THis idea was killed 2 weeks ago by the Zürich city council
It is a spectacular vision: according to the ideas of the FDP, new housing for 150’000 people is to be created between Zurich Central Station, Altstetten and Wiedikon – by covering and building up the railway tracks there.
But on Wednesday evening, the damper for the FDP came: The local council rejected its push after prolonged discussion by 71 to 39 votes.
not really living in Zurich but too bad
I’d really would like to hear the discussion points. The pros and cons of the various sides. Or was it strictly party line voting?
That’s an interesting idea, but I guess it’d be possible to apply it only to the new land without state expropriation? =)
Curious as to why it is rejected.
In the end, there are solutions to the housing crisis, but often they are blocked by NIMBYism and other factors.
In Hong Kong, many stations on the public transit lines are built like this: a public transport area e.g. on ground on underground. commercial properties, supermarkets etc. on the lower floors or underground, then residential properties going upwards.
The Greens that voted NO said that this project would be too expensive, thus no affordable housing. SVP that voted no because too risky and complicate.
Sounds like a complete lack of vision to me. Taking positions that the other guys ideas are nonsense and are very unhelpful. 1st priority is to build a consensus on what the objective is. And then work on developing solutions.
BTW, the initiative:
This is what the rental price initiative demands
- Rents must not be arbitrarily high according to the constitution and the law today. The legally defined cost rent is finally enforced: Rents must not exceed the costs of a property including the maximum permitted return (currently 3.25%).
- Only the regular review of rents ensures that the real estate companies comply with the law.
- The initiative is not directed against renters who adhere to the current rules: those who do not demand abusive rents have nothing to fear. It is about those who disregard the current tenancy law and maximize their returns with excessive rents.
If I understand well, the initiative proposes to mandate the review of the maximum rent calculation (already existing in law). Currently, until a tenant complaints, the max allowed rent is calculated. The initiative proposes to make these reviews a compliance issue.
This whole “rents are too expensive” problem is only valid for old housing, has paid for itself decades ago. Good luck renting out your newly bought appartment, even if it’s 10y old at a rate that makes the risk of capital sensible… What many people simply don’t realize is that if an appartment costs 800K+ a rent of 2.5K is dirt cheap - the landlord has a ton of expenses, risk and potentially even litigation he has to account for in that price, every increase in regulation will further push the prices up.
You want to have cheaper housing? You need building and zoning laws so that Zurich has not a 0.1% unoccupied housing rate, but a 2-4% rate - then prices will normalize itself automatically. Trying to normalize prices, as if living in Zurich city is a human right, is absurd. There are many places near Zurich where you can rent at reasonable rates and this initiative is clearly aimed at that. Now, who is going to buy and rent out a 2-3M flat in the city center, if you can’t even make a decent profit off of it?
And suggesting the government pays for housing is insane, the government will accept a lower ROI, meaning it wastes tax money that could’ve been used more efficiently.
What’s so bad in telling people that there is no human right to cheap real estate? If you can’t pay ZH prices, go to Schwyz, go to Thurgau, St. Gallen, Aargau, etc. this is perfectly normal and there the rent preasure is more reasonable.
I would never want to be a landlord in Switzerland, immagine people threatening you with an attorney, because you dare to make a measily 3% net profit per year, with default risk, repair risk, etc. crazy country, crazy entitled people - probably also a reason many landlords rent to non language speaking migrants as well, they shut up and pay.
How is this possible? Do they sublet to each other?
I guess they recommend each other to their landlord as the next tenant. I imagine it’s not without a risk though but I’ve never been in a situation to do that to tell you the exact process. There’re offers like this on Reddit, and sometimes on Immoscout (swap/exchange only etc.)
Yes, it’s possible. When we left our apartment we sublet it to a couple we know. You just need to inform the landlord and they update their records, change the name plate, mailbox, etc. The rule is that you can’t charge the subletting tenant more than the rent you were paying.
Hm actually I imagine subletting is safer risks wise (ie. a landlord having his own agenda), indeed.
Dunno. We don’t usually deal with dodgy people. YMMV.
Ultimately we were still the ones with the rental contract. We made our own contract with the subletting couple based on the template you can find on the Mieterverband website.
On a second though, if two parties sign a sublet, then there’s still risk one wants to go back and another doesn’t. Anyways, to my kind of problems..
The golden rule is that renting is always a risk.
I highly doubt the landlord has to accept an indefinite subletting contract - as in you don’t live there for years. One can argue that this is not a regular use case for a residential property.
As for “Nachmieter” - you can just deny the proposed renters and place the flat on the plattforms again.
I think after a period of time, the contract can be converted to one between landlord and sub-tenant.
To be fair, a landlord doesn’t have to accept ANY indefinite rental either direct or sublet. Even if you are, say, Zurich Insurance and paying double the going rate… 
As it happens, the one we set up lasted just over 6 years and our friends moved out. We handed the apartment back to the landlord because we didn’t know anyone else that might want it.
Yes, he can refuse, but with the current system would it make much sense for him? Price controls protect the next tenant as much as the previous one limiting the possible spike in %. Unless it’s for his friend, relative etc. or unless the prospective tenant is truly bad in some way, it probably makes no sense for him to refuse.