Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods

nltimes.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 598 posts

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

#321

Post by sparks1970 »

dmje wrote: 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…

South Kensington is also home to Imperial College London. See this map to get a feel for the extent of it in the area: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/visit/publ...

You did explicitly say houses but possibly the area is quieter and less inhabited out of term time.

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

#322

Post by chii »

mrjin wrote: post #269
headmelted wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it’s an easily fixable problem. Punitively heavy land taxes on non-primary dwellings solves this overnight. It also raises a lot of capital that can be used to provide services in the area.

Yes and no. Yes, your proposal can solve the problem for sure. No, you just can hardly implement it anytime soon. I'm in Australia and Labor lost last election just because they were swearing to remove so called NG(Negative-Gearing, which allows the property investors to offset their income with losses from investment property) before the ballot day, despite NG itself is actually a bizarre idea: why would tax payers…

You made negative gearing sound so bizarre, but it's really just business investment deductions, which applies to every type of investment, not just real estate.

If your business made a loss, you get to deduct that loss from your revenue, before getting taxed.

This is the exact same concept, but applied to investment properties. As for the "dodgy" accounting methods - it's not really dodgy, but merely depreciation of the property at play. Depreciation is real. After all, a house doesn't last forever, so why shouldn't depreciation be allowed for investment properties when it is allowed for all other business capital expenditure?

People like to argue that by taking away negative gearing for property (i.e., treat it differently), that it would increase affordability. It won't make a big difference.

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

#323

Post by m0llusk »

dmje wrote: 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…

That is a complex problem, though. The main issue is land investment that effectively prevents or greatly limits potential new construction. With new construction thwarted even modest growth over time causes extreme prices per unit.

Preventing properties from being treated as bidding chips or bonds issued this could greatly improve the situation, but without addressing land use and land banking then the lack of new construction will continue to unbalance property markets.

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

#324

Post by belter »

TacticalMalice wrote: post #273
belter wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are buying to rent in the Dutch market, and you are not part of the royal family, or a Black Rock fund you are making a big mistake. You are in a legal environment where you will not be able to evict a non paying tenant for several years. If there are children in the picture or a divorce you will have even more serious problems. The Belastingen will come after your earnings plus, you are likely to be victim of…

Eviction is already possible after 3 months of not paying rents (and sometimes after 2 months if there's a history of non-payment). The landlord has to get a court order, which is commonly granted. Minors will be placed in foster care if they cannot be placed elsewhere. Taxes on earnings depend on how you structure your work. They are usually in "box 3" where taxes are based on fictitious returns on investment as a p…

Well not at the moment to start with:

"Government rules that tenants cannot be evicted during corona crisis"

https://www.iamexpat.nl/housing/real-estate-news/government-...

Also tenants can sign contract with you ( as landlord) and immediately go to the Huur Commissie and argue their rent is too high. So it will be lowered if they first signed a different contract with the landlord.

https://www.huurcommissie.nl/

Concerning what you seem to describe as a very smooth process I have strong doubts. If a tenant lawyer argues there is a temporary situation with the family, children take priority etc...A Dutch judge will not ignore all that, and simply take the major step of putting children under foster care, if the landlord does not need the house to live there himself. Specially taking into account the dire situation of foster care in the Netherlands:

"The decline in foster parents means that the Netherlands is facing a shortage. According to Foster Care Netherlands, 3,500 foster families are needed each year. Last year there were only 2,566. Currently over 700 children are waiting for a place in a family..."

https://nltimes.nl/2020/01/09/many-foster-parents-quit-lack-...

I know a landlord who waited 2 years. Just a data point I would agree, but I strongly doubt its the smooth process you describe.

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

#325

Post by ChrisLomont »

lifty wrote: post #141
ChrisLomont wrote: post #43

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.

Ah, so a government monopoly on a common part of markets. Usually such action has downsides, in the same way rent controls end up hurting renters.

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

#326

Post by dajomu »

galdosdi wrote: post #315
DrBazza wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This horrifies me. Even the slightest increase in interest rates will ruin a huge number of home owners. On the other hand, home ownership in the UK isn’t normal either. It’s only since the 50s or perhaps 60s that the average person has been able to aff…

Usually mortgages are a fixed rate for the life of the loan (usually 30 years) -- at least here in the USA. Variable rate (eg "ARM") mortgages are also available but are less common and mostly used for short term flipping and the like, for the very reason you say -- nobody wants to risk a rising payment due to rising rates. Is the situation very different in the UK? Do Britishers actually prefer variable rate mortgag…

I've been on a 3 year fixed rate mortgage here in the UK. The first 3 years are something like 1.8%, after that it goes up to something like 3.6%. The idea is that you remortgage every three years at no extra cost, so you should be effectively paying that lower rate for the full term of your mortgage, that is unless the economy tanks and interest rates go through the roof...

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

#327

Post by rfrey »

sideshowb wrote: post #309
laurent92 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it was recovering the freedom that was getting eaten by Europe, and listening to the vote of the UK people again. Whether it ends up in “getting rid of foreigners” or anything else would only be a second-order result of listening to the Englishman’s vote, if that is what they still vote for in 10 years. The goal of Brexit was democracy, not particular measures left or right.

Amusing you equate democracy with the English vote. Sincerely, Scotland, Wales and NI

I understand there are other factors at play (to say the least) in NI, but can you explain the incentive Scotland and Wales have to stay in the UK? I'd have thought they'd be gearing up for full scale separation referendums by now.

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

#328

Post by IkmoIkmo »

rusteh1 wrote: post #165

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 th…

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.

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

#329

Post by [deleted] »

bushbaba wrote: post #317
heresie-dabord wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wages have been stagnant for decades while the cost of living has increased... and now housing has become a privilege . Yes, there are "rich foreigners" and some corporations are strategically acquiring the places and spaces where high rent can be extracted. But what has driven housing cost in the market of individual homes is simply that some citizens can afford to borrow at low rates, and other citizens are seizing…

The governments are to blame. If conventional mortgages were capped to 1 per person. And a minimum of 80% ltv was required. Then houses would be cheaper. Instead the government is letting people put low money down, low interest rates, and buy up many houses at once. That of course inflated housing costs.

[deleted]

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

#330

Post by IkmoIkmo »

734129837261 wrote: post #191
rusteh1 wrote: post #165

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 th…

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 ou…

> 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.

Post reply on HN