Privatization’s Fondest Dream: a Mortgage : Soviet economy: There’s a windfall for everybody in selling public housing to citizens.

For the Soviet Union to deal effectively with its mounting economic problems, it must find a way to soak up its huge surplus of rubles. How to do this without sending political shock waves throughout the country poses a major problem for the Gorbachev administration.

One way, proposed by Mikhail Gorbachev this week, would be to allow private individuals to build, buy and sell their own houses. Another would be for the government to sell off portions of its existing housing stock. Apartment houses could be sold to cooperatives. Families could buy individual homes. To avoid ideological hurdles, long-term leases could be used instead of selling the land with the house.

Whatever the program, the market value of Soviet housing would have to be set. Privately owned residential real estate in the United States is worth $7 trillion, according to the National Assn. of Realtors. If the market value of Soviet housing were even $1 trillion ($9,000 per unit in rubles), selling it off would:

--Absorb a high proportion of rubles held by people who now, because of the growing shortage of consumer goods, can buy little or nothing with them.

--Help reduce the budget deficit by cutting government subsidies for housing and heating.

--Improve the strength of the ruble relative to foreign currencies.

--Help supply funds for essential but unmet investments--consumer-goods factories, for example.

--Provide a source of capital for much-needed new housing. A share of the central government’s receipts could be assigned to local governments, thereby leap-frogging the bureaucracy and reassuring local officials who may not trust those running the economy.

--Encourage local initiative and, by providing a basis for constructive dialogue on economic issues, possibly defuse some of the political hostility toward the central government.

Skeptics may point to the U.S. government’s generally unsuccessful attempts to sell its public housing to tenants. The Soviet-American situations, however, are not analogous.

U.S. public housing is used by low-income families. What extra money they have is spent on consumer goods, not saved. When given an opportunity to buy a home at a very low price, some have saved enough for a down payment. More than 40% of the buyers of Nehemiah Plan homes in East Brooklyn, N.Y., were former public-housing tenants.

Still, a program to sell off Soviet housing would face a number of challenges.

--Reluctance to buy. It may be necessary to sell the most desirable buildings first, and at low prices. Appraisal and pricing techniques, installment plans, competitive loan rates, incentives to make repairs and improvements may help offset the security of heavily subsidized rents.

--Speculation. This can be reduced by adopting such measures as mandatory resale at a price as close to the original as possible (inflation plus value of improvements); liens to prevent unit transfers at prices that exceed the legally permitted rate of appreciation, and restrictions on the number of units a family could own.

--The need for taxation. Partly to balance housing values and to pay for public services, some form of tax on the value of the house would be necessary.

--The need for additional housing. To care for families who don’t own housing and to replace deteriorating housing still occupied, a major new building program must parallel the sale of old housing.

--The need to upgrade housing standards. With allowances for cultural differences, the Soviet housing industry must be modernized. That means tougher building codes, better and more energy-efficient design and manufacturing and a proper system of depots or stores for materials and equipment. Some revenue from property sales should be used to finance building-material factories.

--Elimination of special privilege. Size, quality and location are the proper criteria for pricing sale and rental property. Opportunities for preferential treatment must be minimized.

If these challenges are met sufficiently to encourage Soviets to buy housing, adoption of the American tract-builder concept--selling a house for later delivery--should make it possible for the Soviet economy to absorb savings and employ workers released from defense industries.

The desire to own a house in the Soviet Union is strong. The Soviet government has the means to satisfy this desire while absorbing its surplus of rubles.