After we had speculated in our last newsletter in September before the general election about which building and housing policy ambitions would be implemented by the parties or the conceivable coalitions, we now know a little more. But really only a little, although for the sake of fairness it must be said that coalition agreements per se are rather nebulous, the details are of course still being fine-tuned. But at least: we have a new ministry that Federal Ministry for Housing, Urban Development and Construction (BMWSB), which is led by Klara Geywitz (SPD). The political scientist, ex-general secretary and member of the state parliament in Brandenburg lost together with Olaf Scholz against the Eskens / Borjans duo the elections for the federal chairmanship of the SPD in 2019. Geywitz, who sees herself as a specialist in employee rights and further training, is widely appreciated . It is not known whether she knows anything about building. After all, are themselves Tenants' Association and also House & Land agreed that such a ministry of its own was needed, since it had been integrated into the Ministry of the Interior since 1998 and led a shadowy existence there. The maxim of the new ministry can be found in the introductory sentences of the coalition agreement on the subject of "Building and Housing":

A pathetic introduction and the reality

“Housing is a basic need and as diverse as the people. We will make the building and living of the future affordable, climate-neutral, sustainable, low-barrier, innovative and with lively public spaces. In doing so, we keep an eye on the variety of framework conditions and forms of living and the individual needs of people in rural and urban areas "

I imagine this slightly pathetic declaration of intent being affixed to the entrance portal of the new BMWSB on a marble slab. But then, somehow, reality catches up with me. How will the clerk in the building authority react if I ask him to approve my building application under the aspect of diversity? Does diversity mean that the distance requirements for new building measures will be abolished, that the 3.400 standards currently in force for new buildings will be at least partially overridden and the 16 different building regulations of the federal states will be standardized?

Unfortunately, I fear that the lofty resolutions will fail because of reality. And so I see another goal of the coalition with skepticism - the construction of 400.000 new apartments annually, 100.000 of which are publicly funded. In addition to the sluggish planning and approval bureaucracy, the prevailing shortage of materials and skilled workers will not vanish into thin air.

Financing unclear

Climate protection in the building sector is a central point in the coalition agreement. Solar cells on roofs should become mandatory for commercial buildings and the rule for new private buildings, the GEG should be changed and newly installed heating should be operated on the basis of 65% renewable energies. That sounds sensible at first, but the implementation will be complicated and expensive and will ultimately be financed from tax revenues. State subsidies are the panacea for whatever measures the traffic light has agreed on. Serious counter-financing models are lacking. An example: The purchase of real estate is to be made easier by giving the federal states more "flexibility" in terms of real estate transfer tax, for which tax exemptions are to be granted. That sounds reasonable and fair at first. However, since this income benefits the federal states and they are guaranteed not to forego income, which on average accounts for around 5% of the state budget, the federal government has to cross-subsidize. But there is a solution: "To provide counter-financing, the traffic light wants to end the possibility for corporations to save real estate transfer tax by means of so-called share deals". Now one can say that this is a sensible counter-financing, because the fact that real estate companies save taxes by means of legal company networks is without a doubt a question of tax justice. Unfortunately, however, the counter-financing is wrong in front and behind. Our flagship state Berlin, for example, received a whopping 2019 billion in real estate transfer tax in 1,46, while the lost income from Share Delas was a meager 100 million. This alleged counter-financing is nothing but populism according to the motto "take from the rich and give to the poor", which is well received.

It could have been worse for landlords

In addition to the financing of all projects through federal funds, i.e. through taxpayers, the coalition paper provides for a second, indirect source of funding: the landlords are particularly well suited to support the diversity that has been invoked. (Please do not be surprised that I am now only talking about landlords, because this is the only way they are referred to in the paper. In contrast to the frequently used "tenants", there are no landlords in the coalition paper)

After all, the FDP seems to have eased the burden on landlords a little on some points, but there is still enough left to be annoyed. So the tenant protection regulations will be extended, the capping limits will be reduced from 15 to 11% in three years, the rent brake will be extended until 2029 (although 3.2 million additional apartments have been built by then), a mandatory, qualified rent index for cities with more than 100.000 inhabitants and Residents introduced. One consolation - at least for the time being - from June 01, 2022, the increased costs through the CO2 price should be shared in half by landlords and tenants, unless otherwise agreed beforehand.

We can be curious to see how the vague and nebulous statements on housing policy issues will actually be implemented, perhaps we will know more in six months.

Bernd Viebach