Posted by theanonymousone 1 day ago
> Levittowns are six large suburban housing developments, three of which are actually named "Levittown." They were created in the United States (including one in Puerto Rico) by William J. Levitt and his company Levitt & Sons. Built after World War II for returning white veterans and their new families, the communities offered attractive alternatives to cramped central city locations and apartments. The Veterans Administration and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) guaranteed builders that qualified veterans could buy housing for a fraction of rental costs. Under Levitt & Sons, Levittown housing would maintain racial covenants that excluded non-White would-be buyers.
Italics added. Seems the government was somewhat involved in the US too. Of course, now the reason "the free market is terrible at pumping out houses" is government regulation too....
The average rent in Berlin (and other German cities) is not very high but that's because a lot of flats still run on a very old contract. If you're moving to Berlin, finding an apartment is incredibly difficult, even if you're willing to spend a lot of money. My grandmother lives by herself in a 90sqm flat in a really nice area and pays 400 Euros a month. In the last 10 years she tried to find a smaller flat (30-40 sqm) for herself but the cheapest she could find was 750. So she stays where she is and just doesn't use 2 of the rooms she has except for storage. In the meantime, a friend of mine moved to Berlin and couldn't find a decent 60sqm flat for less than 1400 Euros. The only way to get those affordable rents is either knowing someone who is moving out or getting super lucky by finding and getting it through a public ad.
Massenbesichtigung (mass viewings) are not uncommon. The agent will publish a public timeslot and literally hundreds of people lined around the block will show up to view a single flat.
It costs a lot of money to build a new apartment building because land where you are allowed to build is regulated by the State. Also the State requires many regulations that increase unnecessarily the costs, and most of all in the name of the ideology.
For example, housing standards of Japan and the US, which are way cheaper and still serve two of the richest countries in the world, would never be allowed in Germany. That makes housing unaffordable and drives people into poverty.
I live in Japan, so I know it first-hand.
Housing standards in Japan are awful. The average Japanese city is chaotic and ugly with zero urban planning, and the average Japanese house is built with the cheapest possible materials and has zero insulation. I remember reading that the average Japanese house uses 7 times more energy than the average German house! You do NOT want to build houses like Japan.
In my old neighborhood, if a developer wanted to build a high rise with 300 apartments, they’d make a proposal for 350 apartments, have a few public meetings, let people yell at them for a couple hours, and make a “concession” of reducing the project to 300 apartments. Then everyone goes home happy. Everyone knew that was the game, except perhaps a few obtuse NIMBYs that thought they were accomplishing something.
In the mile or two south of Roosevelt Rd, there are 5000-10000 permitted apartments/condos, just waiting for some developer to get a loan and pull permits to start construction. No public meetings needed. They could start building next week.
> »Durch Enteignung entsteht keine einzige neue Wohnung.«
> Das stimmt, aber darum geht es auch nicht.
The nationalization is not about supply, but to stop the price hikes. They also want to invest in new affordable homes at the same time.
Or so they claim.
Source?
Deutschlandatlas says that Berlin has whole 2 percent of empty apartments for all reasons, which is less then half of German average [0]
Some of those apartments are being remodeled, some are just in the period where the previous tenant moved out and the next moved in.
There are 16 thousand long-term empty apartments, which looks like a huge number, but it is only 0.8 percent of the total. [1]
Even if those 16 thousand apartments could be all put to market (some have legal barriers, like being part of a complicated litigation), that easing would not last even for a single mayor's tenure. Last year alone, Berlin grew up by 17 thousand people. [2] It was not an extraordinary year.
ALL that money that the Linke wants to sink into old housing should be spent to build new one, just to accomodate the arrivals.
[0] https://www.deutschlandatlas.bund.de/DE/Karten/Wie-wir-wohne...
[1] https://www.berlin.de/sen/wohnen/rechtliches/zweckentfremdun...
The government may (let us forget, for the sake of the argument, that all major parties in Germany are NIMBY in practice), but for what money? The forced buyout was not free, the German constitution won't allow for that. They may even be sentenced to pay the full market price. That alone will make Berlin bankrupt.
The City of Vienna was a place of misery and slums before their socialist party built out enormous amounts of high-quality housing stock, financed by high taxes on luxury goods.
It to this day tops global quality of live rankings as a result.
We have the empirical data. No need to speculate.
Die Linke is a heavily NIMBY party which just wants to change ownership of existing housing stock forcibly. That won't alleviate any pressure in a city that gains almost 20 thousand new inhabitants yearly.
Are you paying attention? The main plan of the Berlin Left is to expropriate existing housing stock. Given that this is Germany and they cannot just take someone's stuff without due compensation, this will put the city on the verge of bankruptcy if not over it, and they will have no money left to build anything even if they wanted to, which they don't, because any development baaaad.
BTW much of the earlier privatization was caused by the previous Berlin town halls spending on unsustainable boondoggles which almost bankrupted the city already. People have short memory. The city sold its remaining housing stock to pay for the spending spree of former mayor Klaus Wowereit.
I just demonstrated why that is not an issue, since public development produces better results anyways.
The chilling effect on private builders would be a plus with that context, since it would drive down costs for public buildouts.
Your point on expropriation costs is also oversimplifying things. The German constitution says that a price has to be found by weighing interests. Nowhere does it specify markets as the mechanism for doing so, nor the weighting of public interest vs that of the expropriated.
Hence I don't believe that the Linke will even try. They will form a coalition government and agree behind closed doors that they will let this one simply slip; sorry, the Greens got cold feet.
My grandmother died some years ago, my family wanted to sell the house as they didn’t need it. It took 3 years to sell it because it’s in a location with no demand plus 6-12 months to arrange the inheritance legal details. You would say, the price was too high then! It was sold for €30K, a garden farmhouse with 6 bedrooms, garden and garage.
It’s inevitable that some houses are out of the market for some time due to many different reasons.
Zero unoccupied housing is unachievable anywhere but in a dilapidated slum, because apartments must get remodeled from time to time. If you remodel an apartment every 15 years and it takes three months (a rather optimistic timeline), you already have 1,6 per cent of the housing stock out of the market inevitably, because 3 months is 1/60th of 15 years. If anything, only 2 per cent of the Berlin apartments being out of the market indicates that they already don't get enough maintenance!
Then you have pauses between tenants. If an average tenant stays for 8 years and it takes about a month to fix the most basic things once he moves out, and find new people, then you have 1 per cent of the housing stock momentarily unoccupied just due to this. Again, Berlin having only 2 per cent of the stock out of the market indicates that the changing of tenants is already overoptimized, with not enough time to vet new ones and fix smaller things: one moves in on the heels of another.
Then you have a certain small percentage of apartments being part of litigations, either commercial or inheritance-related. Inevitable. Companies split, people die, and not everyone has their papers in Ordnung.
You seem to be claiming that all those mechanisms can be compressed to zero, and that all the apartments that are unoccupied due to them can be put on the market by fiat. How? Will you ban apartment remodeling? That's the way to produce - fully occupied - ghettoes.
Fighting against these companies will only drive prices higher. It is stupid.
I've never met anyone who prefers Vonovia etc. to housing cooperatives, or failing those small private landlords.
They will have to wail until after WW3 because Russia is openly threatening action, European governments are trying to prepare their citizens, German populists want to return to 'normal relations' with Russia, which means 'use our money to invade and kill everyone to the East of us, just not us'.
Germany and Europe is in for a very rough ride.
Were it not for the war situation, then we could say this is 'healthy political turmoil' - but this is at a time when outside parties will take advantage of European disunity.
Areas that are attractive to live always have low vacancy rates, because there's a reason that people want to live there.
The assumption that 'as many people ought to be able to live in a neighbourhood as should want to live there' - implied by the 'vacancy rate' issue just means 'every attractive area turns into Hong Kong'.
While there can be very good reason for more building as well - socialized housing is almost never the answer to that. It has a role in some situations, but generally not on the aggregate like that.
Usually this will have to do with permits, regulation - and frankly workers. Nobody wants to do the kind of labour necessary to build homes, and it's extremely hard to find workers to do that kind of work, which to anyone paying the least bit of attention should be a pretty big paradox.
'City overflowing with people who want homes to live don't want to make homes in which to live'
Probably there's a lot of bureaucracy to clean out and that's a good place to start.
This is a compilation of an anthologic Reddit post (deleted, but all the links are working):
...
Und wenn dann jemand Nachverdichtung vorschlägt, passiert das hier:
1. Gegen 240 landeseigene Wohnungen in Lichtenberg [1]
2. Gegen 150 landeseigene Wohnungen in Lichtenberg (Salzmannstraße) [2]
3. Gegen 105 landeseigene Wohnungen in Lichtenberg (Joachimsthaler Str.) [3] [4]
Hier hat sich die Linke sogar dazu verleiten gefühlt, den Gegnern einen Preis und 500 € zu geben, damit sie ihren Kampf gegen den sozialen Wohnungsbau fortführen können. Die Linke betont ganz stolz, dass das Geld bereits verwendet wurde „um neue Protest-Banner anzuschaffen und mehr Menschen auf das Thema aufmerksam zu machen“ [5].
Again: „das Thema“ ist die Verhinderung des kommunalen Wohnungsbaus.
5. Gegen 50 landeseigene Wohnungen in Lichtenberg (Atzpodinenstraße) [6]
6. Gegen 150 landeseigene Wohnungen in Schöneberg [8]: Dort haben sie Einwendungen gegen den Bebauungsplan formuliert, also aktiv rechtliche Schritte gegen den Wohnungsbau eingeleitet, und ganz offen ihre Position kundgegeben:
„Das Vorhaben [150 landeseigene Wohnungen!] ist für die Anwohner*innen ausschließlich mit Nachteilen behaftet, einen gesellschaftlichen Mehrwert gibt es nicht.“
8. Gegen ~60 landeseigene Wohnungen in Treptow [10]:
„Die Nachverdichtungen bestehender Wohnquartiere sollen möglichst vermieden werden und gegebenenfalls behutsam unter Erhalt von möglichst viel Grün und unter Berücksichtigung der ursprünglichen Siedlungskonzepte erfolgen.“
10. Allgemein gegen Wohnungsbau in Treptow [12]
11. Allgemein gegen Wohnungsbau in Pankow [13]
12. Allgemein gegen Neubauziele in ganz Berlin [14]
Alles Beispiele von Die Linke, weil das die Partei ist, die eigentlich am härtesten für den sozialen Wohnungsbau kämpfen müsste.
Auch Neubau im Außenbereich wird nicht gerne gesehen: 5.000 Wohnungen auf der Elisabeth-Aue sollten verhindert werden [15].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20211015205615/https://www.tages...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20210202231844/https://www.links...
[3] https://www.facebook.com/linke.lichtenberg/photos/a.16689808...
[4] https://www.archivebuttons.com/articles?article=https://www....
[6] https://web.archive.org/web/20220926185744/https://www.berli...
[7] https://web.archive.org/web/20220926184054/https://www.nachh...
[8] https://web.archive.org/web/20220119200234/https://www.links...
[9] https://web.archive.org/web/20220927182345/https://mobile.tw...
[10] https://web.archive.org/web/20220928214930/https://www.dieli...
[11] https://web.archive.org/web/20220307125359/https://leute.tag...
[12] https://www.dielinke-treptow-koepenick.de/politik/aktuelles/...
[13] https://web.archive.org/web/20210910093835/https://www.die-l...
[14] https://www.rbb24.de/politik/beitrag/2022/05/berlin-bauen-ge...
[15] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/baustopp-fur-den-klimasch...
That doesn't seem too unusual, considering the organization probably asks for as much as possible, even if it knows some asks might be unreasonable.
Far left would be inciting people to outright hang landlords. Much like far right is labeling anarchists as terrorists in the US.
I am not German, but from what I can tell it's basically no arms for the defense of Ukraine, and no NATO rebuilding.
Is that correct? Just like AfD, extremely convenient for one particular country.
Three years ago, a pro-imperial Russian told me that we will see regime change in the West, before in Moscow. Looking around the EU at the moment, it turns out that he was correct. What an absolute tragedy.
I mean, how does a local-only party plan to "nationalize housing?"
If this has zero bearing on future national policies, I would love to be talked down.