the tenants, “the cash cows of Switzerland”

Homeowners are a clear minority in Switzerland. But their political influence is enormous. We see this clearly during the vote on tenancy law.

Follow me

When Jacqueline Badran starts, the walls shake. It is not for nothing that the Zurich PS national councilor is readily described as a primary political force. There is hardly a subject on which she can get as fired up as about the Swiss real estate market. For Badran, there is an “illegal situation”.

A sample of his indignation was given during the NO press conference to the two bills on tenancy law which will be put to the vote on November 24. Jacqueline Badran held one of her infamous “proseminars” on land and real estate.

Jacqueline Badran, Tuesday, during the press conference.Image: keystone

In his eyes, the owners have a power which allows them to absorb not only the willingness to pay, but also the ability to pay of tenants. The law would, however, prescribe rent based on costs. But in reality, it is the market rent that prevails in Switzerland, which constitutes “a huge scandal” for Badran.

“Cash cows of the nation”

The Zurich resident, who is also a member of the committee of the Tenants’ Association (AL), quantified rent overpaid at 10 billion francs per year, or 370 francs per month per household. No wonder Badran called the tenants the “cash cows of the nation.” However, from a purely demographic point of view, they would clearly be in the majority.

It is precisely in wealthy Switzerland that the proportion of people living within their own walls is the lowest in Europe. With 36%, it represents a little more than a third of the population. 58% are tenants and barely 3% are cooperators. The rest is made up of special cases such as official housing.

Switzerland, the new Monaco

It will always be this way, and there are several reasons for this, including the scarcity of building land due to land development as the population increases. For a growing number of people, the dream of a detached house or even a condominium apartment has vanished. Home ownership is no longer a symbol of prosperity, but of social status.

The real estate expert and Zurich cantonal councilor of the PEV Donato Scognamiglio underlined this:

This has consequences for the structure of the population. Poor people are pushed from expensive cities to urban areas and the countryside.

The Parliament of Owners

The cure is not in sight, because when it comes to housing at the national level, policy is far from reflecting the entire population, as the NZZ on Sunday. In the National Council, the ownership rate is 72%. It is twice as high as in the population. In the Council of States, it is even higher, at more than 80%.

This does not only concern the bourgeois camp. According to the NZZ on Sundaythe majority of parliamentarians from the left of the Council, among the Socialists and the Greens, also own their homes. We saw a glimpse of this when the Greens last year demanded a minimum number of occupants for new rentals and new housing constructions.

A group powerful

When watson asked representatives of the National Council and the Council of States how many square meters they themselves occupied, the response was deafening silence. However, the Swiss Landowners’ Association (HEV), chaired by Zurich UDC national councilor Gregor Rutz, has a lot of influence.

Gregor Rutz chairs the Landowners Association, one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the country.Image: keystone

Under his leadership, six interventions were submitted in Bern, with a common orientation: to facilitate lease terminations and the resulting rent increases. According to Jacqueline Badran, the Council of States was ready to adopt an overall view, but the National Council ensured that they were adopted as separate projects.

ASM vice-president Adriano Venuti spoke of a “well-orchestrated attack on tenancy law”. The first two projects will be put to the vote in November, as SA has launched a double referendum. The anger was palpable during the press conference of the yes committee a week earlier, because he has bad cards in his hands.

Pretext for expulsion

Given the shortage of affordable housing, facilitated termination for personal need has virtually no chance. Which is also due to the fact that, according to Lucerne Greens national councilor Michael Töngi, this possibility is already often used as a pretext to evict tenants and then increase the rent.

The slogan of the “no” campaign.Image: keystone

The situation is a little better when it comes to restrictions on subletting, thanks to warnings against Airbnb or corporate apartments, which further restrict the housing market. However, in most cases, these offers come from the landlords themselves. And they can already intervene when tenants offer their accommodation on Airbnb.

No state control

Other attacks on tenancy rights, aimed for example at making it more difficult to contest the initial rent, will have difficulty passing in the event of a double no. But this does not change the basic problem, namely the de facto illegal situation on the real estate market. The code of obligations is however clear on this point:

However, exceptions immediately follow, for example for adjustments to “usual rents in the locality or district” as well as for “cost increases or additional services from the landlord”. Thanks to these “erased” guidelines, institutional owners such as real estate groups or pension funds can “empty” entire buildings.

This is possible because there is no state control body. Tenants must prove themselves that a termination or rent increase is unfair, as Fabian Gloor, legal advisor to the tenants’ association, explained to watson. Many people do not dare to do it, and it is well known that where there is no complainant, there is no judge.

The tenants’ association wants to change this with a popular initiative which will be launched after the vote. But for the foreseeable future, property owners will be sitting on the longest lever and collecting a “benefit-free annuity,” as Jacqueline Badran explained. To the great dismay of tenants, because excessive rents are, according to the socialist, the “number one killer of purchasing power”.

(Translated and adapted by Chiara Lecca)