You pretty much have to buy an apartment in Berlin, that's been the case for the past 10 years or so. Landlords took them off the market and put them up for sale.
You might still be able to find something decent for around 100k euro, I'm not sure.
You might still be able to find something decent for around 100k euro, I'm not sure.
No reasonable investor finds it attractive to build new rentals in German cities. Result is a shortage. And because of the shortage, rents skyrocket. And because of that, you have "Mietpreisbremse". And because of that, there is even less rentals and even more shortage.
If only anybody would understand that you can't fight the market like that.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/12/03/1061333538/berlin-voted-for-t...
Berlin citizens. It's a public referendum.
> seizing landlords' properties
with 3000 or more units.
> defending against an illegal law
It's not a law and it will very likely never be one as it's pretty much against the constitution.
The problem with property taxes of course are the people paying them are also the people living there. So good luck running on that platform heh.
First of all: the problem at the core is that Berlin is pretty much built out, there is not much space any more to expand to. Yes, skyscrapers could be a solution, but everyone seriously thinking about this gets invited to look at Frankfurt am Main and then forget about the idea because that city is simply hideous. Skyscrapers are very unwelcome in Germany because of that example, not to mention they need some seriously solid ground to make a proper foundation... and Berlin doesn't have that.
Second: that law was enacted because people were fed up with rents going up all the time - including absolutely ridiculous practices like "kalte Entmietung" (aka having construction crews in allll the time to drive out tenants) or charging ridiculous prices and raising rents while the property devolves ever more because the profits from the raised rents are clearly being siphoned off instead of being used to keep up maintenance.
Third: People were especially pissed off about the large landlords (Vonovia etc.) which bought their stock at fire-sale prices (literally - the 90s CDU government under Diepgen had left a veritable banking scandal and the Senate was forced to sell everything it had in the early 2000s for cheap) and now raised rent like there was no tomorrow. It was naked and utter greed that turned the public opinion so bad.
> Once a tenant lives in your place, it's really hard to get rid of them. Even if they act like total scumbags, trash the place, disturb the neighbors, pay their rent late.
Paying rent persistently late is grounds for termination, it's easy to grab an eviction order at a court. Disturbing neighbors... well let's keep it at "having illegal hotels aka AirBnBs as neighbors is way worse".
> No reasonable investor finds it attractive to build new rentals in German cities. Result is a shortage.
People build like mad wherever they still can and that is the problem. Land values in urban areas exploded - Munich for example had land values double in four years [1] - and the result is that because the land is so expensive, the resulting rental price are going to be exorbitantly expensive as well.
In the end the solution is not the market, as the market will over time only serve to evict the weakest of society - and as a result, as we have seen in Berlin and with the Yellow Vests in France, this has the potential to erode trust in democracy itself.
The solution is to revitalize the rural areas. Public transit and high-speed Internet access are the key points where the suburban and rural areas across the West have the worst issues - fix that and people will actively move towards these areas instead of all being forced to compete for urban quarters!
[1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-grundstueckspr...
Please don't. That's not how a civilized debate works.
> First of all: the problem at the core is that Berlin is pretty much built out
Sorry, when comparing to other cities world-wide, that's hard to buy. Places like San Francisco, ok, maybe. Ocean in 3 of 4 directions. Vancouver, ok, maybe. Mountains on 2 sides, ocean on one side, border to US on one side. But Berlin? It's all flat, fields and tree plantations ("forest") all around. Even just adding a floor or two here and there would be fine. There are many areas that could get quite some more density with 5-6 floor houses. But then NIMBY hits. Easier to be angry at the "rich landlords".
> Second: that law was enacted because people were fed up with rents going up all the time
I'm trying to tell you that that's not solving the problem. High rents are just a symptom. The root cause is a mismatch of supply and demand. It's as if you are trying to legislate away gravity. That won't work in the long run. Either you need to increase supply or decrease demand. I can see that you argue that rural areas should be strengthened, but I fail to see how that would suffice. People want to live in Berlin.
> Third: People were especially pissed off about the large landlords (Vonovia etc.) which bought their stock at fire-sale prices
The people should be pissed off at the politicians that sold them the stock. It was rational to buy it. Selling out was not. And that wasn't just CDU. Even the SPD+Linke senate did similar things later on. Yet, everybody gets reelected all the time. (Not defending CDU here, they are just as guilty.)
But yes I agree, make living outside cities worthwhile and attractive.
The idea that the Tempelhofer Feld would have become anything but a mall with adjacent luxury apartments is bonkers.
The German constitutional court had just forced Berlin to sell of most of its housing infrastructure and the mayor and his confidants clearly were either unwilling or incapable of enforcing laws that would have ensured some form of public control and affordable housing options.
This was the time when people were offering tours putting all these vacant buildings on display that were left there waiting for the rent moratorium to end. When corporations freely redesignated large and central areas to the next biggest mall and luxury apartment project.
Edit: wording
Tempelhofer Feld is needed as greenfield in the central city for climate reasons.
Ideally it's a compromise, everything gives a little. A few more areas for housing, a little higher buildings, a bit higher prices, a bit more attractive rural areas.
Manhatten is one of the densest populated urban centers in the world. Nearly no other green areas, even street trees are a rare sight. Everything is concrete. Berlin on the other hand is very green. Parks, trees on the street, Tiergarten, Grunewald, and yes, Tempelhofer Feld. You could build housing for tens of thousands of people while still keeping the area green with lots of trees and parks for people to relax in.
Just keeping it a huge empty space and at the same time complain about high rents is ridiculous. This is not solved by complaining about money hungry investors. It's the supply-vs-demand ratio that's the problem. Not greed. (It may play a role, but would not have much of a chance without the underlying issue.) Of course you can keep it "for climate reasons". But that comes with a price and you need to live with those consequences. "Mietpreisbremse" is not going to solve any of those.
That's the same thing as 5% yield right? (Just that that's the way around I usually hear it, might be a regional thing.)
That sounds like perhaps the high end of normal range, but not extraordinary?