"Anti foreigner sentiment"? Dear NYT, try to find an apartment in the EU or Switzerland. At best, you will get a furnished (to circumvent rent caps), overpriced 30 square meter dump that takes up 40% of your net salary.
Once that problem is solved, we can talk about "sentiments".
I doubt that very much. Sure there's places where the rent is less, but there's no jobs there. So a very low rent will still be over 40% of your pay (ie. nothing)
Sure, apartments in Paris are overpriced because of immigrants buying them all. Fuck, that is so stupid. The same people parroting this anti-foreigners hate are also completely indifferent to slumlords profiteering on housing, and will support politicians who consistently side with landlords and homeowners over tenants and first buyers. Housing has never become more affordable under a right wing government.
Citizens can choose to prioritize quality of life over maximizing housing stock to increase the domestic population. “We’re all full up.” It is their country after all, it is their choice. Those who want in are not stakeholders nor have a vote.
You're stating this option like it's obvious and simple, but this all just amounts to choosing which of multiple ways to make one's country worse. While growth/immigration has macro-economic positives, it's not infinitely positive, so it doesn't justify ever-denser housing and ever-increasing cultural sub-dividing forever - and as people become less happy, they care less and less about "how the economy is doing".
Of course, nobody can agree on where the line is, or escape the shoulder-rubbing with racism and classism while trying to argue where the line is.
The problem is that most people want to live in cities for whatever reason and, lo and behold, if one wants to buy regional and biological the grain has to grow somewhere on the countryside.
But yeah, most people have lost touch with where food comes from originally, before it's in the shelves of your supermarket.
It's much easier to blame the out group for your issues. The US currently has a sizable percentage of people that believe ICE deportations are going to lower housing prices, for example.
“We will do literally anything to make housing more affordable except build more of it.”
Forget where I first saw that but it’s absolutely true.
The left will try rent control, subsidies, taxes and prohibitions against speculation, banning AirBnB, etc. The right will try mass deportations and population caps.
Nobody will build more housing because that would work, and home owners are incentivized not to do anything that would work, and homeowners vote in much larger numbers.
The problem won’t be solved until renters out vote homeowners and until everyone who wants more affordable housing stops advocating the solutions that will not work.
I support YIMBYism for ones own countrymen but I don't see the need to fit as many people as possible in your country. A Switzerland with 25 million people will be a worse place to live regardless of whether the housing supply keeps up
There might be a population limit that a country wants to set, based on effects of population visible in employment, housing , transportation, and social services.
There might be a motivation to curb immigration from certain parts of the world, based on cultural factors and aligning more with one side of the political spectrum than the other.
Context as a Swiss person: One of the strongest political parties in Switzerland today is the SVP (german acronym) which is right-wing. It has won a strong plurality in national elections for easily a decade.
This vote, however, does not stem from the federal (or even state-level) government, but instead is an initiative launched by a group of conservative politicians which happen to be part of the SVP party. The Swiss Federal Council (executive body) has come out against this initiative.
Switzerland has a form of direct democracy, where any group of individuals can propose a change in laws and if they collect 100k signatures (within 18 months) this proposed text will be voted on by the whole country. Here is a list of all referendums, a subset of which are these initiatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swiss_federal_referend...
These initiatives are a frequent feature in Swiss politics, and not necessarily indicative of broadly popular legislation. In fact, whether or not an initiative is accepted is heavily correlated with the support it receives form the federal government. Give that they oppose it, I would bet against this passing.
SVP "which is right-wing" may not convey the degree and nature of that alignment. Just search for "SVP propaganda posters" or read https://www.dw.com/en/far-right-party-violated-anti-racism-l.... When I lived in Switzerland I was pretty shocked by how "out" the hard right was. It was as if having been neutral in WW2 not enough of their homegrown fascists got shot, and they still had plain old Nazis kicking around, holding offices and passing laws.
"Against the Swiss constitution" doesn't really make sense here. This is a popular initiative; if accepted, it amends the Swiss constitution. Here's the text: https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/vi/vis555t.html
Unless you want to argue that this violates the mandatory provisions of international law, I don't think you have an argument. The text of the amendment specifically clarifies that any of the actions it mandates on parliament have to adhere to the mandatory provisions of international law, so I don't think that's an avenue you can pursue.
I don't think immigrants make up the basis of the Swiss economy. Looking at their demographic data[1], it was pretty strongly European dominated for a very long time, and is still ~80% European.
When people talk about immigrants in this context, I don't think they mean people from the US, but lower socioeconomic asylum-seekers and refugees etc. from the middle-east.
It definitely seems their economy was built on European labor, which I believe the vast majority of European countries were.
Based on Switzerland’s total fertility rate of 1.3, the population increases only due to immigration, so controlling the flow of immigration is all that would need to happen.
Readit News
Once that problem is solved, we can talk about "sentiments".
Of course, nobody can agree on where the line is, or escape the shoulder-rubbing with racism and classism while trying to argue where the line is.
But yeah, most people have lost touch with where food comes from originally, before it's in the shelves of your supermarket.
Has changing zoning laws historically ever boosted housing construction by more than 10%?
Forget where I first saw that but it’s absolutely true.
The left will try rent control, subsidies, taxes and prohibitions against speculation, banning AirBnB, etc. The right will try mass deportations and population caps.
Nobody will build more housing because that would work, and home owners are incentivized not to do anything that would work, and homeowners vote in much larger numbers.
The problem won’t be solved until renters out vote homeowners and until everyone who wants more affordable housing stops advocating the solutions that will not work.
There might be a population limit that a country wants to set, based on effects of population visible in employment, housing , transportation, and social services.
There might be a motivation to curb immigration from certain parts of the world, based on cultural factors and aligning more with one side of the political spectrum than the other.
This vote, however, does not stem from the federal (or even state-level) government, but instead is an initiative launched by a group of conservative politicians which happen to be part of the SVP party. The Swiss Federal Council (executive body) has come out against this initiative.
Switzerland has a form of direct democracy, where any group of individuals can propose a change in laws and if they collect 100k signatures (within 18 months) this proposed text will be voted on by the whole country. Here is a list of all referendums, a subset of which are these initiatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swiss_federal_referend...
These initiatives are a frequent feature in Swiss politics, and not necessarily indicative of broadly popular legislation. In fact, whether or not an initiative is accepted is heavily correlated with the support it receives form the federal government. Give that they oppose it, I would bet against this passing.
This happened everywhere, to an extent that is genuinely surprising to me.
Pretty much every German company and government position post WW2 is in this category. And funnily enough, a good number of American organizations.
Chile's president is the son of a Nazi.
Japan went on operating business as usual except for the invading China part.
And will those people be exiled or taken out to the back?
The only way you could argue an initiative is "against the Swiss constitution" in my opinion would be if it runs afoul of the rules: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/en#tit_4/chap_2
Unless you want to argue that this violates the mandatory provisions of international law, I don't think you have an argument. The text of the amendment specifically clarifies that any of the actions it mandates on parliament have to adhere to the mandatory provisions of international law, so I don't think that's an avenue you can pursue.
But, it does seem like a terrible place to live. I fear for the immigrants who form the basis of the economy.
When people talk about immigrants in this context, I don't think they mean people from the US, but lower socioeconomic asylum-seekers and refugees etc. from the middle-east.
It definitely seems their economy was built on European labor, which I believe the vast majority of European countries were.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland#Pe...