New building with granny flat - general contractor restricts rental and KfW funding

Even without studying etiquette or defining rules of decency like at the breakfast table in daycare, an adult can know something like this. Are you serious that rules need to be defined for adults, i.e. also parents of small children? I can't believe it! I would suggest: Simply remember the words you repeatedly recite like a mantra to your own little ones at the dining table and call it "decency": "Behave yourself properly, or I'll send you to your room, Ben-Oliver".

It is simply naive to believe that in a company with X employees, everyone is an angel and no one is stuffing their pockets. Basic rules must of course also be roughly defined. It is certainly not nice, but absolutely to be expected.

It is simply naive to believe that in a company with X employees everyone is an angel

One should not assume that and preferably not exclude oneself from it either.....

and no one fills their pockets.

... but that exactly matches the example with one’s own children; "filling pockets" is not forbidden any more than eating all the schnitzels. A stranger’s child at one’s own birthday party who eats all the chocolate of the others would quickly be called badly brought up while oneself the next day at the office stuffs one’s pockets in the same way. If my (m)y boss had told me not to eat all the Christmas cookies alone I would have felt insulted. Sorry, but I lack the understanding that as an adult one needs such hints. Besides, one can know that such upbringing deficits are not changed by warning notes; the damage runs deeper. There has always been the little comrade theft, the fridge emptier, the freeloader...... but their mere existence does not give them the right to do it nor does it cease to be antisocial.

My contribution was not meant to defend the person who raids the buffet. I responded to your outrage by saying that rules really shouldn’t be necessary here, as the behavior should be a matter of course. However, this viewpoint will not be shared by every employee once a company reaches a certain size. Therefore, even obvious rules need to be defined (in most companies). I’d be interested to know how it works at Google, etc.
In this respect, I still find the comparison to the issue raised by the OP inappropriate. I don’t see myself as someone who empties the breakfast buffet but would have zero scruples about claiming double KFW funding if the formal requirements were met.
Ultimately, I have also repeatedly read in various threads here that having a second residential unit is not worthwhile just for the subsidy. The costs and reduced flexibility in floor plan design would not make someone happy. Why should it be different here?
By the way: We don’t even have free coffee here, so these are not direct experiences, but only my opinion.

I understand. For me, it was just about the fundamentally sounding statement in one of the previous posts that basically everything that is not forbidden would simultaneously be okay and permissible. But... so far so good.....BTT :D

It was about the fact that @11ant said that anyone who receives funding for their residential unit but does not rent it out is committing a criminal offense - simplified.

This is no longer "simplified", but summarized in such an almost remarkably high degree distorting the meaning that not only you do not want to agree with this view, but neither do I. That the KfW does not monitor the rental is absolutely fine with me: the purpose of the funding is to create living space beyond the builder’s own needs, so that the builder potentially does not only remove their own family as tenants from the market. The benefit of the second residential unit for the common good begins with its existence. To demand that it must be occupied by strangers from completion would be excessive. Even a children’s wing, which only becomes available for rental when the offspring goes to university, makes sense and is worthy of funding. But the funding sought here in the concrete case for the increase of the per capita living space of the builder’s family does in my opinion, without needing even a high school diploma to recognize it, NOT correspond to the purpose of the funding, and accordingly the mentioned general contractor gained sympathy points with me for refusing to collude! Promoting second front doors and second sink drains cannot seriously be considered a funding purpose – this is already recognizable from the amount of the funding.

The purpose of the subsidy is to create living space beyond the builder's own needs, so that the builder potentially does not take only his own family off the rental housing market. The benefit of the second residential unit for the common good begins with its existence.

By the way, the purpose of the subsidy is stated by the subsidy itself; I had copied it once before. You can read the section and then write which aspects support your point of view. Everything beyond that is, well, just your opinion.