Consideration: Heritable Building Right vs. Property Purchase / Renovation

Uh yeah?! But only further out towards Regensburg, Deggendorf, Cham, etc., or in the "vacuum" space in between aka wilderness.

You yourself have recognized that the lower prices have a reason, so you just have to consider how important the better location is to you. Honestly, I can't understand this whining despite the already cheap offer. Sure, the municipality could really give it away (as suggested), but that probably only happens in fairyland. Objectively, the municipality is already generous, and as a prospective buyer, one could simply acknowledge that instead of complaining.

The supply here is simply significantly higher than the demand.

Are you sure?

uhh, no, exactly the other way around. I'm not quite there yet :D

I stick to my point: Hereditary building rights are a way to acquire quasi ownership rights with a very low monthly burden. That the municipality in this case also provides for 20 years of self-use further suggests to me that they want to do something for the less solvent families.

That was the claim 110 years ago in the German Empire, when this supposedly very consumer-friendly regulation was invented.

I also maintain that in the current situation paying 3% (reduced) and after 10 years 4% on a current market value (real example), and fixing this ratio for 99 years - while simultaneously locking in the indexed lease increase, is madness. One could discuss it at 0.5% - 1% interest.

For the budget, the whole thing is still irrelevant in the first years - the loan for the house plus the ground lease for the land or simply more loan for house and land. But while one pays and repays for the land, the hereditary leaseholder only pays.

From a post further up - today the land may be worth €250,000, in 75 years maybe €1,000,000 - and the leaseholder has paid AT LEAST 75*€6100. If it is not normally increased according to index. Calculating an average 2% increase over 75 years, one quickly figures out for whom this business really pays off and for whom not. It is a model from the German Empire, and was never intended to benefit the common citizen.

From a post further up - today the property might be worth €250,000, in 75 years maybe €1,000,000 - and the lessee has PAID AT LEAST 75*€6100. If it is not normally increased according to an index. If you calculate an average 2% increase over 75 years, you quickly find out for whom this business is really worth it and for whom it is not. It is after all a model from the imperial era, and was never intended to be advantageous for the petit bourgeois.

Once again, concretely. How is the original poster supposed to get a piece of land if it is not for sale or if he would have to move to the boonies? How are families supposed to get affordable property (a house) if they cannot afford to buy the land?

Screw the idea of ownership. I am not buying so that my grandchildren can become rich from selling the land one day. I want to have my own home NOW. And if I can only achieve that with a hereditary building right, then I’ll just do it. Or do you say about a loan, "Only the bank profits from it, so I won’t take out a loan but will only pay for my home in cash"? You bite the bullet there too and pay the bank money so that it gives you a counter-performance on paper. The counter-performance you can’t even hold in your hand, just some numbers in a computer or on paper. A really bad deal for you ;-)

Please don’t only look at what the hereditary building right issuer gets out of it, but also what the family gets. Namely, a home. In the original poster’s concrete case in a location that otherwise simply could not be financed. For that, I am happy to pay something. Even rental apartments are "worth it" according to your argument only for the landlord. Still, millions upon millions use this model!!!

Once again specifically. How is the OP supposed to get a plot of land if it is not available for purchase or if he would have to move out to the middle of nowhere? How are families supposed to get affordable property (house) if they cannot afford to buy the land?

Screw the idea of ownership. I’m not buying so that my grandchildren become rich someday by selling the land. I want to have my own home NOW. And if I can only realize it with leasehold rights, then I’ll just do it.

That’s how it is.
Always this would-have, if and but. What doesn’t exist, I don’t have to desire.
If I want something, I try to realize it.

No one thinks, when buying a fully financed house: it doesn’t belong to me, it belongs to the bank. Okay, some say that. But it still feels pretty good to live in a house that belongs to the bank, right?! And working the garden - everything belongs only to the bank.

We can gladly talk again in 2023 about how far the OP has gotten with his philosophy. In the meantime, we take care of our small, leased and financed gardens, get along more or less great with our new social ties, i.e., the neighbors – having a beer over the garden fence is allowed, and fitness or sports club where we have been since childhood is no longer necessary thanks to the garden and the newly won freedom in nature. That is called perspective :)