31–40 of 598 posts
So investors buy the homes then rent them out? What’s the problem? In some asian markets investors buy homes then sit on them unused for years. That’s a problem.
There is also a law in the works called "Prince Bernhards tax", our Prince owns a lot of expensive property in Amsterdam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do I understand correctly that they want to kick out all the students from the cities? Presumably not, unless those students are property investors.
> investors won't be allowed to buy cheap and medium-priced homes and rent them out So, who will be renting cheap and medium-priced homes? There are already extremely severe shortages as exemplified by students camping in tents.
This is cart before horse stuff. As noticed by other commenters some people need to rent. I am blaming 'quantitative easing'. If the central bank buys a whole lot of assets where do other investors go?
So investors buy the homes then rent them out? What’s the problem? In some asian markets investors buy homes then sit on them unused for years. That’s a problem.
I myself, for example, live in a city where owning the place I live in is just barely getting in reach for me, although I am in the top 30% income bracket of my country. I therefore have to put my savings into the stock market, which is at an all time high. Maybe even a bubble.
It is frustrating to see any income gain that I make being absorbed by the housing market. I work hard while others get unspeakably rich just by owning stuff.
Simply put, the balance is off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do I understand correctly that they want to kick out all the students from the cities? Presumably not, unless those students are property investors.
You misunderstood. The only way to rent a place is to rent it from an investor. If investors are banned from the city, then students need to buy the house/room they live in. This is of course not feasible for the majority of students.
You mean in the Netherlands? Because I never had to do that in my country. I'm not aware of places where the only landlords are investors.
Amen to this. Two case studies from the UK I've been thinking about recently: 1) Visiting London and spending time in South Kensington - walking back to hotel at night, only about 30% of houses had any lights on. Suggestion is the others are effectively uninhabited, and a search on RightMove shows properties sell for £20-£30m for a 4/5 bed. This isn't normal Londoners, it's outside investment. 2) Cornwall, where I li…
Do I understand correctly that they want to kick out all the students from the cities? When I was studying in Groningen I had to look for places to rent out of the city. Some students were camping in tents in front of the campus. Here is a photo from another city, Tilburg: https://www.dutchnews.nl/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/st... Some academic staff were even taking them in due to shortage of places to rent. I…
Rents in the city have increased by 8.2% over the last 12 months, property prices by 20-25% over the last two years. The price per square meter to buy anything reasonable is above 6k Eur now. Salaries are, of course, not adjusted to compensate for this...
So I can understand and support this Dutch initiative, but of course universities and municipalities then have to ensure they provide an appropriate amount student accommodation. Since students are an important economic factor, this doesn't sound to be a too unreasonable demany to me.
The Norwegian government also tries a different approach - it tries to enable young people to buy property already in their twenties by funding special discounts on interest rates. Together with banning investors from the cities, this might also be a model for the Netherlands, which, like Norway, has quite a high rate of home ownership (69% NL vs. 81% NO). Some of my recent master students owned an apartment here and made a nice profit when they sold it this year and moved back to Oslo...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/543453/house-owners-amon...
[2] https://tradingeconomics.com/netherlands/home-ownership-rate
I hope ECB and other central bankers realizes how they are fucking up an entire generation before it’s too late.Negative rates is only going to make things worse.
Amen to this. Two case studies from the UK I've been thinking about recently: 1) Visiting London and spending time in South Kensington - walking back to hotel at night, only about 30% of houses had any lights on. Suggestion is the others are effectively uninhabited, and a search on RightMove shows properties sell for £20-£30m for a 4/5 bed. This isn't normal Londoners, it's outside investment. 2) Cornwall, where I li…
South Kensington is one of the most expensive area of London and not representative at all. Whatever happens there does not affect the average person, and quite of few of the grand houses there are also actually offices.
In any case, it is not true that 30% of homes are empty there. Apparently the City of London (i.e. the square mile, not London as a whole) has the highest rate in the country and that is still only about 4% [1].
In Cornwall the issue is quite different: The area is very attractive for second homes and, at the same time, it is the second poorest region in all of Northern Europe. This means that local resident have a very low purchasing power and indeed cannot compete with people from London and the South East. I think that they are starting to implement restrictions in some areas in order to give priorities to buyers who will occupy the property as their main residence in order to keep second homes in check.
[1] https://www.cityam.com/15bn-worth-of-london-homes-sit-empty-...