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

191–200 of 598 posts

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

#191

Post by 734129837261 »

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 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.

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

#192

Post by cutler »

mercy_dude wrote: post #161
pydry wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would lead to a steep collapse of property prices and force new homeowners who have just scraped together enough for a deposit into negative equity. This would drive a lot of anger against it (all amplified by the media/ultrawealthy who would be furious too) even if it were the right thing to do long term. The only time I could see this happening would be in the case the value of the dollar fell off a cliff due…

Yeah this is the narrative that is always played every time there is a talk about even slightest increase in interest rate. When politicians and news media alike play this narrative this gives people signal that house prices can never go down. I know a couple who is one layoff away from defaulting their mortgage, but they bought a house with mortgage 60% of their income since they think housing prices can never go do…

Agreed. I've never understood this assumption that one is entitled to get something for nothing merely by virtue of owning a house. Investment is just another form of gambling dressed up in the garb of respectability..

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

#193

Post by jhgb »

988747 wrote: post #187
jhgb wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They buy them and then rent out, thus increasing the supply. That doesn't increase supply. I'm really not sure how middlemen skimming money could increase supply since that should push the supply curve to the left. > If the house gets bought by a family, that family moves in, so 3 out of 5 spots are now occupied, leaving only 2 available for rent. And the family moved in from somewhere else, leaving you with three…

> And the family moved in from somewhere else, leaving you with three spots in that some other place plus two spots in the new place, so you have 5 places for students regardless. Not sure why you think this changes something. Because that family might have moved from out of town, and students can't move to their old place that is too far from the university? EDIT: I'm not sure that building more dorms is a good idea…

That's not a problem specifically for students, though. That's a problem for everyone when X people need to move to a city where there's Y<X capacity of housing.

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

#194

Post by DrBazza »

iso1210 wrote: post #149
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…

> 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 c…

> 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 afford a home. And then again in the 80s with council houses sold off to tenants.

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

#195

Post by xunn0026 »

cutler wrote: post #186
Aeolun wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I know! We can give them the land for free, but instead we get to collect a tax on their produce. Of course they cannot leave this arrangement without immediately paying for all the land. I think we can call these people serfs.

The same applies to the whole rented sector. We're all serfs.

Luckily Apple only wants 30% for selling an app your customer cannot otherwise load on their phone or table.

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

#196

Post by tellersid »

Ekaros wrote: post #94

I think real solution is to increase governmental supply. That is push market rates so much down that only marginal gains from property could be gained. Let's say 2% year... Property shouldn't really appreciate very much over time.

In the US at least though I believe zoning is the issue.

Our zoning laws are so bad and it is so hard to add to supply that no one really bothers much.

There are all kinds of dislocations in the market because what you should see right now is massive amounts of home building but you do not. 15 minutes away from me there is a ton of open land that could practically be built into a entire new town. I would imagine the larger the project the more bullshit you have to deal with when it comes to permits, zoning, political pushback, palms that need grease.

If you compare the work, risk/reward to alternative investments like just holding the stock market index it becomes a bad investment so it doesn't get made.

We have all these self reinforcing distortions happening in the market that probably can't be fixed.

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

#197

Post by Ekaros »

seanieb wrote: post #112

Real estate investors buying existing properties, without substantial capital investment into upgrades/renovations, are exactly the same as concert ticket scalpers. Their business is of little benefit to society.

Investors buying existing private properties and not replacing them with higher density housing is something I could support ban of. Ofc, there should be some limitations on pricing of new units offered.

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

#198

Post by mejutoco »

globular-toast wrote: post #157
mejutoco wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was looking for data for inequality per country ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_... ). What location and timeline are you thinking of for now being less inequal? Do you have a data source I could look into? Cheers Edit: grammar

Data of current inequality isn't very useful. I don't have any data, but I wasn't the one claiming things were more extreme now than they have been in the past. If I look at the UK I see even the poorest people have shelter, food and free access to healthcare. In the past the poorest people were literally starving and in very poor health while the richest lived in huge manor houses that would make even a billionaire…

> if anything, inequality is lower now than it has been in the past

So, sorry for rephrasing it, your claim is that the poorest have better conditions than before (I don‘t know if that is the case), not that inequality has decreased. It is an interesting point.

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

#199

Post by taffer »

pydry wrote: post #156
Pet_Ant wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preosumably the closer to the city centre the higher the per square fot value so to minimise costs you move to the edge of town, thus sprawl.

Or you buy an apartment in a high rise and share the cost with the other residents. It would certainly discourage the building of houses in the city centre.

> It would certainly discourage the building of houses in the city centre.

No, that's not how it works. The value of a property is made up of the value of the land and the value of the buildings on it. If one of these two components is taxed, its value is reduced. However, it is important to remember that the supply of land is fixed, but the supply of buildings is not. If one taxes buildings, as is the case with a traditional property tax, construction activity is reduced, but if one taxes only land, as is the case with a land value tax, construction activity is not impeded at all. That's the beauty of a land value tax: it doesn't distort anything.

With a property tax, an undeveloped lot in the center of town is taxed less than a high-rise. With a land value tax, both are taxed at the same rate. Relatively speaking, a property tax promotes sprawl, a land value tax promotes density.

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

#200

Post by kalium-xyz »

xvector wrote: post #22

Dutch cities are easily the best-planned cities in the world. The channel "Not Just Bikes" [1] goes fairly in-depth as to why. I think I'll trust that the Dutch city planners know what they're doing in this instance. [1]: https://youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes

I wonder if things will turn around on this channel now covid lockdowns are stopping. I have never found living in a city center in the Netherlands quiet before the lockdowns, and don't find it very quiet now anymore either.
Post reply on HN