many parallel developments
It happens again crazy much in real estate law. For 6 weeks, I have dealt with other things than this blog and now I can not wait to work up all the issues that have accumulated in the meantime.
Currently on the agenda:
- the new mietspiegel in Berlin
- the draft bill of the BMJV, the Viewing period for rent levels from 4 to 6 years to expand
- the proposal of the party "The Left", Own use layoffs to exclude for tenants from 70 years by law
- the Tax Reform and a signature collection of the tenants' association with the aim of canceling the surcharge on the tenants in the operating costs
- discussion about rent cap (in Berlin) and further tightening of the Rental price brake (at the federal level)
- the current referendum to Expropriations in Berlin
- several new ones Environment protection areas since the beginning of the year
- a BMF draft on changes in the Property transfer tax for share deals
- a first "Pattern declaratory action"In the tenancy law at the OLG Munich (concerning a modernization) - so far only known from megascandals such as the VW exhaust scandal
- strong declining building application numbers and declining housing construction
In the details come a few more things.
Whether and how the permanent interventions work can be assessed badly in isolation, since there are complex correlations in the real estate market. If you turn on many adjusting screws at the same time, it is difficult to say what caused the one wheel and what the other. Nevertheless, let's take a closer look:
No self-service termination via 70!
This is a proposal of the party "The Left" in the Bundestag (report from the FAZ here ). He came shortly after the announcement of a corresponding decision of the LG Berlin, I had about it here reported. Unlike the court, Die Linke does not want to look at this differently and on a case-by-case basis, but generally prohibits self-fire terminations from an age limit of 70 years ago. This should protect older tenants.
In our consultations at Haus & Grund as well as in my law firm, we often have to deal with redundancies for personal use. The majority of cases in which old people are on the tenant side have one of two backgrounds:
- either, a couple with children buys a large apartment to feed themselves with their family. The old tenants lived there with their children decades ago, but the latter moved out a long time ago and the tenant pair remained in it, because the old rent is very cheap and the move to a smaller apartment does not lower the rental costs. Why should you move to a smaller area if it costs the same?
- or a tenant who is about to retire, buys a small apartment to move there at retirement and lower his housing costs.
In the former case, a prohibition on dismissal from 70 would lead to even more than today families with children no longer find (affordable) apartments, because old couples do not release oversized apartments, even though they no longer need the area. In the latter case, you increase the cost of retirement.
Both things can not be right for the leftist. Distribution questions are never easy.
foreseeable reaction of the landlord
Another consequence of such a scheme would be that tenants from about 60 years no longer received leases from private owners - or just temporary or furnished or similar. with the intention that they move out before their 70ten year of life. Here, among other things, the consideration plays a role that leases with the death do not automatically end, but inherited and the landlord does not always have the opportunity to prevent it. The access to real estate and contract would be deprived of him so far sustainable, a sale to those interested in self-intended use is not possible. In the end this means that renting to people as of 70 would cause a significant loss of value of the property. But since the private owners but pension plan operate with their rented property, that would be highly counterproductive. If you have to think economically, got to To prevent that leases run in the 70ste year of life of the tenant, which excludes a rental to people from about 60 just then in the future.
Interventions lead to the next interventions, which in turn lead to re-regulation, and so on. In the end it is disadvantageous for everyone. As a GDR child, I see this development critically because it limits freedoms, both legally and economically.