Gregor Rutz, President of the Landowners’ Association (APF), in January 2022 in Bern.Image: KEYSTONE
As the new president of the Landowners’ Association, SVP National Councillor Gregor Rutz outlines his plans: deregulation and liberalization to allow more construction in Switzerland. Interview.
Othmar von Matt / ch media
What is your main concern as the new president of the Landowners’ Association (APF)?
Gregor Rutz:
“Democracy and the protection of property are inseparable”
The security of property is the foundation of our prosperity. However, today, property rights are increasingly limited, sometimes unknowingly. This concerns me. It is important that young people and the middle class can also afford to own a home.
Is home ownership now reserved only for the wealthy or affluent?
In rural areas, prices are still reasonable.
“But in urban areas we are seeing an unhealthy evolution of prices”
In Zurich, Geneva and Lausanne for example?
In cities in general, but also in places like St. Moritz, Davos or Zermatt. It’s the downside of success.
“Switzerland is an attractive place: everyone wants to settle there. This drives up prices”
On the other hand, we also see that the market is completely overregulated. Every intervention by the State makes the cost of home ownership even more expensive. We must break this dangerous cycle.
The home ownership rate has fallen in recent years from 38.5 to 35.9 percent, and is significantly lower than in Germany, for example.
This rate is significantly lower than in many countries. This goes once morest the Federal Constitution. It states that the Confederation must create incentives for people to be able to buy a home. Our problem is the imbalance between supply and demand. If we address the demand issue, it concerns immigration. It cannot continue like this. We cannot build as many homes as there are people who want to settle in Switzerland.
What should be done in the short term?
We need to change this, but also address the supply side: we need to deregulate so that we can build more housing, better and smarter. The red-green government of the city of Zurich rightly criticizes the ISOS, the Federal Inventory of Protected Built-up Areas. In Zurich, three-quarters of the built-up area is, in a way, protected: you cannot change the character of certain streets or the architectural style of certain districts. This makes it impossible to densify buildings; it is a real building ban. The city council has understood this well. I tabled a motion to this effect seven years ago.
“We are far too bureaucratic and this makes housing more expensive”
Gregor Rutz, UDC national advisor.
You want to deregulate very widely, in terms of protection once morest noise, protection of monuments and heritage or possibilities of opposition.
Exactly. It is the noise protection regulations that mean that we can no longer build in cities. However, in cities, there is noise everywhere…
Do you also want to strengthen the link between work and housing?
In Zurich, there were demands to cut jobs in certain districts because the workers would make too much noise. This is absurd. These are communist approaches. We cannot tell people where they should work and where they should live.
By deregulating in this way, are you not jeopardizing public health achievements?
No. Residential areas must be allowed to continue to develop, there is an urgent need for housing. Investments enable progress, particularly in terms of energy efficiency and noise protection. Today, we are drowning in bureaucracy. Some requirements are insane, for example initiatives that require a right of pre-emption by the state are on hold.
“If you want to sell your house, in the future you will have to first ask the city if it wants to buy it.”
This leads to absurd bureaucracy and time delays. The investment climate is deteriorating. To create housing, private investors and personal initiatives are needed. This is not a task for the state.
Rising housing costs are a problem for both owners and tenants. How do you assess this phenomenon?
Housing costs are a substantial part of the budget for both, that’s for sure. New regulatory requirements, higher construction costs, rising energy prices are all factors that are pushing up prices, in addition to immigration and the resulting shortage of supply.
Would you like to do something regarding this?
Yes, the complexity and length of the procedures lead to unnecessary costs. Fortunately, we are finally discussing in Parliament the contradictions between the Spatial Planning Act and the Nature and Heritage Protection Act, but also the problem of noise protection.
Would you like to collaborate more with the tenants’ association?
Of course, we need to maintain a dialogue. Objectively, we have very similar interests. Private owners who are organized within the Landowners Association have an interest in concluding fair and long-term contracts and having satisfied tenants.
“Anyone who has ever experienced a change of tenant knows how painful it is.”
Of course, a landlord needs a return to be able to make investments. But he also wants the tenant to feel that he is being treated fairly. We must also seek dialogue with institutional landlords or with project owners.
For what?
The pandemic has shown that when micro-enterprises such as yoga studios went bankrupt or almost went bankrupt, it was very often linked to institutional landlords. Institutional landlords must be aware that they cannot work with Excel spreadsheets alone. A rental relationship always takes place between people. Tenancy law should function like the social partnership in the field of work. The legal prerequisites for this are there, but the necessary sensitivity is often lacking. Last week, the President of the Federation of Entrepreneurs formulated various demands. That the rental market should be liberalized and the rental value abolished is true. But demanding that large residential areas be taxed more is absurd.
“This anti-property idea comes straight out of socialist mothballs. The fact that an entrepreneur is making such demands is somewhat irritating.”
Would you like to correct the image of the Landowners Association?
I don’t believe much in image promotion. The fact is that APF is a medium-sized organization. We have many members who own only one house.
“These are people who have saved all their lives and who have acquired housing as a retirement provision. We must defend their interests.”
Translated and adapted by Tanja Maeder
The floods that hit Grisons
1 / 14
The floods that hit Grisons
On Friday, June 21, the Moesa River burst its banks. The floods destroyed part of the A13 motorway and caused deadly landslides.
source: sda / alessandro crinari
This Boeing trip was a real anguish
Video: watson
You may also be interested in:
Gregor Rutz: A Deregulated Vision for Housing in Switzerland
Gregor Rutz, the newly appointed president of the Landowners’ Association (APF), outlines his vision for tackling Switzerland’s housing crisis: deregulation and liberalization to facilitate increased construction. In an interview with Othmar von Matt, Rutz emphasizes the need to address the existing imbalance between supply and demand, arguing that excessive regulation and bureaucratic hurdles contribute to the rising cost of homeownership.
Tackling the Housing Crisis: A Two-Pronged Approach
Rutz identifies two key areas of focus: demand and supply. On the demand side, he points to the role of immigration in exacerbating the housing crunch, suggesting that it cannot continue at its current pace without a corresponding increase in housing supply. On the supply side, he advocates for a decisive shift toward deregulation to stimulate construction.
Deregulation: A Key to Housing Affordability
Rutz views excessive regulation as a primary obstacle to housing affordability. He criticizes the Federal Inventory of Protected Built-up Areas (ISOS), which he argues restricts densification and effectively functions as a building ban. He also calls for a loosening of noise protection regulations that he claims hinder construction within cities. Rutz sees these regulations as a form of bureaucratic overreach that unnecessarily drives up housing costs.
However, Rutz’s call for widespread deregulation has drawn criticism, particularly from those who fear that it might lead to a decline in environmental and public health protections. Critics argue that loosening regulations on noise, heritage protection, and opposition might compromise the quality of life in Switzerland’s urban centers.
The Role of the State: A Measured Approach
Rutz believes that private investment and initiatives, rather than state intervention, are the key to creating more housing. He criticizes the practice of state-led right of pre-emption, arguing that it further hinders investment and exacerbates bureaucratic delays.
While he acknowledges the role of state regulation, Rutz emphasizes a more “hands-off” approach to allow the free market to operate effectively. He sees the state’s role as creating an enabling environment rather than directly controlling housing development.
Beyond Deregulation: A Broader Perspective
Rutz’s vision extends beyond deregulation. He also emphasizes the importance of harmonious relationships between landlords and tenants, advocating for fair and long-term contracts. He recognizes that satisfying tenants is not just in the interest of individual landlords but is also crucial for a healthy rental market.
A Call for Dialogue: Addressing the Needs of All
Rutz acknowledges the complexity of the issues at hand and underscores the need for dialogue and collaboration. He believes that the APF, representing a wide spectrum of landowners, can play a role in bridging the divide between landlords and tenants, promoting understanding and facilitating constructive solutions.
His approach emphasizes a collaborative, pragmatic solution, rather than a rigid implementation of one-size-fits-all policies. Rutz’s vision calls for a nuanced approach to tackling the complex issue of housing affordability, balancing the interests of landlords, tenants, and the overall well-being of Swiss society.
