Then why not work in the jobs that are filled with Albanians, Italians and Germans?

Those are seasonal jobs only.

Many people with second homes only use them 3 weeks in a year and quite often bring their food from Italy, etc. They don't bring much to the local economy which is why it's becoming extremely difficult for many of these tourists town to support the locals year round.

I'm betting this referandum will pass. Lots of Swiss are fed up with the second home syndrome and those that have one want to keep their "second home" village from deteriorating even more.

Most of them were 'screwed' by the local or down the valley promoters - who pocketed most of the money- then made a ton more by re-selling.

One can't change the past, only the future.

I'm beginning to hate that journal more and more.

Not necessarily double standards. A huge difference between those families who have a simple chalet in a mountain, often where they were born. Thos families who go there practically every week-end, every holiday- buy food locally, know the community and take part in it, Ski Club, walking group, etc. Those who will help with volunteer projects, support the elderly in the village, and so on.

And those huge monster chalets which are bought as investment and rarely used by the owners- often left empty most of the year. Or rented via agencies to people (like we used to, hand on my heart) will arrive for half-term holiday from Holland and the UK with the car full to the brim with stuff from Tesco)- and not contribute much at all to the village, financially but mainly socially. These are often only used for peak time holidays - and are almost impossible to rent in Summer, as most head for sun and sea.

We've been to some of those resorts outside peak hols, and it is miserable. All the shutters closed- dead.

Completely agree. But the initiative seems to target the proliferation of what you described in your first paragraph, where as the mega-chalets which are used to rent-out ("para-hotels" in the language of the initiative) would be exempt.

Pretty much like Seefeld, Zug, Zollikon... then. So next we forbid Germans from buying appartments period then. I mean we already got Zurich forbidding those foreigners going to International schools.

Something systematically wrong in Switzerland? No problems, we just make another Verbot. Das ist in der Schweiz verboten!

+1.

Too many empty houses around here, the owners of which pay NO local taxes!

Tom

This referandum affects the Swiss and the foreigners equally. It's trying to save many villages from becoming ghost towns. It's about time that something is being done.

Not far from here I am thinking of places like Champoussin and Moleson - outside the main ski season, totally dead, dreadful places.

Genuine question: Who is going to move permanently to Oberengadin to revitalise communities there once (if) the referendum passes?

From what I understand, it's going to stop the building of second homes once it has reached 20% in a community. I believe many of those Oberengadin communities have reached that limit already.

How will it change the community short term? Probably not much. In the long term? I hope it will make it easier for locals to find land to build and more affordable housing will be made available. This may be just wishful thinking.

Your question is valid and just shows who complex it is.
But I'd rather see some parts of Switzerland dormant and wildlife havens, than covered in concrete and empty almost year round.

Extreme and undifferenciated.
Depending on which part of the country you think of, your opinion may change on that very same question. Even a very liberal IlivewhereIwant guy like me sees a problem in Romansh areas, where villages turn into holiday resorts of some kind of Swissgerman Disneyworld in no time if there is no limitations. There have been restrictions on comunal level for a long time and I've been reading about more in the Romansh news ever since I started learning the language. Oberengadin/Engiadin'ota is a place like that I would have far more understanding for far more extreme measures than downtown lakeville off Romanshorn or Seeland.

In other words: the question is not one but twenty questions, so why asking only one answer?

Very good point.

This is an issue that would be better solved on a cantonal level.

The issue is lack of income not people buying second homes.

About "they can no longer afford to live in their hometown because of the high cost of housing"
Well if it is their home town they must already have a home so how does the high cost of housing impact them?

What exactly is the difference between a village that becomes a ghost town when the ski seaons ends compared to a village that remains a ghost town throughout the year because they stopped the building of vacation homes

When these village planning counsels approved all of this construction, exactly how many children did they expect to go to the local schools from the people buying these holiday homes ?
Other than during the ski seasons, exactly how many pubs and restaurants were they seriously expecting to need throughout the year from people buying holiday homes ?

This is such a hypocritical, sour grapes bunch of BS.

• These same villages didn't object to receiving the taxes paid when the houses were built and sold.
• The local land owners didn't object to making their big profits selling off the farm land that was in the families for generations to the developers.
• The villages didn't object to receiving the funds to extend the power, water, telephone and cable infrastructures for the new developments.
• The developers didn't object to fleecing the people who could afford their big markups to buy the finished properties.

But NOW because the people who bought the vacation homes are not spending money the amount of money the villages unrealistically expected, suddenly it's all of the damn rich foreigners fault that these same remote towns are not getting richer ???

Jealousy, envy and hypocrisy really stink when brought out into the light of day

If you're a farmer and your land gets re-zoned as building land you effectively have no alternative but to sell it because unless you're an exceptionally rich and idealistic farmer, the property taxes will kill you.

what exactly are you getting at?

Existing properties will be grandfathered. The Gemeinde are thus not squeezing more income from them.

Stopping new properties will stop all the associated advantages you list above.

So I see no evidence of anybody seeking the advantages without the disadvantages.

So does resistance to change for the sake of it.