Renting Voters do not want new rules for owner-occupied rental properties
The rules on terminating rental properties for personal use remain the same. According to the official final results, voters rejected a corresponding change to tenancy law by 53.8 percent.
24.11.2024, 12:37
24.11.2024, 17:10
SDA
According to the results from the cantons, 1,331,100 voters said no to the revision of tenancy law regarding termination for personal use, while 1,141,700 voted in favor. The turnout was around 45 percent.
The Rösti and urban-rural divide is 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 is not entirely surprising. During the course of the referendum campaign, the bill on rent-to-own requirements was viewed increasingly critically, which is an exceptional case in the formation of opinion for government bills.
Fear of losing one's home
The bill's downfall is a success for the tenants' association, which had launched the referendum. Despite having fewer financial resources available for the referendum campaign, it was able to convince a majority of people of its arguments together with the left-wing parties.
Opponents argued that personal use was often used as an excuse to evict tenants and then re-let rooms for more money. Tenants would be less well protected against extraordinary terminations for personal use with the new wording.
The planned rules were described by many in the polls as unnecessary because sufficient restrictions already exist today. The Federal Council also originally felt that the bill was unnecessary. During the referendum campaign, however, it was forced by law to represent the parliament's "yes" position.
Criticism of lengthy procedures
The conservative majority suffered a defeat. The SVP, FDP and Center Party as well as the trade and homeowners' associations were in the Yes camp. The GLP also argued for a yes vote on the owner-occupier regulations.
The supporters wanted to simplify the conditions for exceptional early terminations. The asserted personal use should now be "significant and current when assessed objectively". In future, courts would have had to rely on this wording when assessing specific disputes. Today, terminations are only possible for "urgent" personal use.
The new rules should mean that rented rooms can be used by the owners themselves more quickly than is currently the case. The conditions for urgent personal use are often unclear, argued those in favor of the reform. This sometimes results in lengthy procedures.
The topic of rents remains topical
With the No vote, everything remains the same for the time being. After buying a property, the new owner can terminate a rental contract 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.
However, further debates on tenancy law can be expected soon. The responsible 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.
