[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.