KfW BEG funding stopped 261, 262, 263, 264, 461, 463, 464

And then someone says that what Habeck is doing here is not destroying livelihoods...

Your case is a gross injustice. Contact some newspaper editorial offices to see if they want to report on your hardship case. But unfortunately, due to the distraction caused by Ukraine, there will not be a very large public outcry... Habeck has truly completely failed here.

Your case is a blatant injustice. Contact a few newspaper editorial offices to see if they want to report on your hardship case. But unfortunately, because of the distraction caused by Ukraine, there will not be a big public outcry... Habeck has truly failed completely here.

What exactly should he have done? After all, Habeck is not the "home ownership promotion minister with his own money printing machine." One gets the impression that some people, while selecting tiles and windows, have completely lost sight of what is currently happening in the world. Is this self-protection, a reflex to blame the home-owning-hating Greens, instead of considering the global situation? Or is everything else less important than one's own house? I really don't understand it.

Is it self-protection to reflexively blame the home-hating Greens instead of considering the global situation?

This is only about the issue of reliability and planning security on the part of the state. The subsidies were excessively inflated and only further fueled an incredible price spiral in the construction industry. But you still have to be able to rely on stable framework conditions from the state. With pensions, people also don’t want an abrupt and unannounced cut of €80k from one day to the next just before retirement. And then everyone says, "You should have planned privately; you can’t rely on the state." That may be true, but it’s still bitter for those affected if they can no longer rely on the state, at least for a manageable planning horizon of a few weeks.

What exactly was he supposed to do?

He actually has very little to do with it. But his officials could have taken that into account.

A crucial consequence is that conditionally concluded contracts unfortunately become final/ineffective if the condition can no longer occur. The cause lies in the model wording of the resolutory condition accepted and created at that time by the „BMWK“. The specific requirements named therein, such as the expected funding amounts, can no longer be met.

And apologies please: Bringing up the Ukraine war here now is, to put it mildly, "inappropriate".

At the expense of the small private builders, it actually still gives the big ones the chance to terminate the contract in order to demand even higher prices.

You are mistaken. If the clause is properly drafted, the contract _must_ be terminated if the subsidy is withdrawn. There is no one-sidedness involved here. The clause does not take current construction prices into account.

At this point, I also agree with . The subsidy was far too high and needed to be reformed, but the way it has happened now is simply miserable. Completely unexpected, and the people are even being ridden into a trap that was only introduced with the changed start of the project.

Unfortunately, the funding has completely gotten out of hand over the last 2-2.5 years and has now been corrected. Everyone somewhere still planned a small studio apartment with a separate entrance and then grabbed a total of 70-80k€ in funding, cash of course. They should have reacted much earlier and revised the conditions.

The scheme was originally meant for low-energy houses in new constructions and not as luxury "Baukindergeld 2.0" so that really everyone >200m² would benefit.