Kőbánya (the 10^th district of Budapest) is an outer district of the city, one of the largest by area, with many brownfield sites and a population of 78,000 inhabitants. There is a significant Roma (Gypsy) presence, generally evenly distributed over the entire district. Recently, a small but visible Chinese community has also emerged. The Kőbánya municipal council was dominated by the Socialist Party between 1990 and 2010, when the right-wing governing party Fidesz took control of the municipality. Since 2019, the opposition coalition has the same number of votes in the municipal council as Fidesz, which necessitates cooperation between the two camps. For this reason, the Fidesz mayor has appointed two deputy mayors, one from Fidesz and one from the opposition.

Social housing-related tasks are delegated to local governments (in Budapest, this is a district-level function). The most important of these tasks are the regulation and management of local public housing, decisions on the provision of housing benefits, and debt management within the framework of the so-called “settlement benefit” (the national normative housing benefit – home maintenance support – was abolished in 2015). It is therefore an important battleground for the housing movement to push local governments toward a more equitable and progressive public policy. But the resources disbursed by local governments for improving affordability and reducing indebtedness have decreased drastically. Housing problems more likely to be experienced by individuals with the lowest socioeconomic status are thus not being addressed by means of adequate policy responses: for example, there is a lack of social housing and policy programs to avoid homelessness. Nevertheless, the provision of social housing and the allocation of housing benefits are the responsibility of local governments, which leads to a highly fragmented system in terms of the eligibility criteria and the quality/level of the actual services provided in different parts of the city. It also makes innovative NGO-municipal cooperation crucial, since without social programs, social housing programs end up in tension. 

For the collaboration presented in this case study, the civil society situation of Kőbánya is less relevant, since Utcáról Lakásba Egyesület (ULE) is not a local grassroots organization, although its activities involve the participation of residents. In terms of context, it is more important to understand the social tensions related to the housing crisis in Budapest, the problem of homelessness, ULE’s connection to the housing movement, and the specific problems that the district of Kőbánya faces in this regard. These social problems are indifferent to the borders of the city districts. So far, the Municipality of Budapest has been unable to solve the collective action problems originating from the fact that the districts have incentives not to invest in social protection and housing but to push the burden onto the shoulders of other districts. In the last few years, homelessness, social housing, but also the drug-related problems of specific neighborhoods have risen to the top of the political agenda. There was a strong public demand for local politicians to “restore public order,” which resonated with both left-wing and right-wing parties. During our interview with the two deputy mayors from different parties, they shared very similar ideas about housing policies. From time to time, the local government has attempted to demolish local government-owned residential buildings inhabited by poor families or to eliminate “irregularities” (dispossess notices, demolishing the shacks of homeless people). This went hand in hand with anti-homeless regulations and rhetoric at the city and national level. But this is only one side of the story. According to the deputy mayors, the municipality of Kőbánya has invested a lot of effort into improving the social infrastructure for the homeless (which is more developed than in other districts), creating housing opportunities and pursuing innovative approaches to housing, for example the Lélek House (a state-funded program), which helps 30 formerly homeless people to reintegrate into society through social work methods. ULE’s “housing first” program is also one of these examples.

The ongoing housing crisis in Budapest has contributed to a strong housing movement. Civil society organization (CSOs) that have been active in taking care of the homeless since the 1989 regime change laid the foundations of the socio-political infrastructure in this field. Local experiments with “housing first” projects (such as ULE) started only in the late 2000s. They involve direct action to provide homes for a small number of specific homeless individuals and can also be understood as a political statement to demonstrate that this can be done. This shift brings to the fore the problem of social participation, emphasizing citizen rights over charity / social needs and confronting the symbolic and social exclusion from housing that is considered to be normal. ULE grew out of the local fight of “A Város Mindenkié” (The City is for Everyone, AVM) against the demolition of self-built shacks in 2012. AVM, an NGO founded in 2009, advocates for housing rights and comprises activists from both homeless and middle-class (secure housing) backgrounds. AVM managed to stop the forced evictions and to convince the local authorities to provide vacant, dilapidated public housing units that the group then renovates (through donations and volunteer work) to house some of the shack dwellers. Later, activists involved in these activities formed the ULE association. Besides exporting this model to other localities, the association also implements additional innovative local projects to provide affordable housing to formerly homeless people. ULE is part of a loose network that grew out of the AVM housing movement, with a focus on different areas, such as Utcajogász (Street Lawyers, which provides legal aid) or Közélet Iskolája (the School of Public Life, which provides training for activists). It is thus important to see ULE (which shares the same values as other CSOs) not just as an individual organization that promotes a housing policy program, but also as an actor within the wider housing movement that has opted for a strategy of cooperation with local governments, instead of a strategy based on confrontation and advocacy against anti-homeless measures.