Consenza / PROPOSED HOUSING CONVERSATION Status: prepared for review, not an open consultation. QUESTION Which changes would make one housing plan work for more people? PURPOSE Compare building rules, international financing, rental protections and land policy. Identify shared principles and unresolved objections. This does not endorse any proposal. SCOPE One real local housing proposal, its site and scope to be agreed. The first conversation is about that proposal, with national and European policy questions as context. No municipality, ministry or decision maker has committed to act on the results. PARTICIPANTS TO REACH People seeking a home, tenants, homeowners, existing neighbours, builders, landlords, housing associations, landowners, researchers and municipalities. Reach offline participants and people beyond existing networks. PROPOSED SEED STATEMENTS 1. Publish the costs and assumptions behind every housing proposal. Context: Transparent budgets make assumptions open to challenge. They still need consistent definitions, independent review and protection for information that cannot lawfully be published. 2. Municipalities should relax fixed social-housing shares to make more building projects viable. Context: Test whether the requirement is the binding constraint. Compare total homes, social rentals, public funding and alternative designs. Do not assume that every municipality applies the same rules. 3. Each new development should include a minimum share of social rental homes. Context: A requirement can serve allocation goals while affecting project budgets. What share, which projects and what funding would make the goal deliverable? More total supply and access for lower incomes are related but different outcomes. 4. Keep rent caps for eligible middle-rent homes to protect tenants. Context: Examine tenant affordability alongside rental availability, investment and sales. The 2025 policy review says more time is needed to assess the Act’s structural effects. Participants may propose keeping, changing or removing rules. 5. Cap landowners’ gains when municipalities buy land for housing. Context: This is a proposed policy, not an existing general rule. Define the purchase-price baseline and distinguish a voluntary agreement from compulsory acquisition. Test compensation, incentives, public cost and delivery risk. 6. Offer lower-cost public financing for affordable homes when market borrowing is expensive. Context: Specify eligibility, affordability commitments and who carries default risk. Compare additional construction with projects that would happen anyway. Cheaper finance can also affect land and house prices. 7. Housing plans should state how people on lower incomes will be able to afford the homes. Context: A goal needs a definition of affordability, eligible households, costs and funding. The principle does not settle whether quotas, subsidies, construction or rental rules are the best route. 8. People seeking a home should help shape housing plans alongside existing residents. Context: Include both the people who live nearby and those who cannot yet find a home there. Reach beyond the people most likely to attend or respond online. BACKGROUND SOURCES Interest rates and the housing cycle https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/articles/2025/html/ecb.ebart202502_01~2f59dafb26.en.html What holds back housing supply? https://www.dnb.nl/actuele-economische-vraagstukken/woningmarkt/ Thuisgeven: the rental-sector trade-offs https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/3c9a85b1-f32b-419e-968c-1abd1f9a8e2e/file The Affordable Rent Act https://www.volkshuisvestingnederland.nl/onderwerpen/huren-en-wonen/wet-betaalbare-huur Land policy and public development https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/themas/bouwen-en-wonen/ruimtelijke-ordening-en-gebiedsontwikkeling/grondbeleid THE WEBSITE EXAMPLE Station Quarter is a fictional site, with 120 homes, 60 rentals and 60 homes for sale, and an invented €36m budget. It demonstrates how concerns about affordability, public space and delivery can become proposed conditions. These are not consultation findings, a viable financial model or a real project. Do not import the example as an approved pilot. BEFORE OPENING Agree the organiser and response owner, publish dates, scope, moderation policy and privacy arrangements. Test the conversation and explain how participation works. MODERATION TO AGREE Apply the same published rules to all positions. Reject spam, abuse, duplicates and statements combining separate questions. Preserve reasoned dissent. Keep a record of moderation decisions and offer an appeal route. PARTICIPATION INTEGRITY Statement moderation and voter identity are different. A cookie, browser identifier or small payment does not prove one unique human. Define access and abuse review, and explain their limits. No mandatory payment or DigiD connection is implemented. PROPOSED RHYTHM Two weeks of contributions, followed by draft findings within two weeks of closing. Allow participants to challenge the findings before revising the proposal. The response owner and response deadline must be confirmed and published before opening. No dates or government commitment are confirmed. FOLLOW-UP TO AGREE Publish recruitment and coverage limitations, shared principles, disagreements and source uncertainties. For each substantial finding, record the original concern, connected evidence, proposed change and any remaining objection. Publish reasons when a suggestion is not adopted. Show a version comparison and the named decision owner’s response. Avoid presenting viral or self-selected participation as a representative population poll. The eight statements above are proposed seeds. Homepage percentages come from an invented sample and must never be imported or described as actual consultation results.