In Geneva, the law on the demolition, conversion and renovation of residential buildings (LDTR) has, since the 1980s, been the bedrock of rental-stock protection: it strictly governs the sale of let flats and curbs «eviction-sales» — terminations of a lease aimed at selling the occupied home.
In November 2015 the right-leaning Grand Council passed law 11408, branded «More freedom for tenants» and nicknamed the «Zacharias law» after its sponsor, deputy and property owner Ronald Zacharias. It would have allowed, under conditions, the sale of a flat to its sitting tenant, at a price capped at CHF 6,900 per square metre (indexed). The tenants association ASLOCA and the Assembly for a Social Housing Policy immediately launched a referendum.
On 5 June 2016 Geneva voters rejected the law by 51.82 % to 48.18 %. The electorate preserved the LDTR and shut the door on the eviction-sales that, according to its opponents, the text would have reopened. Two months later, Zacharias announced he would relaunch the same project via a popular initiative.
▲ Yes to the law — minority Yes to the law: 48.18 % — the minority Backed by the right and property circles Proposed capped sale price: CHF 6,900/m² | ▼ No to the law — majority No to the law: 51.82 % — prevails LDTR preserved, eviction-sales not reinstated Referendum led by ASLOCA and the left |
The forces at play
▲ Yes camp (the Zacharias law) • Ronald Zacharias, deputy and property owner, the sponsor of the law • Liberals, the Centre, MCG and the Swiss People’s Party, the Grand Council majority • Geneva Property Chamber (CGI) and owner circles | ▼ No camp (the referendum-holders) • ASLOCA Geneva and the Assembly for a Social Housing Policy • Socialists, Greens and solidaritéS, united against the law • Unions and tenants’ associations |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Tenants should be given the freedom to buy their own home. «This law means more freedom for tenants» (sponsors, 2016). ✗ A promise never put to the test. Since the law was rejected, the mechanism never existed. The status quo prevails: Geneva remains the canton with the lowest home-ownership rate in Switzerland (fewer than one household in five), which still fuels the debate on access to property. Source: Federal Statistical Office, housing statistics; cantonal booklet 5 June 2016. The LDTR is too rigid and blocks any evolution of the stock. «Enough of the straitjacket: give the market some room» (Yes camp, 2016). ✗~ Not borne out by the facts. No mass blockage attributable to the LDTR alone has been demonstrated since 2016; Geneva’s shortage (a vacancy rate lastingly below 1 %) stems above all from land scarcity and demographic pressure. Source: OCSTAT, housing vacancy rate, 2016-2024. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) The law dismantles the LDTR and reopens the door to eviction-sales. «Speculators only ever offer poisoned gifts» (ASLOCA, 2016). ✓ Confirmed: the offensive continued. The No preserved the LDTR, but the fear of a fresh assault proved well-founded: Zacharias relaunched the project by initiative, and in December 2025 a new referendum was launched against yet another LDTR amendment allowing sales to tenants. Source: ASLOCA and Geneva Greens communiqués, 2016-2025. It will be hell for tenants: low incomes will be driven out of Geneva. «Force low incomes to leave Geneva? No!» (referendum committee, 2016). ✓~ Goal achieved for this text. By blocking the law, the referendum-holders prevented the targeted eviction-sale mechanism. Geneva rents remain among the highest in Switzerland, but the LDTR’s specific protection against forced sales was maintained. Source: ASLOCA Geneva; OCSTAT, rents, 2016-2024. |
The reckoning, a decade later
05.06.2016 Date of the vote | 51.82 % No to the law | 48.18 % Yes to the law | CHF 6,900/m² Proposed sale cap |
The 5 June 2016 vote illustrates a Geneva constant: on housing, the slightest tweak to the LDTR ends in a pitched battle at the ballot box. At 51.82 % to 48.18 %, the margin is thin — under four points — but enough to send the «Zacharias law» to the cloakroom and confirm that protecting the rental stock remains a red line for a narrow Geneva majority.
The verdict of the facts vindicates, in essence, the No camp: the LDTR stayed intact and eviction-sales were not reinstated. Above all, their implicit forecast — «they’ll be back» — came true to the letter, since the file resurfaced by initiative and then, in 2025, by a fresh referendum.
The Yes camp, for its part, cannot really be judged on its central promise: rejected, the law could never prove it would have opened ownership to tenants. One stubborn fact its defeat did not resolve remains: Geneva is still the canton where one is least often the owner of one’s own roof.