A virgin building plot today is worth gold and it irritates people’s minds. For more than two years, a standoff has opposed the commune of Prilly, which used its right of pre-emption on a plot by removing it from possible private buyers, and the Canton, which considers that it did so. problematically. Last week, a court looked into the issue after the intervention of the tenants’ association, Asloca.
The heart of the problem? The fact that this land was pre-empted by the Municipality, but that the 62 million francs it cost was paid directly by CMHC, the Lausanne housing cooperative to which it wishes to transfer it. And this, without having gone through a procedure opening up to competition. After losing a round in court for opposing this transaction, as “24 Heures” recalls, the Canton had modified its regulations so that the municipalities which make use of this right go through an open tender procedure, and that they must themselves have the resources to purchase the property, thus becoming owners, before possibly making it available to third parties. This de facto restricts their action, because certain municipalities simply do not have the means, regretted Asloca, which had opposed it.
The Constitutional Court rejected Asloca’s request, finding that the regulation complies with higher law and that its interpretation by the Council of State is correct: the municipality does not necessarily have to hold the resources, but must be able to pay of the sale price, even if it is a partner who pays them when the time comes.
But Asloca notes that it took the opportunity to clarify the terms of the regulation. “To the extent that municipalities do not have unlimited resources, they must be able to use other resources from third parties such as private actors or cooperatives in particular, which must even be encouraged,” she writes. Thus, “it de facto removes all the scope that the Council of State wanted to give to its regulatory modifications,” analyzes Asloca.
“The right of pre-emption constitutes an effective tool for removing housing from speculation, which in no way harms the interests of the seller – the price paid by the community being that offered by the prospective buyer – and which thus makes it possible to meet the needs of the population,” recalls Asloca. She now plans to send a letter to all Vaud municipalities to inform them of their rights and encourage them to use them.
Note, however, that it is now up to the Federal Court to decide on the legality or otherwise of the Pilleran legislative vote on this purchase.
