Don’t Miss a Post. Subscribe now.

Amazingly Crazy Affordable Housing Referendum Wins in German Election

Affordable Housing Referendum

Please consider Berliners to Vote on Expropriating Housing From Powerful Landlords

After years of rising rent forcing many Berliners out of the city, activists led by Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen (Expropriate Deutsche Wohnen, or DWE) received nearly 350,000 signatures from Berliners and managed to force a vote on whether to allow the expropriation of housing owned by landlords with over 3,000 units on the Sept. 26 election ballot. 

While the movement to expropriate large real estate companies, who have made a fortune speculating on the housing market and causing rent increases over the past decade, has been active in Berlin for years, ironically it was the German Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Berlin’s Mietendeckel (rent cap) law that was the catalyst for the current referendum. While this law would not impose a rent cap, DWE volunteer Dennis Rahmel thinks that it would still have a dramatic impact on rent prices in the city. “Prices would go down in the expropriated apartments, which would change the rent not [just for the socialized apartments] but for other people as well, no matter if they were in public apartments or not,” said Rahmel. “It would also mean that society could show that there is some power against investors, against big capital, and that housing is a human right… it would be a big sign for other cities, too.”

Kim Meyer with Bündnis gegen Verdrängung und Mietenwahnsinn Berlin (The Berlin Alliance against Displacement and Rent Madness) thinks that it will also discourage the kind of rampant speculation (and subsequent rent hikes) that real estate markets around the world have seen.  

While litigation, such as the kind that met the rent cap law, is likely to challenge this referendum if it passes, it is less likely to be successful because the German constitution specifically allows for such appropriation. “[Unlike] Mietendeckel, socialisation is a constitutional right in Germany. In fact, many houses were already expropriated (and afterwards destroyed) in order to build a motorway around the city,” said Meyer.

Meyer and other organizers think that the reason so many of the city’s establishment have come out against the law is because of its possible effectiveness in solving the housing crisis—not only in Berlin, but as an example to cities all over the world. “It might inspire people to question the current sellout of their land and cities to global investors and to [investigate] compulsory purchases of necessities by their administrations, like housing, water wells, power plants, et cetera, and to fight for their human right to housing,” said Meyer.

The Vote

Yes 56.9%, No 39%

The vote was nonbinding but human rights activists celebrate.

Housing Activists Celebrate Victory in Germany

Affordable Nonsense

The idea that government can create affordable housing at will is of course nonsense. 

The proposal, if followed (and it appears it started in advance), will either result in disrepair of property, higher taxes, or both.

Despite the obvious flaws, AOC and the US Progressives are sure to latch on to this idea. However, I doubt such an action in the US would ever pass constitutional muster.

Thanks for Tuning In

Like these reports? If so, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

35 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Jackula
Jackula
4 years ago
 Here in LA it is impossible to build housing primarily because of the existing SFR homeowners and their political power, secondarily the crappy politicians with their hands out, and thirdly all the red tape. And with a big hand from the central banks, the price of existing housing is skyrocketing.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
Reply to  Jackula
That’s the story everywhere.
FIRE rackets, in particular requiring “permits” to put a roof over one’s head, are totalitarian regimes’ preferred way of robbing productive people, in order to transfer the loot to idle, rent seeking leeches who produce nothing, understand nothing, comprehend nothing and are of no real value (aside from perhaps target practice) whatsoever.
The current rackets being different only in minor, trivial and irrelevant detail; from how the Spanish Crown handed land grants to its similarly favored useless dilettantes back during the colonization of the Americas.
The US did things different for a while. Becoming a “Shining City on a Hill” in the process. But are now firmly back in the totalitarian Banana Republics and Caudillos camp. Ditto the rest of the West.
Problem for the totalitarians and their useless dilettante offspring, is that they are all, from “Billionaires” to “Presidents” to “Nobel Laureates”, at best utterly mediocre. All, every penny and every privilege, of their status being the result of nothing whatsoever besides systemic theft from their productive betters. Hence why “the systems will collapse” is the biggest bogeyman of all, in their illiterate little minds.
Sad thing is, the utter pervasiveness of the indoctrination of even those being robbed to keep the charade going, has so far managed to keep productive people, not one single one who benefits from the theft rackets, from simply getting together and taking the trash out. So far at least, leaving that task to such an unlikely protector, of Liberty and once-back-in-a-better-era-were Western values, as the Taliban of all things.
1-shot
1-shot
4 years ago
This is communism disguised under the claim that “housing is a human right”.
Once again governments are willing to kill free markets that have become unbalanced because of their prior laws. If zoning laws were repealed, hundreds of millions of housing units would be built around the world by using land more productively and efficiently. Zoning restrictions prohibit this – you can’t build a fourplex on a sf lot, an apartment complex on a retail property, a high rise on an assemblage of single family lots. Let land be utilized for its “highest and best use”.
Yes, you would have higher density in many areas, but that has its benefits as well. It allows for efficient public transport, shorter commutes, reduced energy consumption, more social interaction to name a few.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
Reply to  1-shot
+1.
Banning expanding upwards, is no less damaging to America anno now; than banning expanding outwards, solely in order to ensure a few favored mediocrities on the Mayflower would have been able to live in splendor off of rent seeking and nothing but, would have been back then.
It’s pure theft, pure and simple. Destroying American competitiveness, hence America itself, by forcing productive and intelligent people into de facto state supported slavery under rank idiots on Fed welfare who produce nothing, add no value and are of no value.
KidHorn
KidHorn
4 years ago
Being a property owner is fraught with risks. When governments go broke, the first casualty is land owners. They can’t take their land and flee.
amigator
amigator
4 years ago
This already exists here. The Government can condemn land/buildings if shown the property is needed for public purposes and the owners can hire an attorney at the governments expense to ensure highest and best use in compensating for the property taken.
Mish is 100% right in about 5 years the Government run housing will be in desperate need of maintenance and in 10 years no body will want to live there.
PostCambrian
PostCambrian
4 years ago
I think that expropriation is constitutional as long as the owner is fairly compensated. I think that a better model would be to use tax laws to encourage private home ownership such as increased capital gains taxes on home rentals or subsidies for home ownership such as equity sharing, either with other private investors or government investors. Equity sharing, within given parameters of occupant ownership and down payment, could result in no (or reduced) capital gains for the investor which provides part or all of the down payment of an owner occupied house. 
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
4 years ago
The idea that capitalism that can create cheaper housing is a farce . Capitalism allowed some to prosper while others are left behind .That is how it works.
Elevatorman
Elevatorman
4 years ago
I think a government forcing people to choose between taking a drug against their will or losing their job is far worse than this.  
Dutoit
Dutoit
4 years ago
Why Berlin and many other big cites don’t copy the HDB of Singapore ?
Of course this would be a revolution.
Scooot
Scooot
4 years ago
Maybe the authorities will retain the appropriated apartments and use them for social housing. Social Housing was much more prevalent in the UK in the past and as it becomes more difficult for people to house themselves pressure builds to find alternative ways of addressing the issues. 
The speculative investment demand for housing caused by Central Bank interest rate policy is probably part of the problem.
caradoc-again
caradoc-again
4 years ago
I suppose best not to own any property, of any type, in Germany.
Take your money and run.
FromBrussels
FromBrussels
4 years ago
Reply to  caradoc-again
The way things are evolving in Europe in general, ‘owning’ property will become a disappointing illusion, especially when you ‘own’ several properties, it ‘ s only a mattter of time; ‘owning’ is not woke enough…unless of course you belong to the ruling elite….  
dbannist
dbannist
4 years ago

This actually passed?I have lost all faith in humanity.Well, not quite.  But this truly surprised me.  I had thought this idea was some fringe idea when I first heard about it a few weeks back.  To hear that it actually passed is truly shocking and makes me tremble a bit for the intelligence of mankind.  Clearly, I have overestimated the Germans.

TexasTim65
TexasTim65
4 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
If Eddie_T is right about 85% of Berliners renting then it’s easy to understand why it would pass. As soon as more than 50% of people rent it’s obvious that at some point they would attempt to band together and vote themselves lower rent/ownership. As also mentioned above, it’s Mob Rule at it’s worst.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
I read 85% somewhere. Brookings says it’s 83%. 
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
Berliners are used to cheap rent. Rent is going up fast , but it’s still cheaper than here, and much cheaper than say, London. It’s 30% cheaper than NYC.
It’s an attitude they have that the government should provide, even though the city is growing a lot in population. Housing in Germany is experiencing the same kind of rapid price appreciation we’re seeing there, and 85% of Berliners rent, and so are at the mercy of inflation.
There is a history of the government there doing a lot to provide housing….through several different policy initiatives. Socialism is both expected and desired.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
When capitalism is failing people they look to other alternatives. Most of rise of socialism is mostly the capitalists fault for not allow prices to fall and money chasing after assets and pricing people out. Modern capitalism (the bastardized version of it) is failing.
whirlaway
whirlaway
4 years ago
Yes.  This is end-stage capitalism.
RonJ
RonJ
4 years ago
Socialism is failing.
Klaus Schwab: you will own nothing and be happy. The socialists want your asserts for their benefit, because they are failing.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
If this is your idea of “Capitalism”, your idea of “capitalism” is what everyone else refers to as Socialism.
Empirically, at least of restricting yourself to the past 50 years, I suppose you may well be on to something. Those who have been, and are, running around most loudly calling themselves “capitalists”; haven’t been anything more than deadweights living off of Fed welfare stolen from others, and unearned privileges handed out to useless idiots by totalitarian socialistic states, for over half a century.
So, yes, if “Wall Street” and “Real Estate” has anything to do with “capitalism”, then most certainly “capitalism” has failed, will fail and is nothing but a failure. Just like all the other socialisms, from Stalin’s to Mao’s to Mussolini’s and Chavez’, which have failed just as badly (but admittedly no longer any more badly than “our” version) over the years.
So then, since both nominal “socialism” and nominal “communism” and nominal “capitalism” have all failed (no wonder since they are all simply dialects of totalitarian statism…), that then, like Rothbard realized after spending most of his life resisting it, leaves the only viable “ism”, Anarchism. Or, in Americanese, Liberty. That one neither have, nor will, fail.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
4 years ago
Totally illegal here in the US obviously even if it’s legal in Germany.
What I don’t get is why anyone in their right mind would think it would make rents more affordable. Whomever buys the expropriated property is going to charge the exact same rent (if it’s a smaller landlord). Why would they charge less given there is no rent control?
The real key is who decides which properties are forcibly sold. If for example a large investor has 3100 properties, do they get to pick which 100 get expropriated? If so, they will presumably let go the least profitable and most derelict places first. Then the next most important thing is what’s the price paid. If it’s going market rate, what happens if no one steps up to buy, does the government then pay off the landlord at market rate? If it’s less than market rate I’d imagine there would be lawsuits even in Germany.
Another scheme guaranteed to fail.
dbannist
dbannist
4 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Indeed.  It will fail.  So the way this was worded….If I own 3001 properties in the affected area I only have to sell one?  If so that’s nuts.
Of course I’d sell the least profitable one which will also be the one in the worst neighborhood and with the most maintenance issues.  I’d also get paid full price for it by the government (I assume it would work like eminent domain does here).  I’d then take that money from that dilapidated home and put it into fixing up one of my other properties and charge MORE rent for that one, since it’s now nicer. That means higher rents, not lower.
O, and that house the government now owns will now fall down since government housing is always more poorly maintained that privately owned housing.  This actually REDUCES housing stock which increases my rent on the other properties even more.  Good for me, bad for the tenant.
anoop
anoop
4 years ago
sounds like real-estate confiscation (similar to gold confiscation).
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
Reply to  anoop
All wealth in totalitarian societies are confiscated. Either by way of debasement of others, which is how the current “owners” obtained the buildings, or by other means of confiscation, which it sounds like will be how the next “owners” do. All the same thing. Just arbitrary totalitarian privilege peddling, and nothing but.
LM2022
LM2022
4 years ago
Pitchfork time.  For too long the oligarchy have enriched themselves at the expense of the working and middle classes by buying the services of politicians who worship at the altar of neoliberalism.  Expect the pendulum to swing the other way now.  
conservativeprof
conservativeprof
4 years ago
Reply to  LM2022
Who is the oligarchy? Whose services were bought? By swinging the pendulum, do you mean any bloody French style revolution with an even worse set of ruling elite?
whirlaway
whirlaway
4 years ago
Well, change is always fraught with the risk of unintended consequences.  But the status quo is not sustainable.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
“…with an even worse set of ruling elite?”
The one upside to things being as bad as they can possibly get, is that at least that option can be ruled out this time. May not be much, but it is something…
conservativeprof
conservativeprof
4 years ago
I do not know about German politics or the real estate situation. I assume that housing prices are tight with high demand and low supply. The only solution to this situation is to increase supply or decrease demand. Increasing prices indicate a permanent imbalance between supply and demand often partially caused by government policies. I do not blame government entirely for increasing housing prices. In the USA, population increases especially through immigration policies (government policies of open borders) are an important source of housing shortages. In major cities, most land has been developed so increasing supply is not easy. Blaming investors makes for an easy scapegoat but does nothing to resolve the problem. With government control, the winners will be occupants of rent controlled housing provided someone can be coerced to maintain the properties. The losers will be masses who cannot find housing because investors have no reason to build houses. The failure of rent control is evident in NYC (and other places) with existing renters essentially having property rights so that owners cannot sell unless existing tenants are bought out. Male heirs of existing tenants inherit these rent controlled units. Existing tenants essentially have been granted property rights without investing any funds. Referendums like this are essentially mob rule with legalized theft. The mob can vote themselves property forcibly taken by the hand of government without compensation.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
4 years ago
Perhaps it would be complement the story if the names of the landlords were known?
Do they start with Goldman or Blackrock, by any chance?
Mish
Mish
4 years ago
article did not say 
Anon1970
Anon1970
4 years ago
I think you are right. As I recall, large institutional American investors did invest in what they thought were undervalued housing units in East Germany after reunification. The ownership of housing and real estate in general by foreign nationals is a touchy subject in many countries.
Webej
Webej
4 years ago
Reply to  Anon1970
Not just foreign nationals. In any town or village buying up the local housing stock by outsiders has always been a touchy subject.
People who get their money elsewhere buy up the housing for the future generations of those born there, forcing them to leave, and usually undermining the local economy.
RunnerDan
RunnerDan
4 years ago
Reply to  Anon1970
“The ownership of housing and real estate in general by foreign nationals is a touchy subject in many countries.”  Yes, as it should be!  Consider that our elites have offshored the manufacturing base to countries that use slave labor, enriching their elites who in turn come to the US and buy up the real estate.  “In the parlor rooms of Starbucks, I learned with little labor, how to be a global citizen, and hate my next door neighbor!”  (GK Chesterton, sort of).

Decorate Your Walls with Mish Fine Art Images

Click each image to view details or purchase in the store.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.