Dutch cities want to ban property investors in all neighborhoods • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by IkmoIkmo » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 2:04 PM UTC

debarshri wrote: post #86

This move is well appreciated. Currently, I own a house in oudegracht, Utrecht. It is very terrible situation here. All the apartments in and around me are all the time rented out as airbnb. During peak of pandemic, it was pretty much a ghost town. The housing prices have skyrocketed due to covid, but all these all-cash investor are jumping and swooping in the apartments, holding it for a while and passing it to the…

> All the apartments in and around me are all the time rented out as airbnb. During peak of pandemic, it was pretty much a ghost town.

What you mention around Airbnb shouldn't be addressed through a buy-to-let ban, but an airbnb or short-term rental ban, which already exists in various forms. If there's problems with enforcement, address that. The ghost-town you described happened regardless of airbnb but due to literal lockdown measures that affected everyone, in particular the local population, you don't see the effect anymore despite tourists still largely staying away.

> Because of the rising prices, the annual property tax to be paid also increases dramatically.

No that's not correct. Typically Dutch municipalities tax based on what they need. If they need 1 million, they'd charge 1% of 100 in property values, or 2% of 50 million in property values. Price increases don't translate into higher property taxes.

You can see a video of how Utrecht does it, on their own website: https://bghu.nl/belasting/ozb

In fact, in Utrecht property tax rates decreased by about 22% in the past 6 years, due to increasing home prices.

Of course there is inflation, in absolute terms the number is increasing. But what you're describing isn't happening. I own a home in Utrecht, too.

Many studies in the Netherlands have shown investors aren't the cause of the price increases, I don't think this policy will solve things. It'll just relieve some pressure on the buying market and put extra pressure on the rental market.

> People blame the low interest rate

Yes, these people are economists, including the Dutch Central Bank, the AFM, every bank, every professor, in countless studies. The effect is clear and obvious.

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

#362

Post by Filligree » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 2:07 PM UTC

rfrey wrote: post #327

sideshowb wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s the same incentives the UK had to stay in Europe. Ninety plus percent of their trade is with each other.

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

#363

Post by IkmoIkmo » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

einpoklum wrote: post #348

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why the amen is applicable to Dutch cities. I'll take the local perspective from Amsterdam as an example, but it applies more broadly to the other cities as well here. Regarding point 1: There's no real issues with long-term vacancies (the municipality already has laws in-place which fine owners of vacant homes), typically sits between 1 and 2%. That should obviously go down to 0 as much as possible, but it'…

> If buy-to-let is banned, rental supply drops This seems to contradict your earlier claim that: > the municipality already has laws in-place which fine owners of vacant homes

I don't see the contradiction, could you explain?

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

#364

Post by imtringued » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 2:09 PM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #336

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your solution is the problem. The house prices are a blood-sucking squid, and you are pay for them every time you get a coffee or get any service - half the money is going to the labdowner that contributes nothing to the economy. That's why a coffee costs £5 and a plumber charges £100 an hour But we have fools that celebrate rising house prices because their nominal net worth went up

If prices were going down would things be better? You bought a 500,000 and in ten years it will be worth 100,000 would you still make that investment? Everyone wants prices to remain the same forever. That takes a neutral population growth or more supply

>If prices were going down would things be better? You bought a 500,000 and in ten years it will be worth 100,000 would you still make that investment?

The idea that holding a property and doing absolutely nothing with it is an "investment" is absurd. The only people who would buy that home are those who want to live in it or who want to rent it out to someone who wants to live in it.

No I wouldn't make that "investment". I would just rent the property out without "investing" the property.

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

#365

Post by mkr-hn » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 2:10 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #307

itsdsmurrell wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem is how much the bank earns off the interest it charges you throughout your life while it had to do what?... create new money from nothing into the money supply with special permissions given to it by the government. This is why housing is so expensive to begin with. This bullshit needs to stop.

I've wondered lately, since the government backstops both banks and mortgages, shouldn't it just cut out the middleman? It could either give cheaper mortgages or use the difference as tax revenue.

There's this weird brain worm from the 1980s in a lot of western democracies where everything government does has to be bid out to companies and driven by profit motive under the theory that it produces better outcomes. It doesn't seem to be working after decades of this experiment, but people keep trying.

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

#366

Post by TomSwirly » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 2:11 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

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

#367

Post by berkes » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 2:12 PM UTC

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #320

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…

Not sure why the amen is applicable to Dutch cities. I'll take the local perspective from Amsterdam as an example, but it applies more broadly to the other cities as well here. Regarding point 1: There's no real issues with long-term vacancies (the municipality already has laws in-place which fine owners of vacant homes), typically sits between 1 and 2%. That should obviously go down to 0 as much as possible, but it'…

Studies have shown that in the Netherlands only a tiny part of the rapidly increasing price is due to shortage and the majority due to investers. The exact opposite of what you say.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying that what you pose as established facts are highly debated in the Netherlands at the least.

I'm on mobile, so finding English studies is hard. Maybe parent author could cite some of the studies (s)he mentions? https://www.eigenhuis.nl/huis-kopen/starters/artikelen/beleg... https://www.kadaster.nl/-/opkomst-particuliere-investeerders...

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

#368

Post by mkr-hn » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 2:12 PM UTC

eurasiantiger wrote: post #245

dan-robertson wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banks don’t get to create money. Quantitive Easing isn’t something banks can call up on demand and it isn’t banks getting loads of free money. Instead they sell certain slightly risky assets to the government at a slightly higher price than they would be worth without QE. This small price difference is the free money but the bigger difference is that the banks have more liquid cash to use for e.g. making loans. I thi…

> Banks don’t get to create money Literally every loan a bank gives out is mostly made up on the spot, everywhere in the world. In some countries, banks are subject to reserve requirements — typically from fractions of a percent to some percents of their liabilities to depositors. Basically: banks need to cover the savings of people. In the UK (and many other countries), this is not the case; banks are not required t…

The term for the type with reserve requirements is fractional-reserve banking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

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

#369

Post by murgindrag » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #144

murgindrag wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Investment in the housing market drives up supply of buildings, and drives up the cost of the land underneath them. In high-cost markets, most of the cost is the land, not development on that land.

You can waive the higher taxes for very high density developments. Skyscrapers to require investors, and that is beneficial.

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

#370

Post by imtringued » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 2:14 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #339

ForHackernews wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a self-correcting problem, isn't it? Either those cafes and shops will raise prices and pay their staff more, or they'll close down. I've never understood why we're supposed to feel bad for "small business owners" who won't find staff when paying peanuts for their crappy jobs.

We’re in a suicide spiral where fiscal policy has staved off economic malaise by kicking the can down the road. Interest rates have been kept low, which drives real property prices up. Everyone intuitively knows that collapse or high inflation is the endgame, so money flocks to property, which drives up demand. The issue isn’t the coffee shop in the fishing village, it’s that the fishermen are selling real estate now…

Low interest rates have made everything cheap but the supply of housing (specifically land) is extremely inflexible. You can make more cars but not land. The location value of your house skyrockets at the expense of everyone else.

However, make no mistake. The problem isn't money. Even if you buy your house with Bitcoin you will run into the same problem. The problem is that location is a a monopoly. You can tax it or let it run wild.