New production at its lowest and a gradual ban on thermal strainers, Paris is facing a contraction in its housing supply. All the candidates promise a “supply shock”, but strategies diverge on the levers to activate.
Act on the existing stock
Rather than focusing solely on construction, candidates first target the existing offer.
On furnished tourist accommodation, the camp Sophia Chikirou defends a strengthening of controls in order to recover housing intended for long-term rental. Conversely, Sarah Knafo favors cooperation with Airbnb, believing that a massive deployment of controls would be costly and of uncertain effectiveness.
The divide is just as marked on therent control. The Chikirou camp defends reinforced regulation, considering that “the market does not work in Paris“The camp Marianirepresented by Amaury Pozo di Borgo, pleads for a “liberated market”, believing that the removal of supervision would restore profitability and encourage owners to rent.
Property tax: the heart of arbitration
It is on taxation that the divide becomes most structuring.
Sarah Knafo suggests halving the property tax. To compensate for the loss of revenue, it is putting forward a savings plan of 10 billion euros over ten years, as well as sales of municipal assets, including part of the social housing stock.
The camp Rachida Datirepresented by the deputy Sylvain Maillarddefends a more gradual reduction of 20% over five years, accompanied by targeted exemptions for renovated housing, in particular properties classified F or G.
On the other hand, the Chikirou camp assumes the maintenance of tax revenues to finance energy renovation, social housing and emergency accommodation, believing that a massive drop would weaken the City’s investment capacity.
The equation remains delicate: with a debt estimated between 10 and 12 billion euros, any significant reduction in property tax would imply budget cuts or asset sales for the City.
PLU and social housing: fragile balances
The Local Urban Plan also divides. Sarah Knafo and the Mariani camp propose to repeal or simplify it, believing that it slows down the construction and transformation of offices into housing. The left, on the contrary, defends its maintenance as a regulatory tool.
The sale of part of the social park constitutes another point of division, supported on the right to free up financial margins and criticized on the left.
Behind the slogans, two opposing visions: strengthening regulation to correct a market deemed unbalanced, or massively reducing taxation and constraints to revive private investment.
