Sell the asset or take more credit?

The state can impose the Energy Saving Ordinance requirements and the definition of a residential unit on you to ruin this workaround for you :-)

The state can impose the Energy Saving Ordinance requirements and the definition of a housing unit on you to spoil this workaround for you :)

That's true. Something will still be found. There are always detours after all. Although I am generally against it, at some point the state interference is just too much. Especially on the wrong topics. I also know that there will be resistance here. However, I will not go into it any further, as it would otherwise become too political. But I can gladly write more about it via private message if anyone cares that much about my opinion :D

Yes, these detours will occur, but they will all cost money and almost exclusively affect the right ones :-)

Yes, there will be these detours, but they will all cost money and almost without exception hit the right ones :)

Who are the "right ones"? In my experience, the right ones are always the others. Strange.

People who withhold urgently needed building land for reasons of speculation.

Personally, I would rather be in favor of the sufficient designation of new building land. But citizen initiatives immediately form against it. And the members of the citizen initiatives often own undeveloped plots of land :-)

Moreover, land consumption kills bees, etc. So hoarding building land is a massive environmental sin ;-) That alone would justify the punitive tax...

Holding building land is the guarantee that there will still be building land in 10-50 years. Joint heirs often choose money, and with that the land is back on the market. For us, the area developed in 1925, almost all garden sheds in 1990, today about 5-10% garden sheds, the rest single-family houses, semi-detached houses, but densified at a floor area ratio of 0.2.