As Zurich continues to be gripped by rising housing costs, a new proposal would see Swiss people given priority when applying for rental apartments. Supporters hope the idea will help prevent locals from being displaced, but ethical and legal concerns remain unanswered.
At a conference on June 24, the Zurich wing of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) presented its plan to help solve the housing crisis in the city. The referendum, called “Right to a Homeland - Housing for Our People”, would radically change how homes are allocated. If approved, all private landlords would be obliged to give priority to applications made by Swiss citizens and those who have lived in Canton Zurich for at least 10 years.
Using an example used in the referendum text, obtained by the Tages-Anzeiger, if a landlord receives an application for their home from a Swiss person from Zug and a holder of a residence permit who has been living in Canton Zurich for 10 years, it is up to the landlord to decide who to give the home to. However, if a Swiss person and an international who has lived in Zurich for five years apply, the landlord would be required to grant the home to the Swiss applicant, even if they do not live in the region.
If a landlord ignores the new system of priority, they would be sanctioned under the tenancy law. The policy itself would go into effect if the population of Switzerland as a whole reaches 10 million people before 2050 - current estimates suggest the country will hit the milestone in around 15 years.
According to Tages-Anzeiger estimates, the proposal would have a dramatic impact on a large slice of the Zurich population. If it were imposed in 2024, it would affect the 49.000 foreign nationals who moved to the canton in that year, alongside the 67.000 people who have lived in the region for less than 10 years.
Speaking to the newspaper, SVP Zurich president Domenik Ledergerber argued that Swiss citizens are being driven out of the city by rising rents and demand from new arrivals - over the last five years, an average of 2.900 more Swiss have moved away from Zurich than moved in. He also called out business leaders and left-wing parties that see the solution to the ongoing housing crisis as building more homes.
He cited official data, noting that the number of apartments in Switzerland has risen by a third since 2000, and an average of 8.000 new apartments are built in Zurich every year. “And yet it’s still not enough,” he noted.
Though the SVP say its proposal is legally sound, law professor at the University of Zurich, Daniel Moeckli, concluded that the idea should be declared invalid. He argued that it interferes with the property rights of landlords and would likely break Switzerland’s freedom of movement agreements with the EU. It would also likely fall foul of discrimination laws.
Michael Hermann of the Sotomo research institute said that it was a “clever move by the SVP” to conflate the current housing crisis with immigration. Nevertheless, he argued against the idea, noting it would “diminish the attractiveness of the canton of Zurich as a business and educational location” and discriminate against people who are needed as the region’s worker shortage bites.
However, he also warned that such a proposal could prove especially popular with the public if it ever reached the ballot box. Lukas Golder of GFS Bern added that even if it is declared illegal, the idea will serve as a bellwether for public opinion and help steer the housing debate toward the SVP’s talking points around migration.
Though the SVP may be convinced of expats’ role in soaring rents, other experts have argued the view is too simplistic. This week, urban expert Christian Schmid explained that while the pressures of immigration do have an impact on rental costs, Zurich’s economic model, restrictive planning system and lack of ambition when it comes to building new homes are the main reasons for the crisis.
The SVP is expected to decide whether to start collecting signatures for the referendum at their next party conference. This will be held on August 13.