Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

One could also reintroduce the misallocation levy, which many cities have abolished for subsidized apartments. A friend moved into a subsidized apartment as a student 20 years ago - 60 sqm of perfectly renovated old building in the best downtown location in a former railway settlement. 350 euros all-inclusive. Today, she belongs to the top 5% income-wise. She now uses this apartment as a "hotel" when she goes shopping or dining in the city. The neighbor uses the apartment as storage space. I estimate that not even a third of the apartments are occupied as originally intended.

And the church pays such prices for living space that it provides free of charge?

You introduced the "free of charge" just now. But yes, based on the reporting where the construction costs, equity capital, and borrowed capital were presented and the council meeting where the living space of 1200 m2 was mentioned, I calculated the 3500 euros/m2:

The total construction sum of 4.1 million euros included a contribution of 1.6 million euros from the builder, the rest was subsidized according to the Housing Promotion Act through state grants. Landlords who receive such subsidies commit in return to offer their apartments at significantly lower prices than they otherwise could. Furthermore, these apartments may only be rented to tenants holding a housing entitlement certificate.

The plots for the construction had previously been undeveloped, were purchased by the municipality, and AFAIK were leased to the builder under a hereditary leasehold agreement.

The client contributed 1.6 million euros to the total construction sum of 4.1 million euros...

Why didn’t the city just build it themselves? Unfortunately, taxes are once again not financing the socially disadvantaged, but the most corrupt association in the world. A medal is included for free. How much tax does the church pay again?

Because the state is generally an even worse building owner than, for example, the church. And the core task of a municipality is simply not the operation and maintenance of residential complexes. The provider is unlikely to show any significant profit here anyway. Those who are actually less well-off financially can benefit here.

Moreover, a municipality would also not have to tax any potential rental profit. Alright?!

Point 2) These are of course the predestined homebuilders! If we raise the minimum wage so much that even low-skilled workers can usually afford to build a little house, then our economy will not work in the long run.

This (wrong) conclusion reveals a blatant lack of economic understanding. It is not about all low-skilled workers being able to build a little house. But even if - why not? The money is there, it is just (for this purpose) wrongly distributed. The fact that not everyone can get a little house anyway has more to do with lack of space and environmental protection.

bei größeren Neuansiedlungen von Unternehmen könnte man auch den Bau von Werkswohnungen zur Bedingung machen...

Did you know that various companies have already started new construction projects for employees? In the past, the company car was top, today affordable housing is used to attract qualified employees.