music from the neighbour, the fact that we have to take the lift to go to our roof terrace instead of beeing able to grill in front of our kitchen, the fact that our children play in the parc in front of the building with other children instead of playing in our garden etc)
I think that this is not a good evolution. We should learn to compromise. Because at the end, the whole society is better. If everybody refuges in their own 4 walls, the society becomes more and more sensitive, and less tolerant to other people, to everything.
I'm sad that the people who govern us don't (want to?) see far enough. Even if they dream about a individualist selfish society (I think this is the dream of the actual french governement), at least, they should see that huge individual housing areas are not sustainable !
3) the perverted plan of the "house for 15 €"
About this program from Madame Boutin, now. This plan is purely a joke when you see the conditions. This program is for couples that earn around 1500 to 2000€ a month (together). You could think the plan is very kind ! But no, wait.
A 15€ house has to be 85m2, and the land 250m2. 85m2 is less than a 3,5 Room appartment in the actual standard. (3,5 Room apartment = a big living/eating room and 2 other rooms) Basically, you will have a very small house. I find this very vicious from the governement.
By the way, 15€ a day means 450€ a month, and 100'000 to 120'000 € for the house (without the land). And around 40 years credit for everything (almost your entire working time).
There is another political problem with this plan. In France every city is supposed to has 20% of social housing (if not, the city pays a fine). Social housing is good (when it is well planed), because it leads to social mixity in the city. 1,3 million of french people would like to live in social housing.
Madame Boutin had the great idea that cities could count the 15€houses into these 20% social housing. Which means less social housing. The city majors are happy, because the 15€house people are richer than the social housing people. Less social mixity, UMP happy.
(Nicolas Sarkozy belongs to the parti UMP)
All this sounds very negative, I'm sorry ! But it is the sad reality that the french governement is messing up the country, especially in urbanism !
(By the way, I also could talk about the sad architecture in most af individual housing... but that I would really be too negative !!)
But loyal to myself, I am not pessimistic : I hope things can change. I know some urbanists and architects in France that are engaged for real urbanism in cities. (I will make an internet search for that !) And I also think that a lot of french people rediscover to pleasure and freedom that public space can bring. And I also think that it is possible to tell people what does mean if everybody has his/her own own, and that it is maybe not as good as what you thought when you count everything !
So, we will see...
Boutin l'illusionniste présente sa bicoque à quinze euros
Source : Libé, http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/societe/341815.FR.php
"Ca va faire tomber des tabous.» Christine Boutin en est fière : son projet de loi sur le logement, présenté hier matin en Conseil des ministres et débattu à l’automne par le Parlement, rebat plusieurs cartes sur le débat toujours abrasif du logement social et, donc, de la mixité sociale. Nicolas Sarkozy l’avait martelé pendant sa campagne, il veut «une France de propriétaires». Dans cette logique, le gouvernement part donc à l’assaut de la loi SRU (Solidarité et renouvellement urbains), texte qui prévoit que les communes construisent au minimum 20 % de logements locatifs sociaux.
Luc Chatel, le porte-parole du gouvernement, a évoqué hier «un assouplissement de la loi SRU», et non «un retour sur le principe des 20 %». La nuance existe, mais il n’empêche : le logement locatif social cède du terrain face à la propriété. La nouvelle mécanique est en effet la suivante : intégrer l’accession sociale à la propriété dans ce quota des 20 %.
De nombreuses associations (ATD Quart Monde, la Fondation abbé Pierre, France Terre d’asile, les Enfants de Don Quichotte, le Secours catholique, etc.) répliquent qu’il sera compliqué de permettre aux ménages pauvres de devenir propriétaires ; et que ce nouveau mode de calcul permettra aux communes de construire autant de logements locatifs sociaux en moins. Et ceci alors que le plan prévu par la loi SRU depuis 2000 accuse un net retard. Lors du dernier pointage, début juillet, seulement 400 des 730 communes de plus de 3 500 habitants concernées par la loi avaient respecté leur engagement.
La mesure phare, symbolique et peut-être gadget illustrant cette volonté, c’est bien sûr la maison à 15 euros par jour, spectaculaire effet d’annonce qui permet aussi de se souvenir de l’échec cuisant des maisons à 100 000 euros de Jean-Louis Borloo. Pour atteindre son objectif, Christine Boutin veut aussi prélever 800 millions d’euros des caisses des organismes du 1 % logement (l’argent versé par les entreprises, soit 4 milliards d’euros), ce qui a provoqué la colère des partenaires sociaux gérant cette manne, inquiets de voir cette collecte profiter aux propriétaires.
Le projet de loi entame un autre principe fort du logement social : jusqu’ici un locataire pouvait y rester aussi longtemps qu’il le voulait. Désormais, les ménages les plus aisés n’auront droit qu’à un bail de trois ans.
Combien coûte réellement cette maison ?
Quinze euros par jour. Pour ne pas dire 450 par mois. Pour ne pas dire 100 à 120 000 euros (uniquement pour le bâti). Et pour ne pas dire une quarantaine d’années d’endettement (presque toute une vie professionnelle). Un bon «plan com», pour Christine Boutin, qui ne cesse de s’enthousiasmer. Pour Jean-Baptiste Eyraud, du DAL, un vrai danger : «On a vu ce que le surendettement avait donné aux Etats-Unis, avec la crise des subprimes.» L’idée de la ministre ? Permettre à des primo-accédants, dont le ménage gagne entre 1500 et 2000 euros net par mois (donc peu solvables), d’acquérir «en deux temps» le bâti puis le foncier, comme le stipule la «charte pour la primo accession en maison pour 15 euros par jour». La maison doit faire 85 m2 et le terrain 250.
Dans un premier temps, le nouveau propriétaire ne rembourse que la maison, sur une durée de vingt à vingt-cinq ans. En attendant, ce sont les organismes du 1 % logement (les quatre milliards d’euros versés par les entreprises) qui s’occupent du portage financier. Ensuite, il faut rembourser le terrain. Pour y parvenir, les candidats sont priés de s’adresser aux banques et professionnels partenaires pour obtenir leur projet clef en main. Pour éviter que la construction ne coûte trop cher, l’Etat accorde généreusement une TVA à 5,5 %. C’est le «seul point positif» du projet, estime Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PS). Christine Boutin a déjà lancé le mouvement. Cinq mille maisons à quinze euros doivent pousser d’ici fin 2008, l’objectif étant d’atteindre les dix mille dès 2009.
Une manière de contourner la loi SRU ?
A peine annoncée, la volonté d’intégrer la maison à quinze euros dans les 20 % de logements sociaux de la loi SRU (Solidarité et renouvellement urbains) a fait bondir. Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PS), présidente de la Fédération des coopératives d’HLM, s’est déclarée «totalement en désaccord», l’ancienne ministre du Logement craignant que les maires s’en servent «d’alibi» pour contourner la loi.
Votée en novembre 2000 sous le gouvernement Jospin (et mise en application en janvier 2002), elle oblige les villes de plus de 3 500 habitants (1 500 en Ile-de-France) à construire 20 % de logements sociaux, l’objectif étant de favoriser la mixité sociale dans un contexte de forte demande pour ce type de logement. Il y aurait 1,3 million de candidats.
Cette loi embarrasse une partie de l’UMP, qui a déjà tenté, en 2002 et 2006, de la désamorcer. Sans succès. Cette fois, ce serait seulement un «assouplissement», assure Luc Chatel, porte-parole du gouvernement. En incluant les programmes immobiliers d’accession sociale à la propriété dans la loi SRU, les maires pourraient capter une classe moyenne plutôt aisée. Pendant cinq ans, le logement de ces primo-accédants sera considéré comme logement social.
Pour Marie-Noëlle Lienemann, Christine Boutin a «certainement» reçu des demandes de la part de nombreux maires de la majorité obligés de payer des pénalités. 730 communes relèvent de la loi SRU. Parmi elles, environ 400 n’auraient toujours pas atteint leur quota. 291 vont subir une procédure. Le retard a surtout été pris dans les villes très résidentielles.
S’agit-il d’un bon investissement ?
Quinze euros par jour, c’est pas cher. Mais c’est tout de suite moins alléchant s’il faut ajouter une grosse facture de gasoil ou d’essence. Pour trouver des terrains à des prix attractifs - afin de ne pas dépasser les quinze euros par jour - il faudra parfois aller loin, très loin dans la périphérie des grands pôles urbains. Un budget non négligeable si on travaille en centre-ville, alors que le baril flambe. «La recherche de terrains à moindre coût pour accueillir ces maisons risque de contribuer à l’étalement urbain», craint ainsi la fédération France Nature Environnement (FNE).
Une politique qui menace l’environnement, car construire des logements implique des lotissements, des routes, des centres commerciaux. La FNE craint aussi que les matériaux ne soient pas très écologiques et l’isolation mal faite, conduisant à de grandes dépenses en chauffage l’hiver. «Nous n’avons pas d’assurance qu’il en sera autrement», regrette Arnaud Gossement, porte-parole de la FNE. Pour l’Ordre des architectes, la construction de lotissements renverrait à «une vision archaïque» de l’habitat populaire, et irait à l’encontre des discours vertueux sur le développement durable et la préservation des paysages. Marie-Noëlle Lienemann, ancienne ministre du Logement (PS), craint que sans ciblage géographique, les ménages modestes s’installent dans «des secteurs en déclin». D’autres, comme Jean-Baptiste Eyraud, du Droit au logement (DAL), redoutent une forme de ghettoïsation, «une politique des années 7O où l’accès au foncier se faisait loin des centres».
Une redite de la maison Borloo?
«Ce n’est pas la maison Borloo. Cela n’a rien à voir», a assuré, la main sur le cœur, Christine Boutin. C’est que la «maison à 100 000 euros» lancée en 2005 par son prédécesseur au Logement y ressemble beaucoup et s’était soldée par un cuisant échec. Six cents maisons environ ont été construites à côté des 800 000 transactions immobilières annuelles des ménages. Or Jean-Louis Borloo en avait prévu 30 000 à 40 000 par an.
Principal problème : le prix du foncier. Il avait fait abstraction de cette composante, ou misé sur les collectivités locales pour qu’elles pourvoient les terrains. Conséquence : les maisons à 100 000 euros ont poussé là où les communes avaient quelque chose à offrir, souvent dans le cadre des opérations de renouvellement urbain. De Borloo à Boutin, certains ne voient qu’une variation sémantique. En effet, la nouvelle maison (le bâti) devrait valoir 110 000 euros (450 euros par mois sur vingt ans). Pourtant, en introduisant un guichet unique et en utilisant le 1 % logement, qui assure le portage du terrain, le projet de Christine Boutin diffère un peu. Le Pass-foncier permet de reporter l’achat du terrain.
29 juillet 2008
EDVIGE or "the end of our freedom"
Street art in the street of Zürich
Picture : http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahgenner/463027365/
In France something terrible is happening. Sorry to make a copy paste here, but it seems more important to me that you understand the problem than that I write it myself in my not perfect english !
Under this nice feminine firstname, Edvige, lies a brutal and ugly political reality : a police database of a scope and nature unseen since Petain's regime.
Using the drowsiness of summer, without any public debate nor legislative discussion, the French government is adopting the use of a police database aiming at a retrieving information on all kinds of activists involved in politics, unions, NGOs, religious groups, ... since the age of 13 (!) and without any limitations in the range of information collected, nor any time limit in keeping the datas.
This is what is happening next to the celebration of the French Revolution, in Sarkozy's France. Even the infamous Patriot Act in the USA does not go that far!
Behind the bling-bling operations like the Union pour la Méditerranée, doomed to fail since its inception because of its lack of consistency, and the outrageous 'défilé de dictateurs' for the 14th of July on the Champs Elysées, the European citizens must be aware that the current chairman of the EU is a great son of Petain, rather than a heir of General De Gaulle.
Submission to the powerful, merciless for the weakest, fascination for money and pomp, obsession for police control and summary justice,.... here are the key features of the current president of the EU, Nicolas Sarkozy, as the French painfully discovered in the last 14 months, explaining why no more than 20% of them now find anything positive in his tenure of power.
With Edwige, the French authorities go one step further down the road of a Petain-style French state (‘l'Etat français’ as it was called by these archenemies of the Republic, of its laicity, of its pretention to tame the powerful and give the voice to the people). With Edwige, French police forces, which have not asked for such a tool, are pushed towards becoming closer to the vile 'Milice' which was focused on arresting freedom fighters rather than criminals.
Let’s think one minute of what can be the use of collecting and keeping data on citizens whose main characteristics is to be active in society, within NGOs, unions, political parties, since the age of 13. Preventing terrorist attacks? Preventing criminal acts? Very unlikely as anywhere in the democratic world, citizens who are very active in their communities tend to be the best defence for any antisocial behaviours.
So, let's search in another direction, and the fact of starting the data collection from 13 years old gives us a terrible clue: Sarkozy's government wants to file all potential social and political activists since their very first years. Not to protect them or to help them of course. But to be able to influence them when possible, to press them if needed and to threaten them when required.
No doubt that in the Place de la Condorde's tribune on the 14th of July, Nicolas Sarkozy got some good advices on how to manage such a database from his dictators friends. Assad, Mubarak or Ben Ali for instance do know very well how to control activists, jail and torture opponents.
If it was a shame for France to get this bunch of dictators for the anniversary of the Revolution, it is now undoubtedly a danger for the French people and French democracy to have Edwige coming into force in coming weeks. And it is a direct threat for all European citizens and democracy as a whole in the EU to have a national politician with such projects at the head of the EU.
On this continent, democracy will only survive and prosper if we fight for it at the European level, otherwise, our small national democracies, already weakened by the EU increasing powers, will end up being infected one after the other by the antidemocratic forces awakening in one or the other country.
Sarkozy is not alone. Have a look at his friend Berlusconi who now plans to collect data on all Italian citizens ... in order to avoid that doing so only for the Roms will make it illegal in a European context. You get the process : use the opportunity of some popular emotions, propose a freedom-killing proposal, then extend it if any opposition surges and try to pass it through the EU channels to make it a trans-European law (like the recent 18 months detention for illegal immigrants).Then contamination ensues throughout the EU.
We must stop these trends with all our forces if we want to ensure that Europe and Democracy will be compatible in the future. And a crucial method in order to do so is to do it on the European level, preventing our national leaders to concoct on a national level their antidemocratic viruses before they inject them into the EU system. The most important political playing field of the coming years is the European one. This is where our democratic future will be shaped, for the best or for the worst.
Regarding Edwige, a group of French associations has recently launched a petition to oppose Edwige. I just signed it as president of Newropeans, with the authorisation of the Newropeans Board of Directors.
And with Newropeans we believe that citizens, associations, unions, religious groups, and political parties from all over the European Union should also sign this petition, in order to show that we all feel like a 13 year-old potential social or political activist!
Don't forget that this is about our children and their future ability to act freely within tomorrow's Europe. Time to act is therefore now! Let's sign the anti-Edvige petition from all over the EU!
Franck Biancheri
Président de Newropeans"
Source : http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/content/view/8379/1/
THE STORY OF STUFF - CH.5: CONSUMPTION
A well done video that reminds us was is consumption. (And we don't feel so proud to be reminded that, again, we are part of this system...)
Thanks to Joeska for the link !