Supported housing must help the person who needs a home, not enable the accommodation business

Länsiväylä reported that state-subsidised rental apartments have ended up in short-term rental use also in Espoo. At Espoon Asunnot, two cases progressed last year all the way to eviction proceedings. The Government is now seeking to address the phenomenon with a legislative amendment.

This is exactly the kind of thing where an ordinary person quite reasonably asks: how can this be possible?

State-subsidised rental apartments are intended for people who need an affordable home. They are not intended so that someone can sublet or re-rent the apartment for short-term accommodation and benefit from a system whose costs are ultimately borne by the taxpayer.

This is not some minor technical detail. This is not just about interpreting a lease agreement. This is a question of the credibility of the entire system.

When society supports housing, it must mean that a person gets a home. Not that someone, in practice, gets the opportunity to run an accommodation business with an apartment that is intended for a completely different use.

A subsidised apartment is not an investment vehicle

A state-subsidised rental apartment is not an ordinary market-based rental apartment. Behind it is a clear idea: to provide affordable housing for those who do not have the same ability to manage in the open housing market.

That is precisely why resident selection looks at housing need, income and assets. The idea is simple. The apartment must go to the one who genuinely needs it.

If such an apartment ends up in short-term accommodation use, the whole original idea breaks down. Then the apartment no longer serves the person or family for whom the system exists. It serves the abuser’s own benefit.

And that is wrong.

At this point it must be said plainly: if a person gets a subsidised apartment and uses it systematically for accommodation activity, they have not merely breached the lease agreement. They have taken the apartment away from someone else who could genuinely have needed it as a home.

That other person may be a single parent. It may be a low-income pensioner. It may be a young person trying to get a grip on their own life. It may be a family living in cramped conditions. It may be a person whose life situation is already difficult in other ways.

That’s why this is not a harmless trick. This is away from someone else.

The harm does not fall only on the landlord

Often these matters are talked about as if the harm were directed only at the landlord. That the landlord gets trouble, the housing company gets disturbances, and neighbours get unrest.

Of course these too are real problems.

Short-term accommodation can bring constantly changing people into the stairwell. Neighbours don’t know who is moving around in the building. The sense of security weakens. Door codes, keys and access permits can end up with people who should have no business on the property.

If an apartment is used for accommodation, it can also increase wear and tear. The apartment is no longer in normal home use, but is used like a small hotel room. Ultimately that shows up as costs, repairs and administrative work.

But the greatest harm is still elsewhere.

The greatest harm is that supported housing loses its purpose. When the system is misused, it erodes trust in public support as a whole.

And this is dangerous.

In Finland we need systems that help people when their own finances or life situation are not enough. But these systems must be fair. They must also look fair in the eyes of the ordinary taxpayer.

If a person sees that someone can get a subsidised apartment and use it for business, trust erodes quickly. After that, the discussion easily turns to the idea that all benefits are wrong, all tenants are suspicious, and all public assistance is exploitation.

That is not true.

The vast majority of people use supported housing for exactly what it is intended for: as a home. That is why misuse must be addressed strictly. Not because supported housing is opposed, but precisely because it is wanted to be defended.

Loopholes must be closed

The problem is not only in individual cases of misuse. The problem is also in a system that makes monitoring misuse difficult and the burden of proof heavy.

If a landlord has a strong suspicion that an apartment is being used for unauthorised accommodation activity, but intervening is slow, expensive and uncertain, the system does not work.

There should be a very clear basic line here:

If an apartment is subsidised as a home, it must be a home.

If it is used for accommodation activity, it must be possible to intervene quickly.

Not so that the matter is investigated for months or years while the apartment is being used for the wrong purpose and someone else is waiting for an apartment in the queue.

Politics’ task is to fix such loopholes. It is not enough to note the problem and be concerned. Rules of the game must be set so that misuse is not profitable, and proving it does not fall unreasonably on the landlord’s or neighbours’ shoulders.

Short-term renting must not be hidden hotel activity in a subsidised apartment

Short-term renting is not in itself always wrong. There are situations where it can be quite justified. For example, temporarily renting out an owner-occupied home during a trip is a completely different thing from using a subsidised rental apartment for continuous accommodation activity.

These things should not be mixed up.

The problem arises when the apartment is no longer truly the tenant’s home, but becomes a source of income. Then we are in a completely different arena. And if it is also a state-subsidised apartment, the situation becomes more serious.

This is about public support flowing to the wrong place.

Society does not subsidise apartments so that someone can compete with hotels, hostels or furnished-apartment providers with a cheaper cost base. Society subsidises apartments so that people have a home.

If this boundary becomes blurred, we are on a bad path.

Clear means are needed, not mere disapproval

This does not require ideological wrangling. This requires practical solutions.

The first solution is clearer access to information. The landlord must have a better opportunity to obtain information if an apartment is being marketed for short-term rent. At present, the information may be fragmented across different platforms, neighbours’ observations and individual listings.

The second solution is faster intervention. If there is sufficient evidence that a subsidised apartment is being used unlawfully for accommodation activity, the matter should not be left to endless выясnning. Termination of the tenancy or another sanction must be genuinely possible.

The third solution is better information exchange between platforms, authorities and landlords. If an apartment is being rented out systematically on a short-term basis, it should not be impossible to find out. In the digital world, everything can be done when there is will.

The fourth solution is clear legislation. The purpose of supported housing must not be left open to interpretation. The law or its explanatory memorandum must state as clearly as possible that a state-subsidised rental apartment is intended for housing, not as a tool for accommodation business activity.

The fifth solution is sanctions.

And at this point one must dare to say out loud also what many ordinary people talk about at the coffee table: if someone is caught using a subsidised apartment for the accommodation business, it should lead to more than just losing the apartment.

In my view, in such a situation there should be the possibility of a fixed-term disqualification from state-subsidised rental apartments.

In practice, this would mean that if a person has intentionally and repeatedly misused a subsidised apartment, they could not immediately apply for a new similar apartment from another operator and continue the same game at a new address.

This must, of course, not be an arbitrary “black list” where people are thrown without legal protection. The decision must have grounds, a right of appeal and a clear fixed term. But I think the principle is right.

If a system supported by society is intentionally misused, there must be a consequence.

Otherwise the message is wrong.

An honest person must not be the loser in the system

In this matter, it is also about the position of honest people.

There are people who fill in the applications correctly, wait their turn and try to manage according to the rules. They do not game the system. They do not take advantage of the system. They do not run a side business with a subsidised apartment.

If at the same time someone else gets an apartment and uses it incorrectly, the honest person ends up the loser.

This is exactly the thing that eats away at trust in society.

People must be able to believe that the rules are the same for everyone. People must be able to believe that help goes to those who genuinely need it. And people must be able to believe that misuse is addressed.

If this trust does not exist, the entire system begins to crumble.

This is also the taxpayer’s matter

A state-subsidised apartment does not arise out of nothing. Behind it are public support, regulation and society’s decision that affordable housing is needed.

That means the taxpayer has the right to expect responsibility.

The taxpayer can accept that society helps a low-income person, someone in need of housing, a student, a pensioner or a person in a difficult life situation. It is part of a civilised society.

But the taxpayer should not have to accept that the same system enables someone’s private accommodation business.

This distinction must be made clear.

Public support always needs two sides. The first is that help is given to those who need it. The second is that the help must not be misused.

If the second side is forgotten, the first is also put at risk.

Supported housing must be defended against misuse

For me, this is not an anti-supported-housing question. On the contrary.

Precisely because supported housing is needed, its misuse must be addressed.

If the system becomes too easy to misuse, defending it becomes more difficult. Then even the people who genuinely need help come under suspicion. That is not right.

Supported housing must be a fair system. It must help the person who needs a home. It must support stability in everyday life. It must provide an opportunity for a person to build their life forward.

But it must not provide an opportunity for someone to make a business out of a subsidised home.

In the end, this is a very simple matter.

If an apartment is subsidised as a home, it must be a home.

Not a hotel.

Not hidden accommodation.

Not a source of income.

A home.

Source: Länsiväylä 8.6.2026

Source: Uusi Suomi

Markku Arvekari

Digital Transformation Expert