5 ms·

So those who don't have the cash up front or credit to buy a house are SOL, so as migrant workers who made the mistake of looking for a job somewhere in the jur

So those who don't have the cash up front or credit to buy a house are SOL, so as migrant workers who made the mistake of looking for a job somewhere in the jurisdiction.

ricardobeat 8y ago
I don’t think the intention is to reduce rentals, just to stop prices from going up. That said, you need very little cash at hand to buy a house in the Netherlands (in fact, a few years back you needed < €0), there’s no upfront payment. Credit is cheap (~2%) and abundant.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > I don’t think the intention is to reduce rentals, just to stop prices from going up. The legislation described in TFA is quite literally designed to cut off the introduction of newly built houses in the rental market, including investments in real estate focused on that market segment.
  - mcv 8y ago
    TFA disagrees with you: "Amsterdam’s proposed laws wouldn’t stop new rental housing from being built—according to the city’s proposal, that housing would simply have to be proposed and approved as rental property in the first place."
    - lukevdp 8y ago
      And what is the approval process? Where I live, to cut down a tree, you can get it approved by council. The problem is, they do not approve any applications.
    - geezerjay 8y ago
      > TFA disagrees with you: Quite the opposite in fact. TFA is quite clear on how their aim is to stop new housing units to be used for rentals, and they even force an arbitrary process to approve exceptions to the ban by enabling local polititians to approve specific projects they may see as acceptable. Nevertheless, the goal is quite clear: raise barriers to the introduction of rental properties.
      - ricardobeat 8y ago
        The rule is for koopwoningen only - houses built for sale (owner-occupied). The market here is quite regulated and new builds have to provide a mix of owned, rented and social housing units. The limitation will just prevent the owned units from shifting to rentals as an investment.
      - mcv 8y ago
        No, you are misreading or misrepresenting what the article says. The measure is meant to stop houses that are meant for people to purchase and live in to be bought by investors to rent them out. The reason for that is that those investors are reducing the supply houses available for purchase, and driving the prices up. Rental homes are still available for rent. Nothing changes there. The city invests a lot in affordable rental houses. That's not going to change. They just want to stop investors and speculators from snatching up the available houses.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- thijsb 8y ago
  Not entirely true. You need to be able to cover expenses like taxes and legal fees by yourself, which accounts for 8 and a bit percent.
- AllegedAlec 8y ago
  Not really. With a slightly above modal salary, I can get a mortgage of roughly 180K, if I didn't have a student debt. A house, on average, will cost somewhere in the region of 300K this year. Not that rent is more affordable though. Most not rent-controlled places require you to have a yearly income of around 50 times the monthly rent, which ensures it's nigh impossible to get any sort of decent place on a single income. Of course, all of this is near the larger cities. In the countryside, you could probably get the same sort of place for two-thirds the money. However, you'd probably be travelling at least 1.5 hours one-way to your work.
mcv 8y ago
No, they just rent a house that was actually meant for rental from a professional landlord, rather than an overpriced rental from an absentee landlord.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lukevdp 8y ago
  What is the difference between a professional landlord and an absentee landlord? Aren’t all landlords absentee and aren’t all landlords going to charge market rent?
  - mcv 8y ago
    Someone who rents out a house on one side of the country and then goes to live on the other side of the country, is not available to his tenants when they need him. Also, if this is the only house he owns, he's likely not an experienced landlord and may have no idea how to provide the services that his tenants need and deserve.

So those who don't have the cash up front or credit to buy a house are SOL, so as migrant workers who made the mistake of looking for a job somewhere in the jurisdiction.

ricardobeat 8y ago

I don’t think the intention is to reduce rentals, just to stop prices from going up. That said, you need very little cash at hand to buy a house in the Netherlands (in fact, a few years back you needed < €0), there’s no upfront payment. Credit is cheap (~2%) and abundant.

geezerjay 8y ago
> I don’t think the intention is to reduce rentals, just to stop prices from going up. The legislation described in TFA is quite literally designed to cut off the introduction of newly built houses in the rental market, including investments in real estate focused on that market segment.
- mcv 8y ago
  TFA disagrees with you: "Amsterdam’s proposed laws wouldn’t stop new rental housing from being built—according to the city’s proposal, that housing would simply have to be proposed and approved as rental property in the first place."
  - lukevdp 8y ago
    And what is the approval process? Where I live, to cut down a tree, you can get it approved by council. The problem is, they do not approve any applications.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > TFA disagrees with you: Quite the opposite in fact. TFA is quite clear on how their aim is to stop new housing units to be used for rentals, and they even force an arbitrary process to approve exceptions to the ban by enabling local polititians to approve specific projects they may see as acceptable. Nevertheless, the goal is quite clear: raise barriers to the introduction of rental properties.
    - ricardobeat 8y ago
      The rule is for koopwoningen only - houses built for sale (owner-occupied). The market here is quite regulated and new builds have to provide a mix of owned, rented and social housing units. The limitation will just prevent the owned units from shifting to rentals as an investment.
    - mcv 8y ago
      No, you are misreading or misrepresenting what the article says. The measure is meant to stop houses that are meant for people to purchase and live in to be bought by investors to rent them out. The reason for that is that those investors are reducing the supply houses available for purchase, and driving the prices up. Rental homes are still available for rent. Nothing changes there. The city invests a lot in affordable rental houses. That's not going to change. They just want to stop investors and speculators from snatching up the available houses.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
thijsb 8y ago
Not entirely true. You need to be able to cover expenses like taxes and legal fees by yourself, which accounts for 8 and a bit percent.
AllegedAlec 8y ago
Not really. With a slightly above modal salary, I can get a mortgage of roughly 180K, if I didn't have a student debt. A house, on average, will cost somewhere in the region of 300K this year. Not that rent is more affordable though. Most not rent-controlled places require you to have a yearly income of around 50 times the monthly rent, which ensures it's nigh impossible to get any sort of decent place on a single income. Of course, all of this is near the larger cities. In the countryside, you could probably get the same sort of place for two-thirds the money. However, you'd probably be travelling at least 1.5 hours one-way to your work.

mcv 8y ago

No, they just rent a house that was actually meant for rental from a professional landlord, rather than an overpriced rental from an absentee landlord.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lukevdp 8y ago
What is the difference between a professional landlord and an absentee landlord? Aren’t all landlords absentee and aren’t all landlords going to charge market rent?
- mcv 8y ago
  Someone who rents out a house on one side of the country and then goes to live on the other side of the country, is not available to his tenants when they need him. Also, if this is the only house he owns, he's likely not an experienced landlord and may have no idea how to provide the services that his tenants need and deserve.