1) Agreed. None of this increases the total housing stock, perhaps even lowers it. Limiting renting may reduce demand from investors, reduce prices below the ra

1) Agreed. None of this increases the total housing stock, perhaps even lowers it. Limiting renting may reduce demand from investors, reduce prices below the rate you'd find in a market without rent-restrictions, and thereby reduce the incentive for new construction. That's mostly why I'm not a fan, particularly because there are already many subsidies and distortions in the Dutch housing market. 2) On paper not a problem. There's a law against vacancy in Amsterdam, you can and should get fined. But I have my doubts about enforcements, although they have a monitoring system in place. 3) Not sure how I feel about this one, there's another argument to be made as well that rent-restrictions have a price-dampening effect and may make purchasing possible for a group who'd otherwise be forced to rent in perpetuity. Plus very low-incomes do have substantial opportunities, more than half the housing stock is social housing in Amsterdam. But agreed, this policy can be unfavourable as well, it's just not necessarily always the case. Housing stock has to increase, rent-restrictions don't help with that. And secondly Amsterdam has to cooperate more with neighbouring municipalities and regional transport infrastructure to spread the demand around. This latter part is really difficult, but if you don't solve this problem and create ever-centralising appeal in concentrating everything in Amsterdam, you can never outbuild the demand. At some point, people must be enticed to not live in Amsterdam. That requires investments into jobs, schooling, amenities etc outside of Amsterdam, as well as good infrastructure to connect it all.