VIII. Housing Trends and Policies
Overall, utility
reforms continue
to be driven
largely by the
perceived need
to improve the
sector’s economic
performance,
rather than being
set within a wider
national agenda
for tackling
regional and
socio-economic
disparities
30
indicate that there are still unresolved issues regarding the balance
between the desire of utility providers to recover full costs and the state’s
social concerns, such as maintaining affordability of utilities for low-income
households.
On average, households pay utility rates that range between 18%
and 25% of monthly income. However, the arrears for communal
services are growing. As of 1 January 2007, for example, they totalled
2.5 billion Sums (about 2 million USD) and by July of the same year they
had reached 3.7 billion Sums (about 2.9 million USD).
Overall, utility reforms continue to be driven largely by a concern
for profitability rather than by the need to mitigate regional and socio-
economic disparities.
The privatization of utilities could exacerbate inequalities in living
standards between richer and poorer regions, thereby having serious
implications for urban and regional development. Furthermore,
programs in the utility sector are still not effectively linked with other
socio-economic programs as part of the effort to reduce horizontal
inequalities in nationwide living standards.
D. Homeowners Associations
Homeowners’ associations have been formed in many cities to
manage multifamily housing complexes. Currently, all multifamily
housing is covered by such associations.
Before 2006, the larger associations (which cover 40-50 buildings)
were usually managed by municipal housing and utilities companies,
but homeowners had limited voice in such arrangements. On the basis
of a 2006 law, many new self-organized ‘democratic’ associations have
emerged, usually exercising better control over housing assets. In
October 2009, such self-organized associations accounted for 40% of
the total in Tashkent City, for example.
Since 2004, the state has invested in major overhauls of apartment
buildings built before 1991 and the public areas around these
apartments. Annually, the state funds up to 70% of the repair costs for
multifamily houses; homeowners’ associations are required to finance
the remaining 30%. However, the associations can secure funds from
other sources for such purposes and are eligible for tax abatements,
exemptions from other fees, and financial support for building
materials. They can also be rewarded financially by local government if
they are able to collect at least 85% of fees from residents.
Nevertheless, homeowners’ associations are still facing difficulties,
such as in accessing public funding. The challenges are particularly
acute in associations that cover 30-40 individual housing units. Since
these associations were formed compulsorily by local governments,
the residents have limited decision-making powers.
As a consequence, there are ongoing difficulties in collecting fees