International To Fight Rising Rents, Berlin Considers Expropriating All Landlords With More Than 3000 Apt. Units

There is an easy explanation for you mate.

Leftism. The inability to live in and deal with reality due to the belief that feelings dictate reality.

"You have more than me, I feel that is wrong and unjust, so give me some for the sake of equality".

They're all "feelings," genius.

"You having more than everyone harms the lives of millions of people but I feel that the just thing is to allow anyone accumulate as much as possible so the ones that suffer because of it just have to deal with it."

Very strange this idea on the right that being a machine with no emotions or thoughts is a great thing. Must be related to their misanthropy.
 
So you think people that have "not that much" should have to turn over property they worked for and paid for because the city says so?

You picked the number 3000, I only addressed it but it's pretty much irrelevant to the bigger point. Cities have exercised eminent domain on people who only have 1 property. There's no amount where it's more or less appropriate. The appropriate amount is determined by what the city's goals are.

If the cost of housing is the only reasoning wouldn't rent restrictions do the same thing? Make max limits on what landlords can charge for rent and you have lowered the cost of housing for anyone that lives in the city. Why is taking one persons property for the benefit of others the only viable answer?
You asked how/why it could be done. Presumably a city would arrive at eminent domain after other attempted solutions come up short. Or they could get there because they have an emergency that requires immediate action.

Why any specific municipality would make that choice would be based on the specific experiences within that municipality. We can always craft up imaginary scenarios that force the answer one way or another. But those rarely reflect the practical needs that a specific area is experiencing when they make a decision like this.
 
worked for Venezuala, amirite?

why don't they just take over decommissioned former Military Base housing

There are TONS OF THOSE left in Germany
 
They're all "feelings," genius.

"You having more than everyone harms the lives of millions of people but I feel that the just thing is to allow anyone accumulate as much as possible so the ones that suffer because of it just have to deal with it."

Very strange this idea on the right that being a machine with no emotions or thoughts is a great thing. Must be related to their misanthropy.

Working hard to earn something is a "feeling"? What kind of public school derp is this shit lol...Its typical socialist propaganda that causes people to think the natural state of life is "having things" and if someone has more, it means you have "less".

Inbred level stupid by people that know nothing about reality.
 
It's pretty crazy. 110,000 residential units in a major metropolis is a lot.

If you're talking multi-story, apartment complex size, multi-family, a modest 20 story building might have 400 or so units. Owning 275 20 story buildings is a substantial amount. Price wise that's even more substantial. There's only a very small percentage of organizations or landlords that have the capital and the access to financing to acquire that much real estate.

If you're going cheap, then you might get 50 units in a building worth ~$3-5 million in an outer lying region, but then you're looking at thousands of such buildings...again, in a single city.

No matter how you slice it, 110,000 residential units in a single metropolitan area is pretty crazy.

The craziest part is that 65,000 apartment units was sold for a paltry €30,000 each in that dirt-cheap government fire sale, I mean, privatization spree in 2004. That's how real estate investors in Berlin managed to dramatically increased their portfolio by the thousands. (It's well-known that Germans greatly prefer renting over owning, so I don't know how many Otto Normalverbraucher with 30K in the bank got in on that).

At that basement investment price, suddenly that "3000" number that the Team Expropriate has arbitrarily chosen doesn't seem that far of reach for anyone who was already in the business at the time.

From the story in the OP:


The biggest contributor to Berlin’s hyper-gentrification has been the city’s own policies. Not long after the wall came down, the city senate started privatizing major parts of their public infrastructure. In 1997, Berlin sold half of its electricity utilities. Two years later, the same thing happened with its water. The biggest, and perhaps most ill-conceived real estate deal took place in 2004, when the city flogged off 65,000 units for the obscenely cheap price of €405 million and offloaded a sizable amount of municipal debt to private investors. All in all, each apartment was sold for only around €30,000. The majority of these very homes are now owned by Deutsche Wohnen. In total, Berlin sold 200,000 units between 1989 and 2004.

The swath of privatization was enabled in part by supposedly left-wing parties in the city’s leadership. Since 1989, the Social Democrats have been present in every Senate, thrice building a coalition with the Left Party.

https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/150772455/
 
Last edited:
Gotta love the "FIGHT GENTRIFICATION" tagging on the wall in the picture. Yes, lets keep our areas a third world shithole.
 
Taking property from people
I mean
That’s pretty on the nose


For sure. My issue is western society has the german-jewish ww2 thing so ingrained we'll never let it go. Germans have paid enough both in lives, the German holocaust, and in money, to individual jews and to Israel.
 
Those immigrants and millennials need lebensraum.
 
Oldie but goodie from the good times 5 years ago that explain why so many Germans choose to rent, even when they can easily afford to own when supplies outstripped demands:

Most Germans don’t buy their homes, they rent. Here’s why

By Matt Phillips | January 23, 2014

berlinapartments.jpg


It’s just a fact. Many Germans can’t be bothered to buy a house.

The country’s homeownership rate ranks among the lowest in the developed world, and nearly dead last in Europe, though the Swiss rent even more. Here are comparative data from 2004, the last time the OECD updated its numbers. (Fresh comparisons are tough to find, as some countries only publish homeownership rates every few years or so.)

aggregate-homeownership-rates-for-selected-nations-2004-_chartbuilder.png


And though those data are old, we know Germany’s homeownership rate remains quite low. It was 43% in 2013.

This may seem strange. Isn’t home ownership a crucial cog to any healthy economy? Well, as Germany shows—and Gershwin wrote—it ain’t necessarily so.

In Spain, around 80% of people live in owner-occupied housing. (Yay!) But unemployment is nearly 27%, thanks to the burst of a giant housing bubble. (Ooof.)

Only 43% own their home in Germany, where unemployment is 5.2%.

Of course, none of this actually explains why Germans tend to rent so much. Turns out, Germany’s rental-heavy real-estate market goes all the way back to a bit of extremely unpleasant business in the late 1930s and 1940s.

The war

germangirlsrubble.jpg


By the time of Germany’s unconditional surrender in May 1945, 20% of Germany’s housing stock was rubble. Some 2.25 million homes were gone. Another 2 million were damaged. A 1946 census showed an additional 5.5 million housing units were needed in what would ultimately become West Germany.

Germany’s housing wasn’t the only thing in tatters. The economy was a heap. Financing was nil and the currency was virtually worthless. (People bartered.) If Germans were going to have places to live, some sort of government program was the only way to build them.

And don’t forget, the political situation in post-war Germany was still quite tense. Leaders worried about a re-radicalization of the populace, perhaps even a comeback for fascism. Communism loomed as an even larger threat, with so much unemployment.

West Germany’s first housing minister—a former Wehrmacht man by the name of Eberhard Wildermuth—once noted that ”the number of communist voters in European countries stands in inverse proportion to the number of housing units per thousand inhabitants.”

A housing program would simultaneously put people back to work and reduce the stress of the housing crunch. Because of such political worries—as well as genuine, widespread need—West Germany designed its housing policy to benefit as broad a chunk of the population as possible.

The rise of renting

nissenvillage.jpg

A quonset hut village in Berlin, January 1946.

Soon after West Germany was established in 1949, the government pushed through its first housing law. The law was designed to boost construction of houses which, “in terms of their fittings, size and rent are intended and suitable for the broad population.”

It worked. Home-building boomed, thanks to a combination of direct subsidies and generous tax exemptions available to public, non-profit and private entities. West Germany chopped its housing shortage in half by 1956. By 1962, the shortage was about 658,000. The vast majority of new housing units were rentals. Why? Because there was little demand from potential buyers. The German mortgage market was incredibly weak and banks required borrowers to plunk down large down payments. Few Germans had enough money.

screen-shot-2014-01-17-at-2-57-42-pm.png


Why Germany?

It’s worth noting that Germany wasn’t the only country with a housing crisis after World War II. Britain had similar issues. And its government also undertook large-scale spending to promote housing. Yet the British didn’t remain renters. The UK homeownership rate is around 66%, much higher than Germany’s.

percentage-of-households-who-rent-their-homes-west-germany-britain_chartbuilder.png


Why? The answer seems to be that Germans kept renting because, in Germany, rental housing is kind of nice.

Economists think German housing policy struck a much better balance between government involvement and private investment than in many other countries. For instance, in the UK, when the government gave housing subsidies to encourage the building of homes after the war, only public-sector entities, local governments, and non-profit developers were eligible for them. That effectively squeezed the private sector out of the rental market. In Germany, “the role of public policy was to follow a third way that involved striking a sensitive balance between ‘letting the market rip’ in an uncontrolled manner and strangling it off by heavy-handed intervention,” wrote economist Jim Kemeny, of the German approach to housing policy.

Britain also imposed stringent rent and construction cost caps on developers of public housing. Under those constraints, housing quality suffered. Over time, the difference between publicly and privately financed construction became so glaring that rental housing—which was largely publicly financed—acquired a stigma. In other words, it became housing for poor people.

Germany also loosened regulation of rental caps sooner than many other countries, according to economist Michael Voightländer, who has written extensively about Germany’s housing market. By contrast in the UK, harsher regulation on rented housing stretched well into the 1980s, pushing landlords to cut back on maintenance and driving the quality of housing down still further.

Cheap rents

screen-shot-2014-01-17-at-12-56-51-pm.png


Of course, all that policy-design detail is interesting. But there might be a simpler explanation for the popularity of renting in Germany. For one thing, it’s relatively cheap. (Germany is listed as “Deu” above.)

Renter-friendly regulations

screen-shot-2014-01-17-at-1-04-57-pm.png


Why is renting cheap in Germany? Well, even though the country’s policies might have been slightly more balanced than in other countries, its rental market is still robustly regulated, and the regulations are quite favorable to renters. (Given the strong political constituency renters represent in Germany, this shouldn’t be too surprising.) For example, German law allows state governments to cap rent increases at no more than 15% over a three-year period.

Tax treatment

germanyapartmentplans.jpg

New supply will be coming online in Berlin.

There’s another pretty simple reason Germans are less likely to own houses. The government doesn’t encourage it. Unlike high-homeownership countries like Spain, Ireland and the US, Germany doesn’t let homeowners deduct mortgage-interest payments from their taxes. (There’s more on the structure of European tax systems here.) Without that deduction, the benefits of owning and renting are more evenly balanced. “Both homeowners and landlords in Germany are barely subsidized,” wrote Voightländer in a paper on low homeownership rates in Germany.

Those regulations, a solid supply of rental housing, and the fact that German property prices historically rise very slowly —that’s a whole other story—mean German rents don’t rise very fast. And because one of the main reasons to buy a home is to hedge against rising rents, the tendency of German rents to rise slowly results in fewer homebuyers and a lower homeownership rate.

A number of other elements contribute too, but it’s tough to disentangle what is cause and what is effect. For example, German banks are quite risk-averse, making mortgages harder and more expensive to get. Others argue that the supply of rental housing might be higher in Germany because of its decentralized, regional approach to planning. (The UK is much more centralized.)

Is Germany just better at housing?

Not necessarily. It’s not as if Germans spend a lot less of their pay on housing. The data below show Germans actually pay more for housing—as a percentage of disposable income—than housing-crazed countries like the US, Spain and Ireland.

screen-shot-2014-01-20-at-3-03-52-pm.png


But given the economic spasms suffered in house-crazy economies such as the United States, Spain and Ireland in recent years, the German approach to housing looks pretty good right now—even if, before the crash, the low homeownership rate was seen as an albatross around Germany’s economic neck.

And German people clearly like how their system of housing works. According to the OECD, more than 93% of German respondents tell pollsters they’re satisfied with their current housing situation. That’s one of the highest rates of any nation the rich-country think tank surveyed. Then again, the Irish and the Spanish—where homeownership is much more widely spread—seem just as happy.

https://qz.com/167887/germany-has-one-of-the-worlds-lowest-homeownership-rates/amp/
 
Last edited:
For sure. My issue is western society has the german-jewish ww2 thing so ingrained we'll never let it go. Germans have paid enough both in lives, the German holocaust, and in money, to individual jews and to Israel.
If they go through with this it might seem to some like they haven’t really learned her lesson though have they
 
You picked the number 3000, I only addressed it but it's pretty much irrelevant to the bigger point.
No, it was in the title.

Cities have exercised eminent domain on people who only have 1 property. There's no amount where it's more or less appropriate. The appropriate amount is determined by what the city's goals are.


You asked how/why it could be done. Presumably a city would arrive at eminent domain after other attempted solutions come up short. Or they could get there because they have an emergency that requires immediate action.

Why any specific municipality would make that choice would be based on the specific experiences within that municipality. We can always craft up imaginary scenarios that force the answer one way or another. But those rarely reflect the practical needs that a specific area is experiencing when they make a decision like this.

You used a whole lot of words to say nothing. Did you have an opinion on if they should be doing this or not or are you switzerland on this one?
 
The craziest part is that 65,000 apartment units was sold for a paltry €30,000 each in that dirt-cheap government fire sale, I mean, privatization spree in 2004. That's how real estate investors in Berlin managed to dramatically increased their portfolio by the thousands. (It's well-known that Germans greatly prefer renting over owning, so I don't know how many Otto Normalverbraucher with 30K in the bank got in on that).

At that basement investment price, suddenly that "3000" number that the Team Expropriate has arbitrarily chosen doesn't seem that far of reach for anyone who was already in the business at the time.

From the story in the OP:


The biggest contributor to Berlin’s hyper-gentrification has been the city’s own policies. Not long after the wall came down, the city senate started privatizing major parts of their public infrastructure. In 1997, Berlin sold half of its electricity utilities. Two years later, the same thing happened with its water. The biggest, and perhaps most ill-conceived real estate deal took place in 2004, when the city flogged off 65,000 units for the obscenely cheap price of €405 million and offloaded a sizable amount of municipal debt to private investors. All in all, each apartment was sold for only around €30,000. The majority of these very homes are now owned by Deutsche Wohnen. In total, Berlin sold 200,000 units between 1989 and 2004.

The swath of privatization was enabled in part by supposedly left-wing parties in the city’s leadership. Since 1989, the Social Democrats have been present in every Senate, thrice building a coalition with the Left Party.

https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/150772455/
I read the link.

3000 units isn't a big number for hardcore real estate developers and investors in the U.S., it just tends to be spread out over multiple localities, not concentrated anywhere. Because as they start buying up units, the availability of units decreases and demand starts pushing up the prices. It's much more difficult to concentrate your holdings on the cheap.

110,000 by a single investor is a huge number even at 30,000 per unit. It's $3,300,000,000. Hell, 3000 units is $90M. For one person or small group to put their hands on $90M over that time period is still pretty difficult. Given that Berlin sold 200,000, it's insane that one organization purchased 55% of the available rental stock.

That's crazy. It makes it very hard for the city's rental market to balance itself without the government stepping in in some way.
 
No, it was in the title.



You used a whole lot of words to say nothing. Did you have an opinion on if they should be doing this or not or are you switzerland on this one?
I said plenty. You asked for someone to explain something to you like you were 5. I explained it to you accordingly. You asked another question about why not choose some other policy direction, I explained that too.

An explanation of how and why municipalities exercise eminent domain prerogatives is what you asked you for. Are you saying that you didn't want an explanation?

As for an opinion on if they should do it - I have no idea what the average rents are in Berlin. I have no idea the extent of the housing shortage or the affordability relative to the rest of Germany. I don't know how this affects commuters vs. people who live in the city. I don't know the general climate of the Berlin population other than the article's statement that 55% of the populations seems to support it.

How can I possibly reach a responsible conclusion on whether or not people in Berlin should pursue a perfectly legal response to a completely local problem? I'd like to learn more about the details surrounding the housing market before throwing out an opinion.
 
I said plenty. You asked for someone to explain something to you like you were 5. I explained it to you accordingly. You asked another question about why not choose some other policy direction, I explained that too.

An explanation of how and why municipalities exercise eminent domain prerogatives is what you asked you for. Are you saying that you didn't want an explanation?

As for an opinion on if they should do it - I have no idea what the average rents are in Berlin. I have no idea the extent of the housing shortage or the affordability relative to the rest of Germany. I don't know how this affects commuters vs. people who live in the city. I don't know the general climate of the Berlin population other than the article's statement that 55% of the populations seems to support it.

How can I possibly reach a responsible conclusion on whether or not people in Berlin should pursue a perfectly legal response to a completely local problem? I'd like to learn more about the details surrounding the housing market before throwing out an opinion.
Fair enough. Thanks.
 
If they go through with this it might seem to some like they haven’t really learned her lesson though have they


Its apples and oranges. Targeting a ethnic/religious group is far different than targetting a group for business reasons.

Your comparison is like saying the US did not learn their slavery lesson when limiting LGBTQ rights.

And again, Germany has 'learned' their lesson more than any other nation. Fuck, Japan does not even teach their kids about the rape of nanjing.
 
Its apples and oranges. Targeting a ethnic/religious group is far different than targetting a group for business reasons.

Your comparison is like saying the US did not learn their slavery lesson when limiting LGBTQ rights.

And again, Germany has 'learned' their lesson more than any other nation. Fuck, Japan does not even teach their kids about the rape of nanjing.
If you think about it hitler succeeded
Jews are gone
Europe is united
Only the flag changed
 
If you think about it hitler succeeded
Jews are gone
Europe is united
Only the flag changed


And if Stalin got the bomb ....
And if the South won the US civil war ....
And so on ....

Nazi Germany was awful, but not uniquely or special awful. Nazi Germany just targetted a group that has the influence/power whatever that made it different and going forever. Finklestein's Holocaust Industry sums it up.

Plus, the allies needed to keep the propaganda going post war to justify their actions.
 
It's a given that corporate landlords will take advantage of having a monopoly on housing and jack up prices whenever possible. It's why they seek that large market share in the first place. I think there can be situations where the housing situation warrants breaking them up, but only if they're compensated with market value for their properties.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,888
Messages
55,451,323
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal
Back
Top