Voters support stricter regulations for subletting

(Keystone-SDA) The yes comes as a bit of a surprise. The bill was on the brink in recent polls. The proportion of “no” votes increased continuously during the voting campaign, which corresponds to an exceptional case in the formation of opinions for government proposals.

Ultimately, the referendum on an alliance around the tenants’ association was not successful. The bourgeois yes camp retained the upper hand. It had worked out the sublease changes.

Curb abuses

The stricter regulations were initiated by the former Zurich SVP National Councilor Hans Egloff, ex-president of the homeowners association. Among those in favor were the SVP, FDP and Center Party as well as the trade and homeowners association.

They argued that today’s requirements for subletting are often not met. There are abuses. For subletting, clear regulations and legal certainty are needed to protect tenants, subtenants and neighbors from noise and activity in the house.

Tenants must now submit a written request for subletting and landlords must agree to the subletting in writing. Changes in subtenants must also be reported to the landlord. If the rules are not adhered to, termination can be made within at least thirty days after unsuccessful written reminder.

“Attack on tenant protection”

The voters ultimately followed the arguments of the yes camp, according to which the new rules strengthened legal certainty. Landlords can refuse subletting for more reasons than today. The law leaves a door open for this.

The opponents therefore saw the bill as an attack on tenant protection and as a “throw-out bill”. In addition to the tenants’ association, the no camp also included the SP, the Greens, the GLP, trade unions, associations, pensioners and students.