Contractual penalty for sale/rental within x years

Standard land value says nothing about the market value. As a rule of thumb, standard land value * 2.5 = market value.

Likewise, standard land value is without development, and that also costs a lot of money. Normally, you buy fully developed from the municipality.

The standard land value does not say anything about the market value. As a rule of thumb, standard land value * 2.5 = market value

Hi Bookstar,

That is not correct. Because the Boris value results, among other things, from the sales of previous years?!

So here in Hamburg, in the area where I live, the standard land value in 2016 is €350/sqm. One of the last plots here recently went for that price.

Of course, it can also be different.

Yes, well that restricts your lifestyle. Isn't there anyone you can ask about that? Basically, there are always situations where you have to move.

There does not have to be a causal connection between "owner-occupied" and "no resale within the first 10 years." You said that it is about the topic "owner-occupied." The question now is how this is formulated in the municipality's sales contract. And you can surely also provide your possible input on that. I can quite understand the municipality's approach: It is about preventing speculation with "cheap" (which is relative…) acquired plots of land: The sale is to be made to the "end consumers." In many municipalities, there is a sophisticated point system that practically makes it impossible for outsiders to get a plot of land. In addition, there is usually a building obligation (to prevent hoarding of building land). If a building is not constructed within the specified period (alternatively: ready for occupancy; construction started, etc.), the municipality has a repurchase right. I don't find that so bad. Due to the building obligation, it is usually ensured that a building plot is fully developed within a manageable time frame (when the sale of building plots is ongoing). To be honest, I would not worry about it if resale is not contractually excluded: If the new buyer also "lives there himself," the requirement is still met.

The idea is not so bad to deter speculation. But in its implementation, it is severe, both in terms of duration and costs. At least hardship cases, professional relocation, etc. should be regulated, otherwise I would simply find it unfair (if it is even permissible at all).

I see it the same way. All understandable reasons for such a regulation, but the severity is clearly exaggerated. A conversation with the person responsible revealed that there will be no change to this, and in case of doubt, the municipal council has the final say. I will probably stay away from the property.