Indigenous model - is this still legal?

In conclusion, it remains clear to me that the locals find the model good and right and do not want any newcomers so that prices do not rise for them. Let the stupid city dwellers pay for it; they wanted it that way.

Newcomers complain about farmers because of cowbells, bakers because of the smell of fresh bread, a pub owner because the beer garden gets a little louder in the evening, or a soccer club because of the noise on Sunday afternoon during a game—and you seriously come along with claims that the locals only care about the price?

It’s just that the younger generation, who would also like to stay in the village, are mostly also involved in the village. Whether in the sports club, shooting club, or the fire department.

One example: my grandmother was recently in the hospital. She started talking with her roommate, who by chance actually lives in the same village (800 inhabitants!). The lady moved in about 10 years ago and since then has not seen anyone in the village. A village is not an anonymous city where you don’t know your neighbors. Here you should and must live together and accept, respect, and help each other. We simply do not need people like the ones mentioned above. Of course, there may also be people who fit into the village, but that only becomes clear after a few months or years. That’s why I am not a fan of these large new housing developments in the "commuter belt" of larger villages or smaller towns. Without preferred treatment of locals, you create an anonymous area there that has nothing to do with the village itself. What would be important, and our community actually does this well, is to demolish old houses and create two or three building plots within the village to strengthen the village center.

Demolition and renovation in the town center are also promoted by us Zersiedelung minimiert Construction is always ongoing, always expanding, always renovating. The structure is not designed for massive growth.

No one is forced to accept these prices.

What short-sighted nonsense! Too high prices exclude people. Certainly, building is a luxury – but having a roof over your head is not. Eventually, some will live in "gated communities" and others...

I also commute 3 hours a day to work because the money is earned in the metropolis. That is also a huge price. My colleagues only commute 40 minutes a day but pay multiple times more. To each the same.

To each the same-bad? And that is supposed to be right? We have enough opportunities to organize more quality of life for many if we set limits to profit-seeking and greed. Would it be nicer to commute less? Nope, less than the others is enough. They shouldn’t make such a fuss, I have to do it too... "The slave does not want to be free, he wants to become a slave driver," Sulla is quoted as saying.

You can of course think that I’m whining, because I am. In the East people complain that wages for the same work are not equal and fair, in the South and in the cities people complain about the prices. To each his own.

Complaining doesn’t help. The reference to "complaining in the East" even less, especially since this mantra-like blanket statement is insulting to many great people.

I’m just annoyed by the local resident model because I think there could be fairer possibilities. After all, limitless mobility is expected of us young people nowadays. That shouldn’t be punished now. Why do locals actually have a right to a subsidized plot of land?

I agree with you, the model is bad. Those who demand mobility should also pay for it, especially when they complain about a shortage of skilled workers. Employers who simply demand without delivering accordingly, as in past decades, will soon come up empty. Everyone wants everything from others for very cheap and at the same time optimize their own profit. That is a recipe for creating losers. (By the way, I am not an employee and again not personally affected.) Subsidizing plots is the wrong way because it does not reduce the price level, the opposite is true. Demanding a right to subsidies just because others are subsidized backfires. Please include me in this and exclude others for it...

It's just the case that the younger generation, who also like to stay in the village, are mostly involved in the village as well. Whether in the sports club, shooting club, or the fire department.

Out of genuine interest: how do you deal with people who come from a village, were well integrated there, and move to another (more distant) village because of work/partner/XYZ?

Are they then considered newcomers? Are they the hated city dwellers?

Out of genuine interest: how do you deal with people who come from a village, were well integrated there, and move to another (more distant) village because of work/partner/XYZ?

Are they then considered newcomers? Are they the hated city dwellers?

You notice that relatively quickly

Don't get me wrong, it is certainly possible that "newcomers" also integrate well in the village and thereby enrich it. But I find it absolutely legitimate that a community grants plots of land first to locals. For example, with us, not only locals but also people who work in the community have benefited from this right.

And why do city dwellers come to the countryside? Because the 4 trendy pubs around the corner might not be so interesting anymore at 40 and one can perhaps afford a small house with a garden in the countryside. But then I also have to accept the customs of the village. I also work in a big city and you can clearly tell with most people whether they come from the countryside or from the mentioned city.

When we reserved our building plot in a small village in 2016, we were able to do so without any problems. However, as outsiders, we had to pay 5€ more per m². I had already had a connection to the village for a long time, but we were still outsiders. For the next allocation of the new building plots, there was also an application process in which locals were given preference, but without an obvious points system. It is always difficult because one wants to offer places to locals but also wants outsiders. Should one allocate a portion to locals (by a points system or whatever) and the rest be drawn from all applicants?