Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

So my grandfather built on a leasehold property of the church in 1966 with a term of 99 years because at that time he simply couldn't have afforded it any other way. A few years ago (don't remember exactly when) he then bought the property. I just want to say that the leasehold doesn't have to be permanent and that you might eventually have the opportunity to buy the property later. That way he was able to pass it on as a family-owned complete package.

The cases exist, but one should be realistic. Only the 99 years are guaranteed, and one should not commit to a leasehold just because there is a vague hope of being able to buy the property after half the term.

There are such cases, but one should be realistic. Only the 99 years are certain, and one should not get involved in a leasehold just because one has the vague hope of being able to buy the property after half the term.

It also depends very much on who the leaseholder is. In times of poor municipal budgets, there have occasionally been sales, but with church foundations or the like, there is often no chance.

It says right there.

“After the term, which is usually xy years, expires, ground lease holders at cyz generally have a preferential right to contract renewal. If the property owners let the contract expire, they receive compensation from cyz of at least two-thirds of the market value. If the house is resold, the former ground lease holders receive the full market value. Thus, cyz goes beyond the legally required minimum. Since the year blabla, it has been possible to extend ground lease contracts with a remaining term of five to 40 years according to personal wishes even prematurely.”
…
“From these interests results the non-terminability of the contract. Ground leases can be pledged, sold, gifted, or inherited. Termination, however, is excluded. Thus, ground lease holders are more strongly protected in their contractual rights than, for example, tenants or leaseholders.”

Exactly, it says that cyz goes beyond the legal minimum.

But if the contract expires and is not renewed,

Here the ground lease holder has a preferential right to it.

Especially with not so long remaining terms.

It can be extended prematurely here.

You write as if the legal minimum is fixed (hehe). But it remains a contract. So other minimum terms (e.g. 140 years – have seen that before), other compensation amounts (90%?), and other preferential rights for the ground lease holder can also be agreed upon...

I am a normal owner, but I also think that there are many prejudices and misunderstandings regarding ground lease. Sure, it leads to an average lower sale price, but I think if you really want to build and cannot get anything else, it is definitely a good option.

In these times, it can also be possible to have the contract adjusted in your favor.

exactly, it says that cyz goes beyond the statutory minimum.

I am not a lawyer, but I can also be nitpicky about specifications ;) Clearly covered is the following case: Reversion at 2/3, property owner sells the house with land -> compensation at the actual sale price. Not covered as no sale: - Reversion at 2/3, property owner uses it themselves - Reversion at 2/3, property owner lets their grandchild live there for free - Reversion at 2/3, property owner rents out the house - Reversion at 2/3, property owner leases house and land (= no sale) to someone else for 99 years 2 lawyers, 3 opinions: - Reversion, conversion into a two-family house, declaration of division, sale of apartments - Reversion, use that is not a sale, then sale after X years It also says somewhere in the excerpt that there is a claim to extension. Only that an early extension is possible. If the lessor does not want that... see above. And as far as agreements better than the statutory minimum are concerned... of course, one can do that. The landowner just has zero incentive as long as they get rid of the land anyway. Until a year ago, land was extremely scarce and new development areas almost everywhere massively oversubscribed. There is no incentive to agree on 90% compensation if you don't have to.

I think something was misunderstood. The screed has long since been heated using the Hotboy. It was now about the "normal/regular" heating operation via the internal heating element and not via the brine lines. (As it should actually run). Bad timing with Christmas, vacation, etc.