The freeze on social housing confirmed the lack of direction in housing policy

With the fall of the Schoof cabinet, the housing crisis in the Netherlands has become even more entrenched. The cabinet's latest ploy was a potential freeze on social housing. What was intended as support for vulnerable households, in practice, backfired. It was a symptom-based approach that was further rejected by the Council of State due to its ill-conceived structure. The freeze seemed sympathetic, but it undermines investment, delays housing construction, and increases uncertainty for those who could actually meet demand.

The lack of stability and coherence in policy has been a drag on the housing market for years. Construction projects are stalled by a series of obstacles: lengthy permitting procedures, nitrogen restrictions, grid congestion, staff shortages, changing regulations, and political volatility. Every new law or measure adds a layer of uncertainty. The Affordable Rent Act is a case in point, as is the recent decision to freeze rents. This type of policy sows confusion and has a paralyzing effect. Market participants are reluctant, not because of unfavorable conditions, but because of the unpredictability of those conditions.

The core of the housing crisis is a structural housing shortage, and we won't solve that shortage with additional regulations. What's needed is a stable and consistent long-term policy in which parties know where they stand. Within such a framework, developers, housing corporations, and investors can make plans that extend beyond an election cycle. Without that foundation, promises about affordability and availability remain empty.

The solution doesn't lie in The Hague alone. The key lies locally. Municipalities have the best insight into their residents, spatial planning opportunities, and local dynamics. They can accelerate, provided they are given the space to deliver customized solutions. Central coordination is essential for infrastructure, energy, and legislation, but not as a tool for using abstract models to gain control over neighborhoods that are unfamiliar to locals.

Affordability isn't achieved by freezing prices, but by reducing market pressure. This requires construction, on a large scale and with speed. Furthermore, investing in rental properties must remain attractive. The tax treatment of box 3 (taxable income) plays a key role in this. As long as private investors are discouraged, a large portion of the housing supply will remain unused or shift to the owner-occupied market, where first-time buyers are already scarce.

The future of housing also demands attention to quality. The growth of single-person households, the aging population, and changing lifestyles require different housing types and living environments. Not only must the number of homes increase, but also their responsiveness to demand. Think of smaller, flexible homes in easily accessible areas, with amenities nearby. Think of sustainable construction, with an eye for adaptability and circularity. And above all, think of urban planning that facilitates interaction, rather than simply striving for efficient use of space.

Building is a matter of organization. This starts with assembling strong construction teams and involving skilled architects. Vision and design quality make the difference between a place where people want to live and one that deteriorates after completion. It also means choosing where to build. Not everything has to be located within the city. There's a lot of untapped potential just outside major cities, provided the accessibility and infrastructure are in place.

There is room for both standardization and customization. In the social sector, standardization can contribute to speed and scalability. In the private sector, customization remains necessary to meet diverse needs and ensure social diversity in neighborhoods. Shared facilities and shared functions can play a role in this, as has already been convincingly demonstrated elsewhere in Europe.

The central theme is clear: we must build. But this must be based on a policy that is consistent, allows room for local initiative, and encourages rather than penalizes investment. The social housing freeze is the opposite of this: a symbolic intervention without structural impact, which moreover damages trust. At a time when the Netherlands is desperate for housing, we deserve better than a policy that seems primarily designed to score political points.

This article previously appeared on LinkedIn