In Germany there are around 4 million private landlords who rent around 60% of the available living space and make up around 5% of the total German population. For most private landlords, renting is just an extra income or a security for old age. 45% achieved net income of € 0 to € 4.999, only 19% had net income over € 10.000, mind you per year. Private companies such as real estate funds and real estate AGs hardly play a role in rural areas; in a few metropolitan areas (Berlin, Munich, Hamburg) their share is around 24% of rental properties. However, private-sector companies are at the center of a debate that has been less pragmatic for years than ideologically driven and fueled time and again, for example by the Berlin referendum. At first glance, rents that are too high and a lack of living space are denounced, but, as the example of Berlin clearly shows, there is more to this. Nor is it questioned what the reasons are for the actual grievances that can be enumerated using the example of Berlin:

  • For several decades only a few new social housing have been built, but many have been sold to investors to fill the tight coffers. In addition, the social bond expired in numerous apartments.
  • Since Berlin is poor but sexy, it is mainly “creative people” from all over Germany who move to the capital. You may think of yourself as sexy, but primarily not necessarily financially well-positioned. At the same time, however, these groups require inexpensive living space in the hippest neighborhoods.
  • There is enough building space, but it is not designated as building land or prevented by citizens' initiatives. One example is the 355 hectare Tempelhofer Feld, the development of which was stopped in 2014 by a referendum. Inexpensive living, but local recreation in the immediate vicinity, if you want everything in Berlin, you get it.

There are numerous other reasons for a lack of living space in Berlin, but the detailed questions have long since been overshadowed by ideological fundamental debates. In essence, at least in the capital, the system question is posed. An example may be the petition for the expropriation of "Deutsche Wohnen", which will probably receive a clear majority on the day of the federal election.

If the election on September 26th resulted in a nationwide government constellation similar to that in Berlin, this would have considerable consequences for real estate companies, but also for private landlords as a result. The Real Estate Association Germany (IVD) has therefore summarized and assessed the individual election programs of the parties represented in the Bundestag on housing and building policy issues, in the following we list the most important points of the individual parties and allow us to make brief comments:

Tenancy law:

The CDU / CSU only expresses himself very generally, Mr. Laschet was probably in charge, shortly before the lunch break: the best tenant protection is sufficient living space, legally questionable and unsuitable interventions such as the rent cap are rejected.

The  FDP-Neither remains specific, here it says succinctly:

  • Abolish rental price controls, prevent nationwide rent caps

The AfD seems to have written off at the CDU and FDP, they think:

  • Rent controls, rent caps and other regulations of the rental market are rejected.

That is really poor what the CDU, FDP and AfD have to say about the future of the rental portfolio in Germany. This is more reminiscent of “Keep it up” or “No experiments”. However, they all become more specific when it comes to further housing policy issues (see below), but let's first consider the ideas that the parties to the left of the center have:

First the SPD:

  • Rent moratorium in tense residential areas. Rent increases are only permitted within the scope of the inflation rate
  • Limit the modernization rent increase to a maximum of 4 percent
  • Remove the rental price limit
  • Extend the assessment period for rent indexes to eight years
  • Design a qualified rent index nationwide according to uniform criteria
  • Introduce commercial rental price brake
  • End the conversion of rental apartments to condominiums, strengthen the right of first refusal for municipalities

Mrs. Eskens and Mr. Kühnert clap their hands enthusiastically. After all, the word “expropriation” is not mentioned, which the SPD in Berlin tries to avoid as much as possible. It is doubtful whether these proposals will inspire landlords and nobody will be happy about high inflation rates.

But now it's getting really scary and you have to ask yourself which comrades or inside with the LEFT probably led the pen?

  • Introduce nationwide rent caps for residential and commercial use, remunicipalisation, socialization law (housing groups)
  • Rent index calculation with all rents in the areas concerned, rent index generally mandatory for cities
  • Environmental protection areas, expansion bans on conversion. Stricter rules for redundancies, more protection against dismissal
  • Share deal ban. Withdrawal of approval for real estate funds. Tax higher profits from private property sales
  • Legalize occupation of misappropriated living space. Right to rent strike
  • Modernization rent increase only in the amount in which energy savings can be recorded.

Well, landlords are probably frowning and seriously considering spontaneous sales and the subsequent escape to Austria, even before Mr. Kurz closes the borders. Probably only squatters and rent nomads can look forward to such proposals; they are then allowed to strike to stop paying rent.

But it won't be that bad, it still exists B 90 / The Greens:

  • Upper rent limit in existing buildings by federal law
  • Eliminate and tighten rental price controls
  • Regular rent increases a maximum of 2,5% per year of the rent index
  • Reduce the modernization surcharge to a maximum of € 1,50 per square meter
  • Suspension of rent in the event of a crisis-related loss of income
  • Extending the conversion ban and environmental protection
  • Punish exorbitant rent, misuse and speculative vacancy of living space
  • Proportional taxation of real estate ownership in share deals

Unfortunately, the empathy of the Greens is limited to tenants, which is not surprising. The question to be asked is who should still invest in the energetic improvement of buildings, after all a core objective of the party.

The decidedly anti-property and dirigistic intentions of the SPD, the Greens and the Left Party can also be seen in all areas of housing policy, although some suggestions seem quite reasonable. The IVD paper also deals with the election programs for the areas of housing, building land, surrounding areas / social housing, housing benefit, non-profit status / building law / promotion of home ownership / climate protection, energy transition / urban development, inner cities, urban development funding and money laundering.

Anyone who has compared the election programs of the parties for decades usually knows one thing: after the coalition negotiations, compromises were mostly found, but in the past there were always partly sensible, partly improvable compromises between the CDU / CSU, SPD, Liberals and Greens, there was one healthy balance between conservatives and leftists and the Schröder / Fischer era was largely shaped by reason and not by ideology. This balance would no longer exist in a coalition of red-green-red, as parts of all three parties are increasingly arguing anti-capitalist and anti-market economy. The concept of private "property" is increasingly discredited, instead the state should judge it, in almost every area of ​​life and only 32 years after the inglorious end of socialism. A quote from Kevin Kühnert from an interview with “Zeit” also fits this, which impressively documents how ideology-driven large parts of the left-of-center parties are now:

“I don't think it's a legitimate business model to earn a living from other people's living space. Consistently thought through to the end, everyone should have at most the living space in which they live ”.

Bernd Viebach