Berlin Abgeordnetenhaus, Plenarprotokoll 19/89, pp. 9106-9108.
Oh, man, that was class warfare rhetoric par excellence - without an economic
understanding of the matter.
understanding of the matter.
Right honorable Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. Dear Berliners.
Who works in Berlin, provides for a family, cares for relatives, or is every day
concerned for that our city functions, needs naturally to be able to live here.
That is a quite simple standard, and by which the Berlin housing and building
policy needs to be measured.
Many Berliners however unfortunately experience the opposite. They find no
suitable housing when their lives are changed. The Berlin housing market is
quasi frozen. Who has an affordable dwelling remains housed there, even
if it is no longer suitable. Who urgently requires a new dwelling finds none
which he can afford. That is the result of years and decades of false course
corrections in the housing and building policy. Responsible are all those who
in the last 30 years have sat here in the government, namely those who now
so loudly brag and snort they knew entirely better. Nein! You are all
responsible for this shortcoming, from left to black all. Just one little
indication: Under red-red-green, the rent in Berlin doubled. Na, oh Wunder,
how did such happen? - Through your senseless, fully incompetent economic
Politik.
Berlin requires not only corrections in individual laws or terms, Berlin
requires a change, primarily in regards costs and guidelines, and we
require a rational investments climate. Therefore, these leftist
expropriation debates need finally be off the table. Expropriation creates
no housing, expropriation however stands for more debts, for complicated
and expensive [aufwendige] processes, and an inflated new state economy.
Honored Linke, Greens and SPD! Name me one country in which communist
redistribution, thus the abolition of private property, lead to more prosperity
for all. You cannot do it.
It plainly does not, because life does not work thus. Communism - what
you want - leads to a scarcity economy, and straight to a shortage of housing.
All, up to a small political caste to which you all openly want to belong, are
in the end in communism similarly poor. Should that be our future model of
living? Ours does not agree.
Who wants to abolish property profanes the basic ideas of the sozial market
economy, and needs not wonder about absent investments. Who wants more
housing needs to make construction possible. That begins with reliable terms
and clear competences. Construction planning and approvals are not allowed
to last longer than three years and buildings, before all, need to become less
costly. For that, the construction guidelines need to be considerably reduced,
and over-drawn additional obligations be dismantled. The law for simple
construction is certainly a beginning, but it does not suffice by far. Every new
obligation in the end makes the rents more expensive. Every unneeded
prescription makes new projects more difficult, and each regulation makes
projects more difficult. Who wants affordable housing must thus speak
openly of the real costs, namely those originating from the state.
The state's quota in regards construction - this, I've never heard here -
is meanwhile at, believe it or not, 37 percent. For 100 euros of
investments in construction, the state's quota costs 37 euros. The state is
the costs driver. With taxes, levies, bureaucratic hindrances, the state,
the lawgiver, thus you, makes more expensive the construction for us all.
If this cost factor were cancelled, then rental costs in new construction
could be no more at 20 euros but at about 14 euros net per square meter.
Here you see what a leverage effect this has. This applies for all things
regarding the disastrous added energy requirements. Climate policy
symbolism is not allowed to further increase the expense of housing
construction. What costs much and brings scarcely anything may not as a
rule be accepted.
The private housing business which is here so diabolized presents the
largest part of the Berlin rental housing market. Those are the small and
mid-sized landlords. Who incessantly frightens them off, diminishes the
supply of housing, and who diminishes the supply of housing intensifies
the housing emergency. Thus finally stop measuring all landlords
by one measure. Black sheep are everywhere, and need to be and will be
held to account. Yet surely the small, private landlords suffer even now
under the prevailing regulations.
Therefore we are also opposed to the rent registry. You will not manage
the black sheep with a registry, they always find the gaps. The honest
landlord, he is always the dummy. That cannot still be! Ever more small
landlords want to take leave from the housing market and sell. Three times
they may consult with those to whom they then sell. - They sell to the large
investors, to the internationals, to the funds, to the insurers.
Tobias Schulze (Linke): You must find that good!
Do you notice something? You drive the Berlin housing market with your
regulations into a complete dead end. You always achieve exactly the
opposite of what you actually want to achieve. That for once finally needs
to be realized, Herrgott noch mal!
Frank-Christian Hansel (AfD): Bravo!
What instead needs to happen? - In regards the housing construction
promotion, Berlin requires a clear standard. Rent allowances and
supplements housing money for WBS Berechtige [housing entitlement
certificates] can of course work faster than a promotion of individual
objects. The sozial housing needs to succeed with those for whom it was
conceived. False verifications need to stop. Sub-leasing of sozial housing
is not allowed to become a business model. Cooperatives need to be
more strongly supported, and Berlin needs to make possible long-term
property formation. Housing ownership protects against old age poverty,
and that is no secret.
Frank-Christian Hansel (AfD): Right!
Housing ownership protects against dispossession and against dependency
on the rental market.
Tobias Schulze (Linke): When the rents are too
expensive, the people should stop buying, neh?
Here we see a top priority completely neglected for decades. A city
which gives up on ownership for normal employees, takes from Berliners
opportunities for security and quality of life.
Tobias Schulze (Linke): The market regulates that,
Frau Brinker!
I say what you here can learn for once: In Berlin, the housing
ownership quota is around 14 percent. Have you taken a peek at the other
major European cities?
Tobias Schulze (Linke): The market regulates that!
- Ja, wunderbar! - Paris: 30 percent, London: 50 percent, Budapest, Warsaw
even a 80 to 90 percent ownership quota! They do not have such a problematic
situation like Berlin, because we have never taken care to promote that
the normal employees be in a position to provide themselves with housing
ownership. Precisely that is the problem.
The Berliners feel the consequences of the false housing construction policy
every day. Families find no larger dwelling, seniors find no smaller housing,
young people do not leave the parents' house. Many businesses which keep
Berlin running can scarcely afford this city. The state-owned firms are here
for that. The state-owned housing stock is, despite 400,000 units, a scarce
public good which requires a fair distribution.
On that account, we are for that we allocate our state-owned housing to the
Berliners. The state-owned undertakings, in 2024, rented on average at 8.81
euros Nettokalt [per square meter, without heat], the free supply price was
around 14.50 neuros. Thus who receives state-owned housing obtains a real
opportunity to be able to live and remain in Berlin. Thus precisely is this
allotment question of public housing no peripheral matter, but a central
component of construction policy justice.
To the point, we want and we require a transparent allotment model of
state-owned housing by way of a reasonable point system, as is possible
and was implemented in other cities. It considers the local connection, key
and scarce occupations like tradesmen, nurses, police officers, firemen,
honorary officials. In any case shall be considered as well additional
sozial criteria: Handicap, old age mobility, cramped living conditions of
families, income from the housing entitlement certificates. These are all
people who require the sozial housing of the state-owned firms. Decisive
is thus: Who here lives, works, overtakes responsibility, he shall receive a
publicly promoted dwelling. That would be just because it considers the
roots and the Berliners who over decades finance the housing construction
with their taxes and duties.
Ario Ebrahimpour Mirzaie (Greens): Housing space
for white Germans. You want that!
It is a sozial point system because it includes the actual need. It is practical
because it creates a standard which all citizens can understand and examine.
The standard for us is simple.
Ario Ebrahimpour Mirzaie (Greens): Racism is your
standard!
Who keeps Berlin in the running needs to be able to live in Berlin.
I am grateful for your attention.
Frank-Christian Hansel (AfD): Bravo!
[trans: tem]
