AubyvsCDNU t1_j4r2nrp wrote
I'm thinking of moving to the netherlands
Edwinus t1_j4rd4bh wrote
We don't have any houses fam
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4rd5xn wrote
fuck
ItchySnitch t1_j4teyvf wrote
How old are you? You coming off as pretty naive and immature in this thread
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4tldli wrote
18....and I'm. Gullible as fuck.
KingofReddit12345 t1_j4u4ahr wrote
Don't be discouraged, where there's a will there's a way. It's not like we've stopped all immigration entirely.
It's extremely difficult at the moment as even people living in the Netherlands can't find a new place to live within any reasonable timeframe, but it's not impossible either.
You're 18? Maybe by the time you're a bit older and actually decide to move to another country it'll be somewhat easier too. Bit optimistic maybe but again, it's not like nobody is getting in anymore. Why not you aswell?
PM_Me_British_Stuff t1_j4rh9wp wrote
like the entirety of Europe right now it seems aha
(except Italy?)
LilysTheorbo t1_j4rmf50 wrote
The entirety of the western industrialized world, at least anywhere where people want to live. It's almost like treating housing as an investment instead of as a necessity is bad...
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4rtkt0 wrote
triple fuck!
[deleted] t1_j4s5irw wrote
[deleted]
hastur777 t1_j4sqjeg wrote
Plenty of US states don’t have insane housing prices.
LilysTheorbo t1_j4sy652 wrote
People move there when none of the higher ranking states are available.
Mister_Lich t1_j4szuye wrote
So in other words "the more desirable places to live are more expensive because demand is huge."
Shocker.
Anyway, just build more housing. There is a direct and obvious connection between NIMBYism and expensive housing prices.
-CrestiaBell t1_j4u1uhc wrote
There's not really a scarcity of houses in America so much as there is an artificial scarcity created by companies that exist solely to buy up houses en masse and hike up their prices.
Mister_Lich t1_j4vn8yh wrote
This is literally just not true. Most houses are not corporate owned. Not even close. It's a few more percent than it was a few years ago.
​
You know what can cause this to drop? Building so much housing that you crash the market. Nobody wants to build tons of housing because all the homeowners vote against it because it tanks their equity values. You think that corporations are the big baddy, they aren't, it's HOA's and the fucks in the suburbs and shit that vote against every possible expansion or densification of anything because their primary concern is their equity, not your chances of homeownership. Vote YIMBY's into your local government. That is your only savior.
DeadAssociate t1_j4u6160 wrote
the netherlands has been in the top of most denselypopulated countries for 70 years or so. you cant just build more houses when every square cm is planned for.
RemcoProgrammer t1_j4uh8xg wrote
Except that we have plenty of space. Think of the Netherlands not as a densely populated country, but as a sparsely populated city.
twistedbronll t1_j4uakb9 wrote
We have space. They just build wicked expensive flats there.
Mister_Lich t1_j4vnjse wrote
You can build denser. Build more high-rises.
Yeah, when you run up against literal physical limitations, sometimes you have to choose between either having nice traditional-ish single family homes (or town-houses), or having more apartment/condo complexes - alternatively you cope with sky-high housing prices and a lack of ability for successive generations to have solid housing situations.
Most countries in the world don't have this problem though. The USA reeeeally doesn't.
DeadAssociate t1_j4wu722 wrote
sure we can. but we are a democracy, home ownership is over 60%, and no one is going to vote in any way to let the state take their home.
Mister_Lich t1_j4wzrfj wrote
Who said the state has to do this? Haven't you ever heard of like, selling houses?
Just allow developers to actually buy up land where 500 year old townhouses are and build highrise apartment complexes there. They'll buy out the owners of the land/houses that are willing to sell, and your city expands. This is literally how urbanization works.
You can't just indefinitely preserve all the ancient crap in a city just because it's pretty and then expect the city to never have issues with growth and modernization. Just literally allow people to bulldoze some of this stuff and invest in your city.
DeadAssociate t1_j4x84k4 wrote
to allow this the law needs to change, and this needs a vote. and the majority will vote no out of their best interest.
Mister_Lich t1_j4x8ypw wrote
Right, so it's entirely a self-inflicted issue of simply not being willing to build more housing. That's basically my whole point. Housing crises in the developed world are almost all because people just refuse to allow enough housing to be built, because the existing homeowners don't want to see their equity drop, or even just "stop going up as much," or worse yet, they'll claim it's to preserve historically relevant plots of dirt and bricks, and starve everyone else out.
Japan is a notable exception to this occurrence. They build more housing per capita than most developed countries, and the idea of housing being an investment rather than a commodity is not nearly as common there. As a result their real estate markets have been way flatter than most other developed countries. Also related is their national zoning laws which are amazing and every country should replicate them 1-to-1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfm2xCKOCNk
DeadAssociate t1_j4y63k5 wrote
well self inflicted upon the people that cant afford homes by the people that can.
RemcoProgrammer t1_j4uh5f3 wrote
It's not really NIMBYism that we don't build enough, it's (extremely necessary) environmental laws and not having enough builders and building materials. Foreign builders could help if they had a place to sleep between shifts...
Mister_Lich t1_j4vnq1u wrote
This is completely untrue for the USA (this comment chain is talking about the USA - that's mostly what I'm talking about), look up anything to do with the Bay Area and San Francisco when it comes to the legendary NIMBYism in that area. They do things like preserve "historic" laundromats and parking lots to avoid building multi-hundred unit apartment complexes (and of course, a good 20% or more of those would always be relegated for affordable housing - this would do nothing but help the city and its residents.)
No idea about the Netherlands' specific issues, to be fair.
RemcoProgrammer t1_j4vopsq wrote
Ah OK, I was talking about the Netherlands in particular, sorry for the confusion.
Mister_Lich t1_j4vovzm wrote
Np! I realized that this post was actually about the Netherlands so I probably am getting some people in this thread confused lol
s4b3r6 t1_j4u1srx wrote
> Anyway, just build more housing. There is a direct and obvious connection between NIMBYism and expensive housing prices.
One third of houses in my country are empty. In cities, too. The expensive housing doesn't have a lot to do with how many there are.
Mister_Lich t1_j4vmt97 wrote
>One third of houses in my country are empty
Source needed
Some vacancy is required in a healthy market, no vacancies means no supply, but 1/3rd being completely empty and unused sounds pretty unlikely, I'd like to see the source for that number.
s4b3r6 t1_j4voho4 wrote
Mister_Lich t1_j4vr6ky wrote
There are over 2mil dwellings in the Sydney area, this is not 1/3rd, it's like 8%-9%.
Build some more hotels and houses, this is literally Australia's megacity, it's their New York, of course there's huge demand for both permanent and temporary/tourist housing. People will eventually migrate to other areas if the city doesn't figure out how to build enough, and that's fine, too. Migration to and from cities is normal and healthy. New York City hasn't had population growth in like 60 years or some shit because it can't expand much more and isn't a very economically desirable place to live for a lot of people as a result, to say nothing of the midwest cities that have all been seeing their populations drop since the mid 20th century.
If a city has enormous demand, build more supply. That's literally your only solution. Rent controls don't work, it's been tried and tried and tried again. Your one and only solution is to build more. It will take time and people will have to leave the city if they can't afford to stay there. That is normal and that is just what happens. Sydney will learn to cope. Cities don't infinitely grow, sometimes they shrink or stagnate while they figure themselves out.
Moranic t1_j4uic0m wrote
Actually the Netherlands is massively in favor of building more houses, but our industry (notably agriculture) is emitting too much ammonia which is damaging the Natura2000 areas too much. So in many places we legally cannot build anything as it would raise the already too high ammonia levels even higher.
This lockup has caused investors to buy tons of properties because they know demand will rise without supply increasing with it.
[deleted] t1_j4t5t7x wrote
[removed]
reddit_user13 t1_j4tpbc3 wrote
“Anywhere people want to live”
Test19s t1_j4s315t wrote
Even Vienna is getting expensive lately from what I hear. Hopefully there is a fix beyond either a market collapse, Communism, or mass forced suburbanization.
Assassin739 t1_j4stmd4 wrote
(There's not)
McLarenMP4-26 t1_j4vop8k wrote
What's going on in Italy?
PM_Me_British_Stuff t1_j4vpyz9 wrote
Immigration is decreasing and emmigration is increasing - an aging population plus an economy which is struggling, I think they've got the higheat debt to GDP ratio in Europe except for Greece. Uni students move upon graduating and don't really get replaced so they've got a bit of a brain drain too.
I'm by no means am expert but that's my basic understanding of the situation.
McLarenMP4-26 t1_j4vvp54 wrote
Fair enough. Thanks.
Villad_rock t1_j4ro55j wrote
and mountains
[deleted] t1_j4s6btz wrote
[removed]
reddit_user13 t1_j4tp7qi wrote
NP, I’ll live in a windmill. Or houseboat. Or a big wooden shoe.
somdude04 t1_j4tn0fi wrote
What if I'm willing to live in a windmill?
DeadAssociate t1_j4u65fg wrote
lol. you need to get a windmillers degree. the waiting list is loooong
massive_cock t1_j4uzvd9 wrote
Ya, moved here to live with Dutch girlfriend in 2021 and while I don't regret it at all, I'm increasingly bothered by the fact that we'll probably be stuck in this old, smallish, and outdated apartment for many years. It does a fine job, but there's no hope of upward movement.
ggtsu_00 t1_j4tnboe wrote
There's plenty of houses, but like the rest of the world experiencing a housing crisis, the homes are being quickly bought up by commercial real estate investment firms which are collectively working together to inflate prices.
RemcoProgrammer t1_j4uhcj5 wrote
Not really, there are also just by far not enough houses.
Dutch_Rayan t1_j4vnxao wrote
Last year the Dutch population grew 115.257 that is a medium city. We can't build a city like that every year.
Test19s t1_j4s3526 wrote
Anyone who got into Northern Europe before 2010 is as close to set for life as it gets, outside of the independently wealthy.
Structuurtuur t1_j4rsfre wrote
You are in for a rude awakening
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4rtj1u wrote
Double fuck
diMario t1_j4tz4dg wrote
You might want to look into the Dutch American Friendship Treaty. Basically, you can relocate to the Netherlands as an American citizen if you are prepared to jump through some hoops. You will also need about € 6000, 4500 of which are to remain in your possession in a business bank account.
Official Dutch IND (government immigation service) website.
Lawyers if you prefer them. They cost extra money, of course.
Rannasha t1_j4uwwus wrote
Immigrating to the Netherlands through DAFT isn't that trivial. The program is intended for people starting (or moving) a business or being otherwise self-employed. Not only do you need a businessplan and some money in your pockets to apply, but you can only derive income from your business / self-employment while you're in the NL with DAFT, so you can't just transition to regular employment a year down the road or so.
twistedbronll t1_j4uap42 wrote
Only downside is that you have to learn dutch....
diMario t1_j4uhjjk wrote
In the short term, you can get by with only English. In the long term, if you want to become a Dutch citizen, you'll have to pass a test which among other things also grades you on having a rudimentary grasp of Dutch.
Rest assured though that most asylum seekers who come here from a vastly different culture (Middle East, many Ukrainians, a smattering of African nations and yes, even some from China) manage to pass the test after taking a course so it is doable.
[deleted] t1_j4u3ktv wrote
[deleted]
WackyNephews t1_j4tq6wx wrote
Check out Utrecht. University town. Fantastic downtown. Great food. Canals are beautiful. Good hockey team.
Dutch_Rayan t1_j4vods1 wrote
Waiting list for affordable housing is around 11 years, in Utrecht
WackyNephews t1_j4y2ykd wrote
Looked at a couple places while I was there. Wasn’t that bad.
motherlover_1 t1_j4rw0d9 wrote
It was already banned before this change. It only creates more labels to put on people.
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4rwo8p wrote
Even better must've created more protections now I even more wanna move there.
motherlover_1 t1_j4ry446 wrote
Nope, doesn’t change anything at all. Purely symbolic. More than welcome to come here but this shouldn’t be the reason.
[deleted] t1_j4s32uh wrote
[deleted]
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4ry6b0 wrote
than what's the point of the bill.......
CompassionateCedar t1_j4s431i wrote
It was not in the constitution, now it is. It was however in national laws and pretty sure it’s a requirement by Europe.
The only change is that other laws that might lead to discrimination like this can be blocked on constitutional grounds if anyone tries to pass them.
[deleted] t1_j4sl0pq wrote
The Dutch constitution specifies in article 120 that courts cannot test for constitutionality of laws. Whether a bill aligns with the constitution is very much a political decision made by the Dutch Senate itself. Instead, courts can test whether laws align with international treaties we signed, such as EU law.
The motivation of this constitutional change is also symbolic. The constitution always specified that any discrimination was illegal, but there was support for changing the constitution because parties felt that if it was named explicitly in the constitution, this would be seen as a signal to the relevant communities that they are validated and the parliament values them.
CompassionateCedar t1_j4sptk1 wrote
Wait what? Then what is the point of a constitution if constitutionality of laws doesn’t apply
[deleted] t1_j4sxag3 wrote
The Dutch constitution still provides the legal basis for the monarchy, how the democracy is set up, how the Supreme Courts (we have like 4) are selected, and alike. As mentioned, one can’t invoke it in court, but the provisions of the Dutch constitution with respect to how the national institutions functions is followed.
Moreover, many articles in the Dutch constitution also go like “freedom of privacy must be maintained, unless otherwise specified in the law”. It is a constitution that provides a general framework for the national governance and much of Dutch legislation derives from it. For example, article 1 of the Constitution (which is now changed per this article) bans discrimination, which is then transposed into the General Law on Equal Treatment passed by parliament and the Senate.
Theoretically of course, with enough political will the constitution can be ignored, but there is no political will for that whatsoever.
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4t0rqi wrote
Wait so its. Now. In the Constitution now my disappointment is gone yay
[deleted] t1_j4t28bp wrote
Technically it was already in the Dutch constitution under “or any other form of discrimination”. Now they wrote it slightly more explicitly to basically signal to disabled people and LGBT folk they are important.
Practically, it doesn’t really change anything, but that was also never the goal
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4ry7av wrote
My disapointment
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments