You are not alone.

Many Amsterdam erfpachters are now facing much higher costs, uncertainty, or disputes about their future erfpacht.

Some are already dealing with much higher annual canon amounts. Others may not yet realize what missing the transition to perpetual leasehold, not completing the process, or being left out of the previous remedial scheme could mean for their future costs.

This is often treated as if individual homeowners simply missed a deadline or failed to act in time.

But the reality is more complicated.

The erfpacht creates financial risk, and many homeowners don’t know it yet

With Amsterdam erfpacht, many homeowners own their home, but not the land underneath it. The City of Amsterdam owns the land.

In many cases, homeowners pay a canon: the recurring payment for using the land.

Under the older continuing leasehold system, the canon is often fixed for a long period, sometimes for decades. But when that period ends, the canon can be recalculated.

That is where the financial risk comes in.

If the new canon is based on much higher property or land values, annual costs can rise sharply. For some homeowners, the full impact may not be visible yet. It may only become clear later, when their current period ends, when they receive a new offer, or when they try to sell or refinance their home.

There is also a deadline risk. Homeowners may receive a letter or offer and think they still have time to decide. But if they miss a deadline, delay too long, or do not fully understand what action is required, they may lose access to better conditions or face much higher costs later.

That is why clear communication matters. Homeowners need to understand not only what erfpacht means, but also what choices they have, what deadlines apply, and what the financial consequences may be if they wait too long.

The canon calculation is difficult to understand and difficult to check

The canon, or land payment, is not a simple bill.

It is based on a calculation using several inputs, such as property value, land value, neighborhood factors, discounts, canon percentages, and other policy choices.

For an ordinary homeowner, this is difficult to understand and difficult to check.

That matters because a change in the assumptions or inputs can lead to a very different outcome. A homeowner may see a much higher annual canon without being able to easily understand why, how it was calculated, or whether the calculation is correct.

This is especially serious when homeowners are being asked to make decisions with long-term consequences based on that calculation.

The information did not work for many people

Many erfpachters did not clearly understand what would happen if they did not switch under the favorable conditions before the original deadline.

Some did not receive the relevant information. Some received it but did not read it, often because it looked like another long municipal document. Some read it but did not understand the financial consequences. Some faced a language barrier because the information was only in Dutch. Others believed that if they did nothing, nothing important would change.

That belief was understandable.

In the municipality’s own information sent to homeowners, they were told: “If you do not switch, nothing changes for you.”

Technically, that may have meant that the existing leasehold contract would continue for the time being. But for many homeowners, it did not clearly communicate the future financial risk: that not switching could later lead to much higher costs.

For a decision this important, the information needed to make the consequences unmistakable.

The previous remedial scheme did not solve the problem for everyone

After concerns were raised, the municipality created a remedial scheme for some homeowners who had missed the original deadline or had not completed the transition.

That was an important acknowledgment that some people needed another opportunity.

But the previous remedial scheme did not solve the problem for everyone.

Some people did not know about it. Some did not understand it. Some could not complete the process. Some could not afford the related notary costs.
Others were excluded from the scheme altogether.

Research commissioned by the municipality showed that many erfpachters were still not effectively reached or did not understand the information. According to the findings described in the campaign materials, 40% had not received or had not read the information. Of those who read the explanation of the hefboomwerking - the “leverage effect” where rising property values can lead to much higher erfpacht costs - only one in three understood it well.

That means the problem was not simply that individual homeowners failed to act.

For many people, the process did not work well enough.

Rising home values do not mean homeowners can easily pay more

Some people argue that if house values go up, homeowners should contribute more.

But that misses an important point.

A higher home value on paper does not mean a homeowner has more income or more cash available. Many people live in their homes. They are not selling them. They may not be able to afford a much higher annual canon, large notary costs, or a buyout payment simply because the theoretical value of their home increased.

The value of a home only becomes available if someone sells, borrows against it, or changes their living situation. That is not the same as having money available to pay a sudden or much higher annual charge.

And if a home becomes attached to a much higher annual erfpacht payment, that can also affect its future sale value. Buyers may take those ongoing costs into account.

So this is not just a question of property wealth. It is also a question of affordability, predictability, transparency, and whether people were properly informed before major financial consequences changed.

The issue is not “homeowners do not want to pay”

This campaign is not saying homeowners should never pay the canon.

The issue is fairness and transparency.

If the municipality is asking homeowners to make a major financial decision about their home, the information should be clear, complete, understandable, and easy to act on.

Homeowners should be able to understand:

• what happens if they do nothing;

• what the financial consequences could be;

• how their canon — the payment for using the land — is calculated;

• which values and assumptions are being used;

• what deadlines apply;

• what options they have;

• what they may lose if they miss a deadline;

• and whether they still have any route to correct the situation.

For many people, that was not clear enough.

Why this is a system and process issue

This should not be treated only as a matter of individual missed deadlines.

When many people do not receive, read, understand, or act on information about a major financial decision, it is reasonable to ask whether the process worked well enough for the people it was meant to serve.

For ordinary homeowners, the erfpacht transition involved complex legal, financial, and municipal information. It required people to understand the difference between continuing and perpetual leasehold, the effect of WOZ values, land value calculations, canon percentages, discounts, deadlines, notary costs, and future financial risks.

That is a lot to expect from people who are not erfpacht specialists.

A fair process should work for ordinary homeowners, including people who are not legal experts, financial experts, native Dutch speakers, or experienced with municipal property rules.

Why your letter matters

ACM needs to hear directly from affected homeowners.

The more people explain what happened to them, the clearer it becomes that this is not just a collection of isolated individual mistakes.

It is a wider consumer issue involving clear information, transparent calculations, fair access to remedies, and serious financial consequences.

Your letter helps show the scale of the problem and why action is needed now.