In the short term, how can you think the housing need be tackled best? How can we ensure that more affordable homes are available for people with lower to medium incomes.

It has gone wrong by some of the most stupid policy choices of the cabinets Rutte.For example, it was decided to impose a so-called landlord levy on the housing corporations. This levy is now slowly starting to increase to two months of rental income per year. This has led to a sector, which is actually insensitive to the business cycle, seeing its construction production collapse from 40,000 homes per year to 14,000 units per year.

At the moment we are still well under the 20,000.Because of this building activity, many construction companies have gone bankrupt and many builders have hung their tools on the Willows. So We do not have the production capacity at all to run into the deficits.

Also, far too little soil is released due to viscous municipal procedures.In addition, all municipalities want to solve the problems by building inner city. That lasts twice as long and is also much more expensive.

What should happen?The landlord levy should be deleted and there should be much quicker land available, even outside the city.

An encouraging development is that there are plans to allow the municipalities to build 15,000 temporary dwellings in open spaces in the city.These are modular factory dwellings, which can be placed on the construction site at lightning speed. For those homes you don’t need construction workers. Moreover, they are qualitatively so good that they can easily carry 60 years.

As follows:

Larger subsidies

Industrials settle in the sparsely populated parts of the Netherlands, where homes are cheaper.

Make it more attractive for people to move to the sparsely populated parts of the country.

Cheaper houses and apartments build by a creative review of house design, building techniques, rules, permits.

Encourage subletting.

Stay at home longer.

More sharply adapted government policy.

All that with the notion that “housing distress” is a relative concept and will continue to exist.

This fundamental problem cannot be solved by building more.Options will need to be searched for longer to stay at home, or to include parents in the house.

Students in the university cities could be searched for easy and quick to do unsustainable living space (e.g.containers). It will be necessary to look more closely at less sustainable solutions for affordable living space, because after 2050 demographic development has a strong downward edge.

The population grows faster than can be built.Over the last 20 years, 2 million people have been added. That’s four big provincial towns to housing what’s needed. This growth takes place mainly in the Randstad. That is why the house needs the greatest. However, there are also Krimpregio芒 鈧劉 s in the Netherlands, Regio芒 鈧劉 s where the population decreases. There is obviously more living space available.

The housing distress can only be tackled by slowing down the growth of the population or even shrinking it.This means fewer children and less immigration. Also, people could move to Krimpregio芒 鈧劉 s.

‘, ‘ I note that the current political-liberal-wind that is blowing there is not going to take care of that.Just look at how a concept like ‘ housing ‘, which once fell under a real ministry, disappeared behind the horizon. Social housing, together with other social services such as student finance, has increasingly been eroded and pushed to the margins. New and vacant social housing almost exclusively go to the least-fortunate people with social problems and asylum seekers. The waiting times have risen to sometimes more than ten years. The idea is, of course, that the attached Members look for something different in the meantime. And often, over time, they deserve so much that they are not even more eligible for social housing.
Meanwhile, the limit of the price at which people can still get a house of sale continues, especially in the Randstad.The requirements for mortgages have been tightened up in 2008 after the crisis, despite the fact that the low interest rate makes them extra attractive. The downside of that coin was therefore increasing prices.
The last time the government took the initiative for large-scale new-build neighbourhoods-the Vinex-is now also 25 years behind us.And it does not look like a new initiative to come. Municipalities have also left the ground for new neighbourhoods, a few exceptions. ‘ Expanding ‘ is the motto: Restructuring and reconstructing old industrial sites for housing and, where possible, compacting the existing city. This requires tailor-made work and is very labor intensive. A pasture with a few thousand terraced houses is no longer there.
Because the Empire leaves the initiative, you would expect municipalities and provinces to start working.This is but to a limited extent the case. Yet it is precisely the provinces that have a legal direction to make planning choices and to work with municipalities in new neighbourhoods.
What also doesn’t help are the huge land purchases that project developers have made to be sure they are there when new neighborhoods are designated.This obviously has a price-driving effect. Municipalities still need to be able to earn some money, especially if they are tight in cash. And the necessary facilities must also be laid out.
I am writing that because I want the initiative to be more citizens.That is what governments want, because it takes a lot of burden and the impression is taken that citizens are hampered by public authorities. That not those governments, but rather market parties between dream and act, is wrang. Citizens should not demonstrate to the government, but at the gates of construction companies and institutional investors.

Leave a Reply