Among the conditions to be met: rent in collective housing at capped rent levels and tenant resources, for a minimum period of 6 years, and in places where it is particularly difficult to find accommodation. For almost 40 years, for real estate, “more than a dozen fiscal measures” have followed each other, “even overlapping”, which lead to a “form of dependence on developers-builders”, observe the authors of the report.
High cost
The government today considers Pinel to be expensive and ineffective, and plans to abolish it. “Only imperfectly fulfilling” its construction purpose, confirms the Court of Accounts. Although it certainly “contributed a lot to the activation of real estate operations that could not, or less quickly, be successful”, it is impossible to accurately assess the impact due to the lack of data on the number of units of houses concerned, notes the Court. .
Pinel also mainly attracts wealthy investors, who are looking for a tax-exempt instrument. This represents an overall cost to public finances of around €7.3 billion over ten years. The Pinel residences are, moreover, mainly located in “tense areas” and not in “very tense areas”. The rental accommodation measures on average 57 m², mainly benefits young workers without children and has lower rents than the required roofs, with the exception of 13% of them.
Disadvantages
Among other disadvantages, owners prefer to recover or resell their property the day they no longer benefit from the system. The authors of the report concluded that Pinel housing “is not intended to constitute a sustainable intermediate housing stock (with regulated rents but higher than social housing, editor’s note)”. While they tend to push prices in unpopular neighborhoods that have become attractive again, these housing units on the contrary play a moderating role in neighborhoods that experience high tension.