4 ms·
> 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 fo
by 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 agoThe 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 agoNo, 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.