Property only after contract with the developer

Hello,
perhaps there is someone here who can explain the following to me: When searching for a plot of land, I almost always come across supposedly planned construction projects from various providers (Streif Haus, best Haus, Okal Haus, Sika Haus, etc.). They offer a plot of land with a rough indication of the location and a suitable house for it. When you contact the respective provider, they say that a contract for a construction order must first be concluded before you receive the address of the plot. This happened with Scanhaus Marlow and Streif. With Streif, I was assured that the plots are sold by the company itself without commission. That is why I do not understand this procedure. Either way, I would not have the option to take the plot to another company. Can someone explain to me why this is the practice?
I do not want to conclude a contract with a company without knowing whether and which plots they actually have. I mean, I wouldn’t just go to Segmüller and sign a purchase contract for a cabinet at the entrance without having been inside the store first.
I am curious if someone can shed light on this.
Regards,
Andrea

Crooked property developer deals with horrendous property taxes...

I would stay away from that...

There, a plot of land with a rough indication of the location as well as a suitable house for it are offered. When you contact the respective provider, they say that a contract for a construction order must first be concluded before you receive the address of the plot.

Plots are rarely available for this.
The offer consists of a house on an example plot nearby.
They want a house construction contract and then they offer to look for a plot for you.

But also: Often, free plots are reserved by several house building companies in a new development area. First come, first served.

No, property development business does not always mean that. House providers like to lure interested parties by offering suitable plots of land. The house types shown are usually some houses from their catalog that could be built on the plot. They make brokerage agreements with the actual owners, in which the price per square meter is also fixed. Their business is selling houses, not brokerage, so this is done commission-free in this sense. At the notary - possibly represented by the house provider - the customer will economically face the landowner. In this respect, it is also not the feared tied deal. But apparently, they do not want to scare off interested parties with the long form of this procedure and "simplify" by presenting themselves as the seller. The specific plot is not yet included in the house construction contract. If the owner makes an intermediate sale - which can happen because house providers are reluctant to pay reservation fees and you naturally do not just let concrete interested parties walk away - simply an "equivalent" plot is procured - hence the vague indication regarding the location.

The house provider wants to sell houses. For this, he employs scouts who are not supposed to work as unpaid brokers for the owner. Without a broker license, they would not be allowed to bring the owner and the interested party together.

What is happening here would be called a "short sale" in securities. These "providers" usually have no more than an option. Such deals are often carried out independently by the representatives.

Conclusion: Tied deal - property tax rather not, but for those searching for pure plots, unsuitable. Either you like the provider's house models and can live with a location uncertainty of about 20 km, or this is not for you.

Crooked property development deals with horrendous property taxes...

I would keep my hands off that..

Well; this is not the classic property developer business. The conclusion of the construction contract provides a certain pledge that you don’t buy the land elsewhere; and then build with someone else.

Otherwise it would be a tied selling...

, tax offices often assume linked transactions and demand property tax. It is then up to the taxpayer to prove the absence of a linked transaction. If the in-house company acts as an intermediary between the seller of the property and the builder, this is very risky, as discussed elsewhere before.

Basically, construction companies design model houses as soon as buildable land appears somewhere on the distant horizon. On Immoscout, this is always presented as if one "has a claim on the property," but this is usually not the case. First come, first served, and what is gone is gone. But the main thing is that the construction contract is concluded. On our property, houses that were planned were offered long after the purchase.