Live data from Hacker News

Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

nltimes.nl

141–150 of 598 posts

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#141

So they want to make renting impossible? That surely won't help low income people.

The Dutch system caters for that through the social housing system. There are special companies that get permits to own houses and rent them at cheap prices for disadvantaged groups.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#142
post #25

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…

Note, this targets anyone buying houses to rent out. It does not (like london considered) tax un-lived-in houses.

This is just a weird bandaid. Mostly trying to blame landlords for this housing crisis when mortgage tax credits, and scarcity due to weird eco regulation shenanigans are to blame.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#143
post #7

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…

Person living in Groningen right now, as Dutch citizen here.

There aren't enough houses for students right now.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#144
post #42

In the long term, the ethically right answer seems pretty clearly to me to be a land value tax [0]. But due to encouragement of home ownership [1], that's not going to democratically tenable in a lot of countries for 20+ years. Unfortunate situation. [0] In 1879, a man asked "How come all this new economic development and industrialized technology hasn't eliminated poverty and oppression?" That man was Henry George,…

I'm not sold on the Economist article. I do believe in home ownership. The idea that a person spends a lifetime in the same home and community is a good one. We're tribal creatures, and you want a tribe -- you want people to know their neighbors, have community BBQs, and live in real communities. You want enough of a vested interest in municipal politics that democratic structures work. You want kids growing up with…

I don’t think the article is saying ownership is a bad thing in itself, but that the vast resources that have been poured into promoting and subsidising it have had some pretty undesirable consequences.

Here in the UK we have started imposing tax penalties on buy to rent that disincentivizes owning more than one or two rental properties. The problem with punishing institutional investors is it would take huge amounts on investment out of the housing market, just as we have a massive need for more housing. We need more houses for people to buy and more new housing available to rent. Rental properties by themselves aren’t a problem, it’s taking houses out of individual ownership and transferring them to the rental sector that’s the problem.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#145
post #25

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…

Your first point is a misleading anecdote given there's actually data on this. The amount of empty homes in London is at a historical low [1]. Broadly, cities with the highest amount of empty homes tend to have the most affordable housing, because obviously that indicates there's more than enough housing to go round. [1] https://i.imgur.com/jX1OpmS.png

True, but citing data from 2017 is also a little misleading, considering theirs was a very recent anecdote. It's still probably relevant though.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't a land value tax encourage urban sprawling ? Current ubran policies in the western world, coupled with the normalization of remote working already do this to some extent.

How would it encourage urban sprawling?

If you're taxed on the value of the land, rather than the value of the property built on top of that land, it arguably incentivizes buying super-cheap exurban land and planting massive McManisions on it.

Obviously in real life, people care about other things besides just pure acreage, but you can see the argument.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#148
post #42

In the long term, the ethically right answer seems pretty clearly to me to be a land value tax [0]. But due to encouragement of home ownership [1], that's not going to democratically tenable in a lot of countries for 20+ years. Unfortunate situation. [0] In 1879, a man asked "How come all this new economic development and industrialized technology hasn't eliminated poverty and oppression?" That man was Henry George,…

Land ownership tax doesn't work because land is a basic need. You have to exist somewhere. The problem isn't ownership of land, it's excessive ownership of land. Ownership of land beyond need into greed. You can easily design land ownership tax like income tax where people who own more pay more. People who own enough for their family are not taxed at all and if you want more you pay a lot more.

Of course there is the usual issue of the definition of "enough" but those kind of questions are solved all the time in parliaments. This all or nothing behavior is what harms the prospect of land tax.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#149
post #25

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…

> Round here in Cornwall the jobs are things like surf instructor, supermarket worker, barperson, etc. That's not gonna stretch to the local house prices.

That was the case. A colleague of mine, originally from St Just, moved to London for work as so many have to do. Another from near Cockermouth did the same. Both now work remotely full time from their 'home towns' on decent wages.

Covid has done wonders for local communities - good jobs are now available for people without having to move across the country.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/112353359 for example is under £300k. Assuming you got it for 300k (asking price is 285k) with a 15k deposit you're looking at £1,278.19 a month with nationwide on a 30 year rate, well within the range of a couple earning £35k each, which is a reasonable

Now sure if you didn't get the education to get a decent job. Hell even on 25k each, Nationwide can lend upto £275k for a first time buyer - just need that deposit.

Re: Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

#150

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.

From my experience, the size and type of investor seem to be a factor. I have rented my entire adult life since it has some advantages (notably mobility), yet have always rented from homeowners or small-time investors. They tend to place more emphasis upon keeping their units rented and keeping good renters. Except for moving, I have only seen my rent increase once. It was a small increase and I lived in that place for many years.

Contrast that to people who have lived in places with large property managers. The rent increase is automatic, even with better renters than I. I have heard substantiated stories of rent doubling. Now those renters may have been bad apples and the property manager may have been using it as a tool for eviction, but that is still a problem. It is a problem since it is used a means to bypass tenant protections. Those protections are necessary to provide housing stability.

My apologies for the rant. In principle, I have nothing against investment. That said: the excessive greed of some investors, the ones that effectively push people down or out to achieve ... well, I don't know what some people are trying to achieve beyond a certain point ... is turning me away from that principle.

Post reply on HN