Property acquisition tax notice for land same contract document

exactly this connection is what concerns me:

Unilaterally through the construction contract there may basically already be a connection - even if a secondary one. (The construction contract has an additional agreement with a withdrawal clause, so that if we do not get the suitable plot due to unsuccessful application at the city, we can withdraw from the construction contract free of charge. However, to what extent this now directly belongs to the construction contract and is relevant at all, I cannot legally assess.)

As important additional information: We proactively approached the builder; he did not place any advertisement with "house recommendations" on these plots marketed by the city.

From the perspective of the selling city, there is no compulsory connection through the plot. Only an obligation to build within 6 months after the public disclosure of the development plan, which of course already sets some rough framework parameters (flat roof, 2 floors) - but NO REQUIREMENTS as to how the houses must concretely look in the end.

The admin correctly removed my external WebLink (sorry for that!) to the new development area - but also deleted the rest of the posting. I think that is not unimportant either, so here it is again without the link:

What is interesting in the application form is that you have to think about the financing together with a bank in advance and the bank must also confirm this (NO financing commitment - just talked to the bank and thought about it). This in turn means that I first plan my desired house with a construction company in order to be able to set a cost framework that I have to specify in the application.

And ultimately we are currently at the point where we are considering signing the construction contract with the additional agreement to secure the 2017 prices. (to what extent this is a sales marketing strategy or the changes in 2018 really have such an impact would perhaps need to be discussed in another thread)

So written, it still lacks the mandatory connection to this one construction company. You could have chosen just any [x]. The withdrawal clause in the construction contract has nothing to do with that.

exactly about this connection it concerns me:

A unilateral connection basically already exists through the construction contract – albeit a secondary one. (The construction contract has an additional agreement with a withdrawal clause that if we do not get the suitable plot of land because of an unsuccessful application to the city, we can withdraw from the construction contract free of charge. However, to what extent this directly belongs to the construction contract and whether it is at all relevant, I cannot assess legally.)

As an important side note: We approached the builder proactively; he did not advertise with "house recommendations" on these plots marketed by the city.

From the perspective of the selling city, there is no forced connection through the plot of land. Only construction obligation within 6 months after the publicly disclosed development plan, which of course already sets some rough framework parameters (flat roof, 2 floors) – but NO REGULATION on how the houses must concretely look in the end.

I see it the same way now – but if you google, you basically always read: first the land, then the construction contract. (but maybe it’s also about trying to exploit fictional loopholes when the construction company has "co-mediated" the land from a third party)