The Scars of the Erasure_web

Erasure_4a 10.1.11 20:29 Page 3636 THE SCARS OF THE ERASUREnally, we will touch upon other issues involved in the erased people’s attemptsto regain their rights and their position within the legal system.5.2 HousingA comparison of the availability of apartments for rent at non-commercialprices in socialist Yugoslavia with that in sovereign Slovenia is illustrative of theshrinkage in public welfare in general as well as of the exclusion that affected theerased people in particular. For example, between 1991 and 1996, around 700public housing apartments and around 1000 non-profit apartments were rentedout, which translates into 240 apartments a year (Mandič 1999, 25). This annualaverage amounts to only 5 percent of the total number of socially-owned apartmentsand solidarity housing distributed yearly during the mid 1980s (around5,500) (ibid.). A similar decline can be observed in the area of favorable housingloans. Between 1991 and 1995, the Housing Fund of the RS provided around16,000 loans, i.e. 3200 per year, which amounted to 11 percent of the number ofloans provided annually by socialist companies during the second half of the 1980s(30,000 of these in 1983 and 34,000 in 1986 ) (ibid., 27). It should be noted, however,that under the previous system the acquisition of a socially-owned apartmentor a loan on non-commercial terms were tied to employment and the economic successof a specific work organization (Mandič 1996, 138). Socialist companiesformed their housing funds relatively autonomously. These were ma naged byelected housing committees that determined the amounts set aside for the acquisitionof socially-owned apartments and for housing loans (ibid.). By contrast, themanagement and maintenance of these apartments and the setting of rental rateswas quite a different thing; these decisions were made on the local level and wereapplicable to the entire social fund in a specific locality. The rental rates, in thewords of Srna Mandič (ibid.) “were unreasonably low if viewed in the context of thestructure of private consumption;” for many years they amounted to only around 4percent of private consumption spending. Srna Mandič further claims that sociallyownedapartments were the “pride” of the worker self-management model of housingpolicy and a way to realize social justice. In the mid 1970s, the solidarity housingprogram was added, targeted at the part of the population that was beyond thereach of “employment benefits:” the unemployed, the disabled, young families andso on. Although socially-owned apartments provided by socialist companies wereaccessible to a wide range of the population, and housing was considered a rightrather than a market commodity, this type of rental agreement was neverthelessconsidered a privilege (ibid., 139). The reasons were the shortage of apartmentsand the criteria observed when distributing these, with not only need but also meritbeing taken into account. This placed higher social classes in a privileged position(which was at odds with the socialist ideals of justice and equal access).The fact that many of our interviewees were users of socially-owned apartmentssuggests that they were embedded in the local environment and enjoyed