The following case is clearly covered:
You only see what you want to see.
You are not obligated to sell the house to the leaseholder; you can also sell it normally.
And yes, there are buyers. Everyone has their own needs for a house with land, and not automatically your needs or those who continue to bring their "concerns." According to your "arguments" (they are not even arguments but big "buts" thrown into the air), a worst case will definitely occur, which, as you describe, is only hypothetical.
That would be the same as saying: "wild south, you have taken out so much money for the financing that you will never be able to pay it off in the event of a divorce and it will come to a foreclosure."
Or a bungalow with 110 sqm: "You do realize that the target group for your house sale will be very small and you will not achieve the market value with the sale, because it is too special and not sufficient for 2 children."
Or the one who buys affordable property in the middle of nowhere: "Oh dear, who wants to live there? You pay double and triple for commuting to work; in the long run, it will never pay off."
Ideally, one chooses exactly what suits their needs.
In many cases, the worst case is softened by personal circumstances or even goals. Not everyone has your needs or goals. But you sometimes set the standard with your "buts" exactly there.
I don’t care at all when selling a house whether the buyer concludes a new contract with, say, twice as much ground rent. They will have their reasons for buying the house under those conditions. It will always be sold.
No one will argue when selling a property that they can’t sell the house because the land value has increased and no buyer can be found because the purchasing power is not there.
Germany has its corners with leasehold properties everywhere. They also go away after 60/70 years and are sold.
Our village consists of 2/3 leasehold, and the neighboring village as well. No one complains about it. Only the uninformed. The houses are sold at their contemporary value. The house without the land. One person does not want it because of the leasehold; for another, exactly this variant is the right one.
Everyone has put their dream house here. They did not have to consider whether they are giving up anything because otherwise, they cannot manage the financing. And what is important: the location! We have an excellent location in the metropolitan outskirts; another person cannot or does not want to pay for that at all.
There are clauses that practically make termination by the leaseholder impossible.
That's right.
Ours, as I said, directly said no to leasehold unless you come under 60% lending (no idea why)
Orange Lion
Many factors play a role in financing. Yes, also leasehold. And yes, unfortunately: prefabricated construction.
Look beyond your own perspective: this thread is called "Construction costs are getting more and more expensive." You don't just refer to "we've always done it this way" and "I don't know that, I won't do it," but rather look for alternatives and inform yourself neutrally.
And instead of putting in 5 years (I even heard 10 years were mentioned) of personal work to afford a house at all, and then, because of lack of attention, having the children inherit the house as compensation, I consider that purely self-protection but (for me) not the right path.
From the clauses posted, I don’t see any that would prevent it from expiring after X years.
It doesn’t have to. Neither I nor others are obliged here to post their contract so that you understand it. You don’t really want that, right?
that the issue with leasehold is full of pitfalls.
Your worst case, all due respect: You can rank yourself there with @Bettkannte alias .
