[ad_1]
New Wednesday of New Times by Peter Uj.
I’m interested
“Given the voluntary disclosures in this article, all I can do is order an investigation into the two Zsolt Bayer home exchanges.”
This is stated in the recent announcement by Márta V. Naszályi, mayor of District 1.
But what is this all about?
On Thursday, Zsolt Bayer gave a longer interview to Imoni, in which he also spoke in detail on the subject of housing in the castle, among various topics. Going into even the smallest detail, the publicist recounted how she got an apartment in the castle three years ago, how she circumvented the provisions of the Housing Law and how she signed a false housing contract on the advice of her lawyers. When immediate reporters were reminded that this was a violation of the law, Bayer responded by saying that
“Those who have been transferred to the castle by ‘house exchange’ in the last thirty years, approximately 80 percent of them have been. Can not it be a different way “.
Then, as reporters continued to hit the iron, Bayer ripped that
“When you read the housing law, do you think? Go up to the Castle and ask: eleven out of ten do it because it cannot be otherwise. And then they start chatting with me?
But why did Bayer break the law, according to its own claim?
As Mayor Márta V. Naszályi recalled in question 444, the castle flats are municipal property, since, unlike the vast majority of the municipal flats in Budapest, they cannot be sold under the Housing Law. However, its tenure is inheritable.
That is why a special situation has arisen here.
For this reason, a house in a castle, more precisely the right to rent a house for life and that can be inherited later, can only be legally acquired by barter. The exchange fund can be a condominium or other rental right. But the castle’s lease cannot be bought or sold.
As reported by V. Naszályi, this became law at that time due to the housing mafia, especially in protecting elderly and influential tenants.
The rental rights for the apartments in the castle are usually valued at about half their turnover. In other words, they must be given a property whose market price is half the exceptionally high market price of an imaginary castle condo. But in reality, it is not often said that this happens.
But it is, explained V. Naszályi, that the buyer exchanges a paper apartment with the seller in the castle, and then this contract is presented to the municipality. The local authority, on the other hand, has no prospect that the parties, without the knowledge of the municipality, immediately exchange the properties with another contract and the buyer will pay the seller in pounds.
V. Naszályi emphasized that he only knows this last practice from anecdotes. But in the interview, Bayer reported one by one about this method.
The mayor confirmed that Bayer was correct in saying in the interview that it was indeed a practice in the past in the classified pages of the municipal official newspaper to advertise flats openly “for sale” despite the legal prohibition. V. Naszályi also abolished this practice, that is, banned such advertisements in the newspaper.
The case seems that in the case of an exchange of flats in a castle, the two parties present the exchange contract to the municipality, who must agree. V. Naszályi introduced the practice that if there is a noticeable disproportion of values between the two properties, the local government does not intentionally make, as a signal, a statement about it. After 30 or 60 days, they will eventually have to grant permission, as they have a minimal legal opportunity to avoid transactions. In addition, the people of the municipality usually go out on the spot, inspecting the exchange properties.
According to V. Naszályi, the law protects tenants and, as mayor, you have a duty to protect tenants and district property.
[ad_2]
