[rusteh1]

I don't understand how this would work. How do people rent? Obviously many people can't or do not wish to own their house for any number of reasons. Who will own houses that are rented? I used to live in Amsterdam as an expat, and rented from a landlord who owned several homes in Amsterdam. Would she not be able to own and rent these homes under this scheme?

The social housing system seemed to be abused when I was there. I had a number of Dutch friends still living in social housing places they'd rented as students on very low incomes, and were still renting 10 years later. For the same 300 euro per month, when they were now earning 6-7000 euro/month. I could never understand why this wasn't means tested continually.

[734129837261]

Designations. That's how. Some houses are built and intended to be rented out to people. These houses are constructed entirely by companies (or people) for that purpose alone.

Other houses are meant to be for purchase, and purchase only. If you purchase a house like this and then rent it out, that should be considered breaking the intended designation.

So if you as an individual want to own multiple houses to rent out, you need to find houses with that designation and that are for sale. Alternatively, you need to find ground with the "rental housing"-designation and build a house or multiple houses on there.

You can do this in a collective of individuals, too.

And people who currently own multiple houses that were not meant to be rented out (but are rented out to other people) would need, by law, to either sell those properties (the current renter should get the first option on the house's current market value price).

And honestly, I feel that the people renting houses that were never meant for rental should get a discount. And that discount should come out of the pockets of the government.

And yes, I'm a Dutch citizen. I know that means my tax money is going to help these people buy their houses a little cheaper at my expense. I'm fine with that as it would create a healthier housing market for everyone. That's exactly what my tax money is for.

[vwoolf]

So the solution to government interference in the market (by preventing adequate building from occurring) is yet more interference, and that interference will by fiat somehow lower prices, but without dramatically increasing supply.

What could possibly go wrong??

[734129837261]

The government isn't preventing anything, it's a free market. The only thing that needs to change is to prevent companies from buying houses meant to be sold for ownership who then rent them out instead. That is working against the people. The law would work for the people.

[rusteh1]

Thanks. What if I purchase a home, to live in. Then I take a job overseas and move for 2-3 years. Must I sell the house rather than rent it out on a short term basis?

[IkmoIkmo]

No.

For homes purchased after January 1st, you can still get a license to temporary rent out the home. But you'll need to have lived in the home yourself for at least 1 year. Temporary rentals can be done for 2 years at the moment, and extended once more, I assume the same would apply under the new law. So the 2-3 years could be covered.

Existing ownership isn't affected, as far as I know. This only would apply to new transactions.

[winkelwagen]

There are special rules for that specific scenarios. As long if you don’t live in the Netherlands yourself and it is the only property you own

[ponow]

Markets don't need exceptions, they adapt. With property/price/rent controls, it comes down to a committee of "experts" or it becomes effectively closer to community property with the tragedy of the commons. IMO, reduce the restrictions on new development and creative use, e.g., by cutting back on zoning to allow higher density development and reduce the ability of neighbors to stop development of neighbor properties (due to aesthetic or other concerns). Building codes and regulations shouldn't protect the consumer from himself, but rather protect the physical safety of adjacent properties. But it's too often used as an excuse to limit competition and preserve the privilege of the early entrants.

We also need to acknowledge that cities inevitably increase in density, which necessarily means apartments, etc. Protecting single-family residences near city centers is a subsidy to them that we should not pay any longer.

[einpoklum]

"Adapt"? They've "adapted" by milking Amsterdam tenants dry for many years already.

And the "tragedy of the commons" is essentially a red-Herring fallacy. It is perhaps valid at the most in a free-for-all rather than a commons. Where you have a commons, you have relations between the users of the common resources, and social structures for decision making about sharing and use, which prevent depletion of resources.

See also:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-ed...

[TacticalCoder]

> These houses are constructed entirely by companies (or people) for that purpose alone.

So private companies are allowed to engage in rent-seeking behavior but individuals aren't?

[Ensorceled]

What individuals are you talking about that are not covered by '(or people)'?

[734129837261]

People can make companies. You know that, right?

[IkmoIkmo]

> And people who currently own multiple houses that were not meant to be rented out (but are rented out to other people) would need, by law, to either sell those properties (the current renter should get the first option on the house's current market value price).

What is the 'would need' referring to, your ideal situation, current law, or proposed law? If it's any of the last two, I don't think you're correct but I'd be happy to read any references you may have to substantiate this.

[IkmoIkmo]

This is one of those terribly myopic and symbolic policies that the Netherlands (despite generally one of the best governed countries in the world) keeps falling for.

Studies have shown over and over again that investors aren't causing the price increases in the Netherlands. Prices won't improve much.

Renting is going to take a beating, which is already an extremely small sector in the Netherlands, among the smallest in Europe. Remaining rental stock will be priced like crazy, pushing everyone desperately into a decision to buy. Due to systemic shortages that's not possible, exacerbating the gap between haves (who bought) and have-nots (who must keep renting).

Various studies have also shown a rental market is extremely important for labour mobility. Transient workers can't just move cities/regions in pursuit of jobs, when the rental market is completely destroyed and the only alternative is to buy a home and be stuck to that location for years (due to the friction and transaction costs of buying over renting).

> Would she not be able to own and rent these homes under this scheme?

She would, but she'd be unable to buy more off the market to rent out, unless they were already buy-to-let stock previously.

> I could never understand why this wasn't means tested continually.

Me neither. It seems like the least controversial thing that the left and the right should have agreement over: rich people not getting subsidised social housing. Things are getting better though, there's now means testing and accelerated rental price increases (up to a maximum) if your income is assessed as too high. But the new policy still way, way too generous to a class of rich people, while there's poor people waiting in line for 10 years in Amsterdam.

[DoubleDerper]

"Studies have shown over and over again that investors aren't causing the price increases in the Netherlands"

Source(s), please.

[gruez]

Sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28425948

[berkes]

As above, you are presenting as a fact that investors aren't causing increasing prices. And as above, that is both uncited and, at the very least, a highly debatable 'fact'.

Even if not the only cause (is there ever just one isolated cause in economics), investing certainly is a big part.

[speleding]

Basic economic theory says that the price is determined by supply and demand. Investors buying house does not affect supply or demand, since they will simply rent out the house.

If you claim that investors are causing a significant price increase then I think onus would be on you to cite a source.

[colechristensen]

So the housing market is so inefficient that removing a significant source of demand won’t change prices?

That is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional evidence.

[missedthecue]

New Zealand banned foreign buyers a couple years ago and house prices are up 20-50% nationwide since then.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/119636052/foreign-buy...

The problem is that people chronically overestimate the number of foreign buyers in the market. I can't find data for the Netherlands online, but for other western nations, it is around four or five percent of demand. Removing that will have essentially no noticable impact on housing prices as NZ has learned.

The advantage of a foreign ban is political in nature. Foreigners can't vote in local elections, so politicians lose very little, and the actual electorate is satisfied that government is 'doing something' about the problem.

It's a no lose situation for the politician, but at best it does nothing to reign in the issue of housing costs, and at worst it fans the flames of xenophobia.

[yread]

Foreign investors account for more than half of total real estate investment flows in the Netherlands, see page 8

https://www.bouwinvest.nl/media/4305/bouwinvest-dutch-real-e...

[missedthecue]

That is real estate investment flow. That's not the same thing as housing. The graph you linked shows the majority of the investment going into things like office space, industrial real estate, retail, hotels, healthcare, etc...

[IkmoIkmo]

It must also be noted that the vast majority of these deals aren't homes on the market for locals, they're existing investor real estate.

Sometimes you see articles stating '25% of all homes last year were bought by investors', but failing to mention that 20% of that 25% were homes sold by investors, too. i.e. company A selling to company B, an apartment block fully rented out. Sometimes company A and B are part of the same group structure, and they're simply restructuring. And so really the percentage of investors buying homes that could otherwise be bought by citizens, is actually only 5%.

Secondly, there's a lot of international capital flowing in because capital is extremely mobile and knows no borders. It doesn't mean foreigners own the real estate. Everytime a Dutch investor (e.g. a Dutch pension fund) buys real estate, it typically finances it with a combination of its own money and borrowed money, and the borrowed capital is typically raised on international financial markets.

I find the news is quite unsophisticated in detailing these nuances, and typically chooses the most incendiary headline that they can get away with.

e.g. "25% of homes bought by foreign investors." or hell even "50% of real estate bought by foreign investors", instead of 5% of available homes bought-up by Dutch pension funds", all three statements could be based on the same data-set.

[colechristensen]

Foreign buyers isn’t generally a problem on a national level but on a city or neighborhood level where specific areas are targets.

[missedthecue]

Even still, home prices have risen the fastest in Auckland.

[IkmoIkmo]

No, that's not the claim. There's waterbed effects. Buy-to-let is done for the purpose of renting. If you take that rental supply away, rental prices go up, and demand for homes go up. Taking away buy-to-let demand thereby creates other demand that buy-to-let was supplying. You're just replacing the demand, not removing it.

[skybrian]

Could you spell out why this doesn’t just move demand around? Aren’t the same number of people as before looking for a place to live?

(I also don’t know what you mean by “waterbed.”)

[IkmoIkmo]

It does just move supply/demand around, that's the waterbed effect.

If you remove buy-to-let investors, then buying a home becomes easier, but not necessarily any cheaper, because the rental supply (from buy-to-let) drops and therefore the prices of rentals go up, thereby increasing the demand for buying a home, countering the lower demand from buy-to-let investors. Demand has been moved around, the shortages are still as big, and there's no significant effect on prices.

[luckylion]

> It seems like the least controversial thing that the left and the right should have agreement over: rich people not getting subsidised social housing.

The argument I've heard in Germany is that it's a good idea to have more socially mixed housing projects, so people who moved in as students are allowed to stay when they work full time. Initially they had to pay an extra fee ("Fehlbelegungsabgabe" = erroneous occupancy fee, but even with that it was much cheaper than regular housing), which was removed at some point.

[IkmoIkmo]

Our social housing stock is already intended to be mixed (although the balance is often not great). You'll often find social and non-social housing units in the same apartment building, and definitely in every neighbourhood there will be a mix. I agree and think that mix is super important. But achieving it by giving rich people subsidised housing when there are poor people on a waiting list for these units, is one of the least optimal solutions, compared to alternatives.

[gpvos]

Means testing would force medium-rich people to live on the streets (or with their parents), since there are no rental houses available between 700 and 1200 euro/month (that is, between social housing and the liberalized sector), and not all of them will be able to buy a home with the current prices.

[IkmoIkmo]

We're talking about rich people occupying social homes intended for the poorest people. However bad it may be for 'medium-rich' people, it's much worse for poor. Any extreme outcome (like living on the streets) would have a much higher chance with poor, than medium-rich, who tend to have options. There's plenty of housing stock at 1200 a month that can be shared by two 'medium-rich' persons within a 45m commute from their work. No such options exist for poor people for whom social housing is intended. Of course means-testing will create issues for medium-rich, that's not the question, the question is if it's fair to protect them from these issues at the expense of the poor, by giving the rich subsidised housing intended for the poor. The answer is obviously (to me) no.

[gpvos]

Fair enough. Though cynically speaking the people just above the social housing limit are probably a more interesting part of the electorate than the poor.

[arp242]

This is called scheefwonen – which roughly translates to "crooked living" – and has been a point of attention for several decades at least, more or less as long as I can remember.

It's a bit of a difficult problem, because you don't really want to kick people out of their house just because they have a better-paying job, and especially in the current climate these people don't really have anywhere to go; €7k people will probably manage, but €4k/month will have a harder time finding something affordable.

[IkmoIkmo]

I agree that evictions is an extreme measure and to be used as a last resort. I think it should be part of the policy instruments to be used, under the right circumstances. e.g. if you make 1.5x the wage that would give you a right to a social home, averaged over 3 years, then you get a 2 year period to move out.

That means you won't move out until 5 years after you've started earning more, and if your earnings were temporarily high, you get to stay. But if you're consistently earning a ton, you have to leave.

That's not so crazy considering that there's people who're low-income on a 10y waiting list for the home you'd be occupying, there has to be a mechanism that makes you have to leave. Yes it's hard to find something great at 3-4k, but it's even harder for someone at 2k who's 'spot' you're occupying. That could be limited to 5 years.

Everyone has a hard time finding a place, but why are some rich getting subsidised indefinitely at the expense of some poor?

But apart from evictions, I've never understood why we can't simply have dynamic rental rates adjusted to the market rate. I know people who live in Zuid for 500 a month in a home that's 1500 market rate, and their household income is 3x the average. Why can they not be made to pay 1500 to the social housing association? When they move out, the home reverts back to the subsidised rate for a low-income family.

I understand this can't be done on old contracts with no contractual clauses that make this possible, contracts are contracts after all. But we've had this situation for many years, and new contracts still allow the possibility of consequence-free scheefwonen. That's pretty absurd to me.

[TomSwirly]

> Obviously many people can't or do not wish to own their house for any number of reasons

"Those reasons" being that the price of real estate in Amsterdam has grown exponentially in recent years.

Some large but unknown number of apartments here have vanished into private investments where no one lives or AirBNB etc where no one lives for more than a few days.

If houses in Amsterdam were reserved for people _living_ in Amsterdam, there would be a significant increase in supply, and therefore a significant decrease in prices, which right now, are such that your average Amsterdam worker can't live here.

> The social housing system seemed to be abused when I was there.

Still is, but I see this as rational calculation on the part of the Gemeente (municipality, these are much more powerful here).

Those apartments aren't palatial. Most of the time, people just naturally move out, maybe a few years late, but why force people onto the street when they're just getting started?

Some number of people do go on for years, but they calculate that it's better to have a more relaxed system, not to cause grief by going after a few freeloaders, and to spend their efforts on building brand-new public housing.

---

I had to get over 30 years of NYC living when I moved here. But the Gemeente is pretty smart. There's a reason for most everything, often a good reason, and they are constantly tuning.

Sure, I have complaints, but generally if I wonder why something is there or what's going to happen in terms of public works, I say, "What would a competent person do?" That almost never worked in NYC.

----

Did you know they're talking about banning cruise ships from part of the river IJ, raising the river bed there by 4 meters so they can put a bike path underneath it? And by gum, they might just do that.

[em500]

> I could never understand why this wasn't means tested continually.

They've started some degree of means testing a few years ago: the maximum allowed rent increase on social/rent-controlled houses can now depend on income. This was controversial legislation for privacy reasons (it involves giving landlords information about tenant incomes every year).

[kingludite]

Oh, I missed that one. It seems to me that income tax based on rent would be more privacy preserving.

[user568439]

I guess this is only for new sales. The point is that there is plenty of people wanting to buy a home in Netherlands, they just can’t pay the same price as investors. With this law the seller will have to lower the price till some person who wants to live there can afford it

[Yaa101]

We had housing cooperation's for a century until they were forced by consecutive right wing governments to sell their houses, and thus ruining a system that was well working, except for rich friends of the right wing government to speculate with the housing system, which is taking place now.

[imtringued]

One of the dumbest things to do with government owned land is to sell it. You get a quick injection of cash and then the money runs out just as quickly. Meanwhile the land keeps going up in value forcing the government to subsidize housing for low income earners. If the government kept the land it could lease it out at reasonable rates and have an ongoing income stream.

[llampx]

Shades of Berlin here. They sold land and buildings for very cheap to big companies like Deutsche Wohnen, and now there is a vote to buy back the properties at red-hot market prices and give people cheaper rent. Lose-lose in every way for the Berlin taxpayer.

[kingludite]

And before that we had woningbouw verenigingen. Non profits ran by their tenants. Something like: God fearing church goers wouldn't stand for hard working newly wed couples not getting a home.

[Yaa101]

We are talking about the same... I said cooperation's, not corporations.

[jenscow]

I live in social housing (in the UK), and could easily afford to buy or rent non-social... and I was already in that situation when my current tenancy started.

You could say I abuse it, and I agree in principal. However, I'm only abusing it because social housing is scarce. The solution is to build more, and I do my bit by voting for a government that would probably do that.

If they ever decided to make it means tested, and my tenancy was at risk, I would just buy the house.

[IkmoIkmo]

Making use of any scarce resource intended for the poor, while you're rich, because it's so scarce, is beyond backwards... I have trouble being generous and playing devil's advocate because I simply can't see the argument you're making.

[jenscow]

OK, I worded that very badly. I'm not using it because they're scarce. I mean to say:

The reason someone could say I'm "abusing" it, is because they're scarce.

They shouldn't be scarce, and they're not intended for just poor people.

To be clear, I'm not here for financial reasons. In fact, I would not object to paying more, if it meant putting more in the pot for poorer households to benefit from.

[ricardobeat]

If you're not there for financial reasons, then clearly you should not be benefiting from social housing. You are making it more scarce for people who actually need it, by holding onto it.

The tax your landlord will pay on their profits, once you move out to a market-priced property, will be adding to the pot for poorer households to benefit from.