The results of the Federal initiatives

Construction of second homes
Yes 50.6%
No 49.4%
All items were counted
Building society initiative
Yes 44.2%
No 55.8%
All items were counted
6 weeks holiday
Yes 33.5%
No 66.5%
All items were counted
Money games for the common good
Yes 87.0%
No 13.0%
All items were counted
Book prices
Yes 43.9%
No 56.1%
All items were counted

What is money games for the common good?

Looks like I scored 4 out of 5.

..... but I didn't vote for Lab.rat, SP, for Standesrat (Fr.) - bloody socialists.

Its the revenue (taxes) clawed back from gambling and gaming, that should be used for "good" causes.

can anyone explain the 2nd homes one? i saw a few things in german, but it was beyond my skills.

referendum on limiting second homes

And feed people with false hopes while encouraging more spending and debt...yep, they tried that one in the U.K., and then cut down on all lottery funded initiatives, especially art and cinema... there is no common good at all in this, just a lot of money in the pocket of those who run the lottery and casinos.

Now would be a good time to invest in companies that build hotels, caravans, house boats

Geneva voted "No" to rights to manifestation.....dunno how this could be put to vote in the first place, any citizen have the right to manifest as long as it is non violent

I'm glad the book one was defeated. Seemed really dim to me.

Funny, one of the reasons given for stopping building of second homes was to retain the landscape and nature but most of the rural Kantons voted no and the cities voted yes

Another reason was it makes homes too expensive for locals in such areas but they still voted no

A) it gets money for the federal social programs
B) it keeps the money spent inside Switzerland (instead of Bregenz, Konstanz, Campione)

There was a trend that more and more homes were purchased but not used in reality as simply being "second homes", used for a few weeks per year at best and not at all at worst. Imagine that St. Moritz has "homes" for more than 15'000 people or rather much more but during most of the year even guests included is domicile to less than 12'000 people. Now, if the new law is fully implemented, it for such villages/towns IS a catastrophe. This is why I voted NO. The new law means that people wanting to have a second home will try to find their place in smaller villages and those already having such a thing in such places will try to sell .

************************************************** **********************

it is a bit different. The number of "second homes" in Zurich&suburbs apparently is between 5 and 15 percent which means that Zurich is not directly affected. The percentage in Luzern, the top tourism place in the country is rather lower. Which means that cities like Zürich, Luzern, Geneva are not really affected. The problem for "season-tourism-cantons like Graubünden is that now, valuable customers are forced to look for different locations and this may mean a loss for many good places. And whatever jubilant Mr Weber says, it in reality means that people will have to move to "secondary" places to have their second homes.

Locals have their own homes and so in this way are not affected. UNLESS they own a place which might be ideal as a second home for outsiders and now cannot be sold as above the limit.

AND THIS means that more holiday homes will be on the rental market than ever before !

How can a local house owner, who no longer can sell or rent out a house, proceed ? Simple, he transforms a well visible part of the house into an office for himself and rents out the rest.

Further to Wollishofner's comments, many locals also make the largest part of their living from second home owners and not just the tourist businesses. Many local builders make their money not only from the initial building of second homes, but also from the maintenance and renovation of such homes. There is unlikely to be enough of a local market to keep a kitchen supplier and fitter, for example, in business in a mountain resort now if no more second homes can be built. Many local Swiss people will lose their livelihoods.

Fine example of the law of "unintended side effects"

Also I suspect many city dwellers have a rather romantic view of the "rural" kantons and consequently voted against second homes to keep them as what they believe to be rural.

Right. Exactly THIS was why I put a NO into my voting sheet, unfortunately to no avail. I hope that local lawyers will find ways out of this mess

What on earth will happen in plaes where second homes are already above the 20% limit? People can't be forced to sell their houses I guess, and I can't imagine that they'll be an influx of permanent residents to 'balance the books', so how will that be managed?

Exisitng homes are "grandfathered", the law only applies to new purchases after enactment.

Not really. The discussion on "cold bed tourism" has been going on literally for decades. The building sector obviously benefits from second homes, but even the owners of them did intend to have a second home in some cosy mountain village - not an empty ghost town. Yes, these places will be full in December so most tourists will never get the discussion... but go there in April and have a look again.

The bottom line is really simple:
1. People buy flats there for the nature and views.
2. Too many flats ruin the nature and views.
3. Some places in Switzerland already successfully ruined their once special atmosphere... or look over the border to some nice 70s concrete hotels in France.

= you vote on "I want money and I want it now" vs. "lower but sustainable tourism income"

It is not really a surprise that the ones who would get the money right now vote for this position while the ones who are not immediately affected prefer Switzerland to take it a bit more slowly.

The reason that places are empty in April is because literally everything closes down. For me, this really makes something of a nonsense of the "cold beds" argument. Naturally mountain lifts need to close for maintenance and to wait for the snow to melt, but where we are they don't open again until July. All the main hotels and restaurants are shut and most local facilities (e.g. indoor swimming pools etc.) are shut.

Second homes in Switzerland are really only usable for a very short period of each year. We are lucky enough to own a second home, which is very much a second home to us and as such we use it for more than four months of the year. I would very much like to use our home more, we also rent ours to contacts we have, but I cannot in good conscience rent a property when the whole place is shut and there is nothing at all to do. The ghost town problem is created by the Gemeindes themselves, not the second home owners.

A whole new approach to tourism needs to be adopted if year round tourism is wanted. At the moment, the tourism industry funds its whole year from the winter season by charging extortionate prices, adds a bit of jam on top from the summer season and simply shuts up shop during the shoulder spring and autumn season.

If Switzerland wants to do something about "cold beds" then people should be incentivised to rent their properties. At the moment, a local annual "bed tax" is charged if an owner wishes to rent out his property. Tax is then paid on the rent earned in addition to the normal deemed rental income tax on any property owned in CH. When you weigh this up with the costs of advertising the property and processing the rental (cleaning etc.) and the wear and tear on the property then it is no surprise that many people choose not to take the option.

Naturally I agree that nature and the environment should be preserved, but to a large extent this is already happening. Most mountain areas which have a high proportion of second homes have already imposed restrictions on new builds specifically for the second home market.