Landlordism, as Adam Smith himself identified, is a destructive, parasitic drag on economies that should be minimized at all costs. Otherwise, you end up with what we have now, Capital owners chasing after unproductive returns by limiting construction, bribing politicians, and generally making everyone else poorer and more miserable.
Any other suggestions? Remember this is Switzerland, so you can't do anything the population doesn't actually want otherwise they'll vote it out.
In case if Zurich, I imagine that supply is limited due to its geography as well, and of course by wanting to preserve the quality of life.
Depends. If the profit is in more expensive housing, than private enterprise will bias towards that and ergo be less efficient at building lower-margin "affordable" housing.
Ideally, in a perfect frictionless economy populated by spherical cows, yes, private enterprise will more efficiently allocate across the entire spectrum of market needs -- so in principle, I'm agreeing with you.
But spherical cows make lousy roommates.
How?
Expropriation or nationalization is de facto impossible in a developed democracy in 2023.
Any proposal as such will be bogged down in courts for a decade, and the politicians who proposed it will have been voted out of office by the 60-70% of the population that owns some kind of property.
How? This is vague.
> creation of state-housing funds
How? Who holds the liability and underwrites this?
> widespread state construction of public housing
How? Is there even a trained construction workforce anymore? In the US at least this no longer exists after 2008 [0]
I'm not trying to be dismissive btw. I used to work in the policy space and there are organizational and liability issues that acted as a blocker against a number of the stuff you mentioned.
[0] - https://www.axios.com/2023/02/10/construction-help-wanted
These will also fly the workforce in from Central Asia.
Price controls = supply shortages. Basic principal of market economics.
Remember, this is Switzerland, so you need to convince the population that this is a good idea otherwise they will block it with a popular vote. So confiscation of property or forced labour or increased taxes are all out of the question.
Change zoning rules. Incentives for co-living. Reduce flat sizes. Rebuilt office spaces. Or look to Vienna: a big stock of goverment-owned flats with low prices which makes it hard to charge more than those.
I don't think it should be about reducing local desirability, but give the conditions for other places to become more desirable.
The Shenzhen SEZ is one extremely successful example. [1] It was established as an SEZ in 1980 when it had fewer than 30k workers. By 2000 it had a labor force over 3 million. The current population (which is predictable difficult to measure given a massive migrant population) may be as high as 14 million.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen_Special_Economic_Zone