이슈진단(174) 천덕꾸러기 청년임대주택은 어떻게 언론의 지지를 획득했을까

By | 2018-07-03T19:54:09+00:00 2018.04.25.|Tags: , , |

It is not a day or two before the poverty of the younger generation, especially in Seoul, is mentioned as a social issue. In other words, when the presidential candidate of Park Geun-hye in 2012, the pledge of representative housing was the supply of “200,000 happy houses” for the residence of young people. Of course, the Park government did not fulfill its promise as promised, and Mayor Park Won – soon promised to solve the housing problems of young people by supplying 100,000 youth housing in 2030. However, the happy and youth houses were not smooth from the beginning. Many of the seven happy housing demonstration districts in 2013 have been canceled due to strong opposition from local residents. In 2018, 17 of the 17 youth housing projects in the province have received protest complaints, Because.


In the meantime, how did the media deal with the conflicts surrounding happy houses and youth houses? The existing method presents interviews and statistical data of young people, introduces the poverty status of youth housing, and presents information in a way that lists youth and local residents in a parallel manner, It stopped. However, this attitude, which can be called ‘mechanical neutrality’, has changed drastically since the second week of April. It was known that the directive was called the ‘5-pyeong slum apartment’ in the notice posted by the Emergency Management Committee against Young Homes in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. The criticism that started in the SNS soon led to major media outlets, and began to criticize the citizens’ selfishness.


Press name Date , ground Article title
Dong-A Ilbo 2014-04-10, A14 side “The price of a house near the rental housing …
JoongAng Daily 2018-04-11, A30 side “fusion_builder_column type =” 1_1 “background_position =” left top “background_color =” “border_size =” “border_color =” “border_style =” solid “spacing =” fusion_builder_container hundred_percent = “yes” overflow = animation_type = “” animation_speed = “0.3” animation_direction = “left” hide_on_mobile “yes” background_repeat = “no-repeat” padding = “” margin_top = “0px” margin_bottom = “0px” class = = “no” center_content = “no” min_height = “none”] [Editorial]
Chosun Ilbo 2018-04-12, B1 Where do you build youth rental housing? I asked … “It’s a secret.”
Hankyoreh 2018-04-12, A1 “Lease profits fall” … Youth residential rental housing
2018-04-12, A3 side “Youth Housing” Nimbi “Conflict, How to Solve”
2018-04-12, A23 side “[Hankyoreh Editorial]” Apartment prices fall “Nimbi blocked youth housing rental”
The 2018-04-12, A31 [Editorial] Homosexuality of the people who block youth housing
Daily Economy 2018-04-12, A10 “Housing prices rise even when rented houses come in.
Korea Times 2018-04-12, page 31 “[Editorial] Opposition to selfish youth rental housing without justification or justification”


Major criticisms of the media can be divided into two broad categories. First, it examines rent prices around youth rental houses (happy houses, youth houses), and points out that the prices of youth rental houses have not fallen. Dong-A Ilbo and Maeil Business. It is a kind of criticism that local residents’ claims are egoistic, Nimbi. Joongang Ilbo, Hankyoreh, Kyunghyang Newspaper, Korea. On the other hand, the Chosun Ilbo reported on the issue of criticizing the city of Seoul for requesting materials related to youth housing in the city of Seoul for coverage, but in general, the main media reported that, from the existing mechanical neutrality, It can be judged that the comment has been changed.


In fact, the egoism surrounding real estate has not suddenly appeared. It has been around since the past, and it boasts an eternal history, where words of a lot of disgust are mobilized even though it was not a ‘five pyeong poverty apartment’. But why did the press suddenly change this time? To understand this change, it is necessary to look at the characteristics of happiness and youth housing.


First of all, the happy house introduced in 2013 is a type of public rental housing. Unlike the previous construction type public rental housing, rent is set on a city tax basis. Specifically, existing permanent rental housing and national rental housing are priced based on the construction cost, while happy households are priced at 68% for college students, 72% for social yearbookers, and 80% for newlyweds. In addition, in Seoul, happiness houses are constructed by small-scale complexes rather than the existing large-scale ones, or by using some of the reconstruction-redevelopment purchases. That is, the rent is linked to the market price and the complex is small or scattered in private housing complex, so that it is designed to minimize the impact on the real estate market.


다음으로 청년주택은 전체 공급량 중에 고작 20%만 공공임대로 사용될 뿐 나머지 80%는 시세와 유사한 준공공임대주택 방식으로서 부동산시장에 영향을 거의 미치지 않도록 설계되어 있다. 또한 기존 공공주택사업과 달리 공급 과정 전체에 걸쳐 민간 토지 소유주와 대기업 건설사의 이윤이 상당부분 보장되어 일각에서는 부작용을 우려할 정도다. 게다가 임대의무기간 역시 연장을 추진한다고 하지만 아직까지는 행복주택(30년)과 비교했을 때 터무니없을 정도로 짧은 8년에 불과하다. 이처럼 청년들을 대상으로 공급되는 행복주택과 청년주택은 기존 공공임대주택과 비교했을 때 주변 부동산시장에 영향을 미치는 정도가 거의 없게 설정되어 있고, 임대료 자체도 크게 저렴하지 않다.


이 같은 특징은 2016년부터 입주가 시작된 초기 행복주택 주변 임대료 시세가 떨어지지 않고 오히려 상승했다는 실증적인 자료에 반영되기 시작했다. 대표적으로 2017년에 한국토지주택공사와 서울주택도시공사는 각각 내부 자료를 통해서 청년임대주택이 부동산시장에 악영향을 미치지 않았음을 증명했고 당시 소수의 언론만 이를 인용 보도했는데, 이번 ‘5평짜리 빈민아파트’ 논쟁 이후 재조명받고 있다. 특히 이번 동아일보, 매일경제 기사는 기자가 직접 취재한 자료를 바탕으로 청년임대주택이 주변 부동산시장에 영향을 미치지 않는다는 점을 고발했다.


이 같은 상황에서 이제 언론들은 더 이상 기계적 중립을 지킬 필요가 없어졌다. 지역 주민들이 주장했던 혐오의 근거 중 강력한 하나가 무력화됨으로써 마음의 짐을 덜 수 있었기 때문이다. 언론들은 앞다퉈 지역 주민들이 재산상 피해도 입지 않으면서 반대하는 것은 무조건적인 반대고 이기주의며, 님비라고 비판하기 시작했다. 드디어 끝을 모르고 이어졌던 청년임대주택에 대한 혐오에 대해 제동이 걸리기 시작한 것 같아 무척 반가웠다. 사회적으로 배려해야 하는 계층에 대해 언론이 한 목소리를 낸 것도 신기했다. 그러나 한편으로는 매우 씁쓸한 기분이 들었다.


원인은 청년임대주택이 기존 부동산 제도권의 논리 안에 들어오니깐 지지를 받을 수 있었다는 생각에 있다. 구체적으로 일반 아파트 분양사업이 대기업 건설사가 짓고, 주변 부동산가격이 올라감으로써 지역사회에서 승인받는 구조라면, 청년임대주택도 같은 논리를 따름으로써 언론의 승인을 받았다는 생각이 드는 것이다. 청년임대주택은 청년들의 이행기(교육과정의 완료와 직업세계로의 진출)라는 취약한 기간 동안 보장받아야 할 주거권의 차원에서 다뤄지기 보다 여전히 부동산시장 논리로 다뤄졌다. 근본적으로 봤을 때, 언론에서 다루는 청년임대주택은 시민들의 합의한 것이 아니라 시장에서 승인한 것이라고 할 수 있다.


Of course, in the situation where most of the domestic household assets are tied to real estate, especially housing, citizens are forced to react carefully to youth rental housing. But in the future, how will we react if the rights to property collide with other rights of others? When rights conflict with other rights, we can limit certain rights depending on which values we value more. Of course, it is not worth discussing if it is not real rights to claim rights. But if you have to limit certain rights, what criteria will you choose? In this discussion about the youth rental housing, it was difficult to hide the bitterness because it seemed that only the logic of the market was discussed, not the rights.


[/ fusion_builder_column] [/ fusion_builder_row] [/ fusion_builder_container]

   댓글을 달 수 있습니다