General Questions (Heritable Building Rights)

Just out of curiosity, since we also considered building on a leasehold. Is there a clause that ties the leasehold, for example, to the inflation rate?

Just out of interest, since we also considered building on a leasehold. Is there a clause that ties the leasehold, for example, to the inflation rate?

On every year divisible by 5, the ground lease interest can be adjusted to the consumer price index. This is apparently the usual variant for church properties. This can mean an increase or a decrease. It is apparently not uncommon for no adjustment to take place for years and then suddenly a corresponding increase occurs. I once heard something about an old lady who paid the same interest for decades and suddenly had to pay 300% (or so) more overnight. But that's certainly RTL news.

Is there a clause that ties the leasehold, for example, to the inflation rate?

Normally linked to the CPI.

I would like to thank you again for the answers. Simply by participating in the thread, aspects are mentioned and discussed that precisely answer the questions I am asking myself.

The probability is 0%. The hurdles are extremely high, besides you "only" lose the land and house (regardless of the legal form) against payment of the market value. So no financial loss.
By the way, highways or train routes are not simply built through residential areas in cities and municipalities.

Of course, I am very grateful for this answer. However, I find your assessment of 0% somewhat unrealistic. Furthermore, in the following sentence you mention that then "only" land and house are lost.
Excuse me? What else do I have on my land with house, which doesn’t even include the treasure chest with gold coins Tassimat mentioned.

I would like to refer you to your last question

What do you actually want? Build, buy, satisfy curiosity

Referring to the first post here in the topic; the goal is long-term information acquisition so that a property purchase without leasehold with subsequent construction of a multi-family house is possible with as little risk as possible.

Solution approach: move 50 km away and buy

Thank you very much for the answer. I have also thought about that. I would even accept the extra travel time. However, from the posts I read I can immediately derive the following connection:

Further away and rather undeveloped = cheaper but higher risk regarding new development (and maybe even expropriation?)

Closer to the center = more expensive, but (supposedly) higher security against expropriation and new development.

Best regards

Alwayssearchin

However, I find your assessment of 0% somewhat unrealistic.

You are completely wrong there.

Furthermore, you mention in the following sentence that then "only" land and house are gone.
Excuse me? What else do I have on my property with a house, of which I don't even own the treasure chest with the gold coins that Tassimat was talking about.

Nothing else. But you will generously be compensated for the value of the house and land. You incur zero loss! (except for a move – but you get a new house for that)

so that acquisition of land without hereditary building rights with subsequent construction of a multi-family house is possible with as little risk as possible.

Both types of land entail exactly the same risk. There is no difference at all.

Farther away and rather undeveloped = cheaper but higher risk regarding new construction (and maybe even expropriation?)

The risk of expropriation there is almost zero as well, unless you build a farm. In classic development plan areas, expropriation does not occur.

Closer to the center = more expensive, but (supposedly) higher security against expropriation and new construction.

More expensive yes, but also higher rental income possible. Security against expropriation is identical.

What exactly do you understand by "risk regarding new construction"? I don't get that.

In summary: You have an irrational fear of expropriation and hereditary building rights. Where does this fear come from? The former practically does not exist and the latter is not a disadvantage.

If I am already thinking about building a multi-family house, then I consider 100 other and much more important questions. You should think about that.

Further away and rather undeveloped = cheaper but higher risk regarding new development (and maybe even expropriation?)

Closer to the center = more expensive, but (supposedly) higher security against expropriation and new development.

With this line of thinking, you will never build/buy... where does this completely unnecessary fear of expropriation come from? Did you grow up in the FRG? Then I will never be able to understand that.

You are standing in your own way regarding your potential desire for a house. All possible prospective builders weigh up: distance to workplace, cost of building plot, cost of house construction, where is the family, how will it be with children, do I like the slope, how is the neighbor, semi-detached house or detached house, how far can I commute, and much more.... and in 99.9999999% of cases it still never comes up: where will I be expropriated faster?
With this "overfear" you will never be able to build/buy.
By the time you have determined whether eggs are also laid at the property in Wollmichsauweg and the likelihood of those being taken away by the state, the Müller family has already bought, built, and moved in.

Realize where your fears come from, overcome them, only then can something happen.