The most important facts after the crash of the two tenancy law bills
Published: Sunday, Nov 24th 2024, 20:50
Volver a Live Feed
The electorate narrowly rejected the two amendments to tenancy law on Sunday, with 51.6 percent (subletting) and 53.8 percent (owner-occupancy) voting against. What does this mean? And what happens now? The most important questions and answers:
WHAT WAS THE INITIAL SITUATION?
Switzerland is a country of renters. At the end of 2022, over sixty percent of households were in rented accommodation. Most inhabitants live in rented accommodation, particularly in the big cities.
The conservative-dominated parliament wanted to enforce stricter rules for subletting and the simplified assertion of personal use. The tenants' association launched a referendum against this. Despite having fewer financial resources available for the referendum campaign, it was able to convince a majority of the left-wing parties of its arguments.
WHAT ARE THE FINAL RESULTS?
53.8 percent said no to new rules on owner-occupation, while 51.6 percent rejected a revision of the provisions on subletting. The Rösti and the urban-rural divide are striking: The cantons of western Switzerland and the large cities - including in German-speaking Switzerland - rejected new rental rules. In the rural cantons, the majority voted yes.
The no vote at the ballot box did not come as a complete surprise. The two tenancy law bills were scrutinized more and more critically during the course of the referendum campaign, which is the exception when it comes to opinion-forming for government bills.
WHAT CAUSED THE TEMPLATES TO FALL?
According to the research institute gfs.bern, it was the Swiss cities that tipped the scales. The No campaign was able to mobilize an above-average number of voters there. A look at the voting map shows an above-average voter turnout in urban municipalities. The voting behavior of the population living there was also decisive for the success of the two referendums.
For example, around three quarters of voters in the city of Geneva voted against the two clarifications, compared to around two thirds in the city of Basel. Overall, the 'yes' vote for the subletting proposal was 18 percentage points lower in the cities than in rural areas. The difference was as much as 20 percentage points for the clarification on owner-occupation.
According to gfs.bern, in addition to the increased urban mobilization, the two referendums benefited from a mood in the country that was generally rather critical of the authorities. At the same time, the fact that the Federal Council did not strongly support the two amendments to tenancy law during the campaign phase probably also played a role.
WHAT DO THE TWO NO'S MEAN?
The rules on terminating rental properties for personal use and on subletting remain the same. After purchasing a property, the new owner can terminate a tenancy agreement taken over from the previous owner early with a longer notice period if they can claim urgent personal use. In the event of a legal dispute with landlords, tenants are protected from so-called revenge terminations during the proceedings and for a certain period afterwards.
The current rules must also be used to combat subletting abuses. Landlords must be informed about subletting and can veto it if the main tenant sublets rooms at too high a price, if the landlord has to accept disadvantages - such as noise or overcrowding - or if the main tenant does not inform the landlord about the conditions of the sublet.
The consent of the landlord must still be obtained for rentals via online platforms. In addition, depending on the canton and municipality of residence, restrictions apply to rentals via platforms.
HOW DO THE WINNERS REACT?
The tenants' association sees the result as a "resounding slap in the face for the real estate lobby". The result is a clear rejection of two initiatives that are about to be discussed in parliament and would "open the door to excessive, abusive rents". The double "no" is also good news for the many SMEs that share space and rental costs with other business tenants.
The planned revisions to the law would also have led to a further increase in rents and thus a further weakening of employees' purchasing power, according to the employees' umbrella organization Travail Suisse. The SP called for an immediate rent moratorium, an obligation to regularly review yields for larger landlords and the promotion of non-profit housing construction.
HOW DO THE LOSERS REACT?
For the homeowners' association, the result of the vote does not solve the problems with abuses. The FDP fears rising rents. The two "no" votes were a blow to the future of the country, wrote the FDP.
WHAT DOES THE FEDERAL COUNCIL SAY ABOUT THE REJECTION?
In the view of the majority, the proposals had increased the imbalance between tenants and landlords, said Economics Minister Guy Parmelin. Furthermore, it was not clear to many why the new rules were needed. Before new projects are dealt with, the interests of tenants and landlords must be sounded out, said Parmelin. Compromises are needed.
WHAT HAPPENS NOW?
Federal Councillor Guy Parmelin warned against leaving tenancy law as it is today. The laws need to be modernized and updated in some areas. This would require a transparent, constructive dialog between all those affected. On the one hand, effective tenant protection is needed, on the other hand, entrepreneurial freedom for investors.
Parmelin plans to hold new talks with the heads of tenants' and landlords' associations soon, as he announced. He emphasized that the Federal Council has "hardly any room for manoeuvre" when it comes to tenancy law and that the cantons and municipalities in particular have a duty to act.
Further debates on tenancy law can be expected soon. The relevant National Council committee recently passed two bills that raise the hurdles for tenants to defend themselves against initial rents. The National Council is expected to decide on the bills in the spring.
©Keystone/SDA
Spanish 
English 
German 
French 
Arabic