Communication after waking up:
Who shot you in the brain?
How sick does someone have to be
if that makes such a nonsense spread?
Are returns of thinner 1000% not enough?
How greedy are lawyers who earn their income over "concrete gold"
do not have to pay tax?
Why can a lawyer deduct real estate expenses,
but incur the profits from the sale of such real estate tax-free?
Is that fair?
At which doctor are you in treatment?
I beg you politely for a benevolent opinion.
This was an email that I found this morning when the kids were out of the house to school and the first time I opened my laptop. A link that "Mike" sent, referred to a (somewhat shortened) representation in the Berlin courier here , overwritten with "landlord attorney threatens with mass cancellations". Well, dear Duzfreund Mike, I do not "threaten", but I inform you about the legal situation. It does not change that by writing them down.
Nor is it the case that every owner has "returns of 1000%". In particular, the private individual owners with an apartment or a house, who are organized in Haus & Grund, are more cautious when it comes to renting because they prefer to get along well with their tenants. They often live in the same house. This Owners meet and displace them from the market, if they cover as rigid as it is currently planned. The big ones are less, they either get out - see, for example, the ADO sale to Berlin, which went through the press in recent days - or they sit it out. I do not think so, Mike, that you want all the small, private owners to leave the market, leaving only corporations that are renting on return metrics.
Even the Berliner Zeitung does not differentiate, it says: "Lawyer proposes owners mass resignations" (here ). The article in the trade press in which I explain this, probably none of the journalists has read. Incidentally, I know Mr. Wild, Managing Director of the Berlin Renters Association, from the working group Mietspiegel at the Senate, where together we have created the rent index 2019, which is now to be covered. The reported by the press indignation of the tenants' association is incomprehensible: would you want to stick to the agreements in the Mietspiegel, there would be no current discussion.
After all, the number of hits on my blog jumped overnight. I am glad that people inform themselves. Maybe there will be an increase in the insight that you do not have to get along with each other, but with each other and you should not let the relationship of politics get out of hand.
I answered Mike the following:
Dear sir …,
What I actually wrote you can find here
read, including sources. There you can also see the context: namely that the former president of the BVerfG has stated in an opinion that the Mietendeckel would be void. The "mass redundancies" are procedurally only the reversal of the burden of proof for the nullity of the law, because this serves against the background of a notice to the tenant, not the landlord.
The newspapers have only reported half here. That's not unusual when you're politically positioned.
Incidentally, I am not a "Mieterfeind" or similar, but I promote a reasonable and constructive interaction with each other. It is not the tenants or landlords that are destroying this, but interest groups that are raising unrealistic hopes and wanting to operate away from our constitution, which we have with good reasons. We should not allow ourselves to be instrumentalized by it, on neither side.
- Lawyer and specialist lawyer
for tenancy and home ownership law -
Links to press coverage:
The tenants' club wants to make a demo on Alex the day after tomorrow: https://www.berliner-mieterverein.de At the same time he has published a press release according to which the application of § 313 BGB is "sheer nonsense": https://www.berliner-mieterverein.de/presse/pressearchiv/massenwohnunglosigkeit-wegen-mietendeckel-pm1938.htm.
After all, my opinion is still no opinion of a judge at the Federal Constitutional Court against 😉