7-1-2022 —
In recent years, various measures have been taken by politicians in an attempt to solve the housing crisis and bring prices down. Measures that often only added oil to the fire instead of being (the beginning of) a solution. We mention just a few ‘solutions’ without being complete:
The young buyer (-35 years) pays 0% transfer tax since 2021 for a house up to € 400,000.00.
Result: the savings are used by starters to bid higher, causing prices to rise even higher.
In cities like Amsterdam and Amstelveen, the popular ‘home sharing’ was curbed.
Result: since then, more rental homes are needed for the same number of people. For 4 people wanting to share, 2 houses are now needed instead of 1. Moreover, 2 people sharing a home often pay relatively more rent per person for a smaller home than 3 or 4 people sharing a larger home.
From 2022 onwards, a self-housing obligation will apply in many municipalities.
Expected result: there will be an even greater shortage of rental homes in the free sector, while demand remains high. Rental prices will therefore continue to rise.
Since 2016, a person can gift to f.i. a child € 100,000 tax-free for the purchase of an own home or the repayment of an own home debt, "the jubilee fund".
Result: this was an excellent instrument to stimulate the purchase of an own home during the financial crisis, when nobody wanted or was able to buy. But the measure has been maintained for far too long. It is therefore now finally being abolished. It seems that the jubilee fund has put additional pressure on the demand for owner-occupied housing. This has had the effect of potentially driving up asking prices. In addition, it has increased wealth inequality between people who did get the jubilee bonus and those who were not so lucky because they do not have wealthy parents.
The landlord’s levy (=verhuurderheffing) introduced in 2013 for owners of multiple social housing units, mainly housing corporations. At the time simply a tax to pad the treasury. From 2023, this tax will be abolished.
Result:
-The social rental sector became smaller because the landlord’s levy made it more attractive for corporations to divest social rental housing, make the housing more expensive, have it demolished or sold.
-There was less new construction. Housing corporations did not have enough money left over because of the extra levy, so new construction production fell by half in the first few years. To get money for new construction, housing corporations sold more social homes. They were already doing this before the tax was introduced, but the pace accelerated due to the tax. In the end, more homes were disposed of than newly built: since 2013, housing associations' holdings have decreased by 100,000 homes.
-The levy also has a negative effect on the maintenance and preservation of homes. More than a third of tenants of housing associations say they suffer from overdue maintenance.
Etc. .....
What should be done?
Research by the public broadcaster NOS showed that municipalities see the low transfer of elderly people from their (big) homes to smaller ones as the biggest cause of the housing crisis. But there is remarkably little mention of building homes for the elderly who want to live independently, but smaller. Or about stimulating the return of retirement homes for the elderly again or, for example, the so-called 'knarrenhofjes', where the elderly can safely continue to live independently. It would not only provide a lot of (large) housing, but also combat loneliness among the elderly. So it is seen as the biggest problem by municipalities, but you rarely hear anything about it.
Meanwhile, the municipality is encouraging all sorts of companies to come to Amsterdam, universities and colleges are recruiting plenty of international students because they earn much more from them. Where are all those students and employees going to live if the free sector is made smaller (and therefore more expensive)? They are not eligible for social housing, apart from the fact that the waiting list is currently about 13 years. Shouldn't the government first check whether housing is available for those workers and students, before encouraging plenty of companies (thus expats who need housing) and international students to come here? Year after year, the new housing production cannot even keep up with the number of new residents, let alone solve the housing shortage.
In cities as Amsterdam and Amstelveen a large house can no longer be shared by e.g. 3 colleagues without a permit for room rental, which many landlords simply do not want because you are then stuck to the points system and you have to work with individual rental contracts. This mainly to keep the neigbourhood liveable. While a family of 6 is allowed to live in the same house... Who would potentially cause more nuisance? Or is it just about the fact that the landlords of those houses could then charge too much rent? Quite apart from the fact that this measure only increases the housing shortage, since more homes are now needed for the same number of tenants. We think it would be a good plan to remove this measure very quickly.
The upcoming self-occupation requirement will certainly make more housing available to "normal" buyers. But the number of rental homes in the free sector will decrease as a result, while demand is expected to remain high. Compared to our surrounding countries, the Netherlands already has a uniquely small free sector market. So every free sector house, that was already owned before the self occupancy obligation took effect, will be rented out at sky-high prices. Much higher than is currently the case. After all: scarcity = high prices.
Or what about the big cities in particular, which sell their building land at the highest price, but meanwhile impose increasing demands on builders, want to determine rents by means of the 40-40-20 rule (40% social rent, 40% medium rent, 20% expensive rent and purchase) and prefer to build in the city centre, which is lengthy, expensive and difficult? As soon as an investor can no longer make a profit, he will build somewhere else. As a result, many planned homes are ultimately not built.
In addition, there are many skewed residents (=scheefwoners) who occupy a social housing apartment, while they now have a much higher income and would not qualify for the social housing at all. In Amsterdam, about 10,000 social housing units are occupied by tenants with an income above € 70,000. With such an income you just belong in the free sector. But no one can be forced to move on and leave their social housing. Currently, if a house was a social rental house at the beginning of the rental period, it remains a social rental house throughout the whole rental period. With corresponding low rent. But social housing is there for people with the lowest incomes. Why can't it just be the case that if a tenant of a social rental home goes above a certain income threshold, the rent of the home for that tenant is adjusted to the market rent? Then a tenant will be much more likely to move on to the free or owner-occupied sector, making the property available again to someone on a low income.
And now?
It is abundantly clear that the rental market is finally on the political radar. One new rule has not yet been introduced or the next bill is being submitted. Everything to get the (rental) prices down. But with only more new rules you do not create any new homes and the housing shortage is not reduced. Worse, the fewer rental properties that become available because of these kinds of rules, the higher the rents.
Where are the real solutions? It would be very helpful if the government would finally live up to their responsibility by building much more and faster than is currently the case. Which would create a healthier housing market.
We predict golden times for existing landlords with the current policy. But is this how we want it to be in the Netherlands? Where a roof over your head, a fundamental right, might soon be only for the rich or for the poor, who live in a social housing? Or for the lucky-ones who bought a home before the current madness? The housing investor is only profiting from the government creating mess in the housing market. At least now we will have a Housing Minister again. Hopefully it will make a difference!
Partly furnished
95m²
