Why don't construction prices go down?

But learning from that, would that be something? If the state builds itself, it decides itself how to build. Yes, that may then be somewhat less extravagant and it certainly won't be the ultimate solution for everyone and everywhere after just one month - but it is an offer. Clearly, demand is higher than supply - but better that supply is low than zero.

Yep. Building is the solution (forced expropriations as demanded in Berlin do not bring a single new apartment onto the market). But unfortunately, the state has slept through many years on that. And now there simply isn’t enough money for it or, economically, you can’t build so cheaply that you could rent cheaply. Even companies like LEG in the Ruhr area (that’s where I’m from) no longer build new. Sure, if you want to serve a clientele or operate in a suitable region that can pay on average between €4.5/sqm and €6.5/sqm, you don’t need to launch new buildings anymore. And having to wait two years for a building permit, while cities in the meantime suddenly consider changing the key from privately financed / price-damped / publicly funded to the disadvantage of privately financed apartments, one shouldn’t be surprised if building does not happen then. What’s rather needed is an 86-point program to get the housing market back in shape.

But learning from it, would that be something? If the state builds itself, it decides itself how to build. Yes, it might then be a bit less extravagant and it certainly won't be the ultimate solution for everyone and everywhere after a month - but it is an offer. It is clear that demand is higher than supply - but better the supply is low than zero.

But that is a naive calculation. If the state rents unprofitably, it has to subsidize every year. The money must either be saved elsewhere or raised through taxes. And then the question arises whether the money could be used more cleverly elsewhere. For example, the state has the option to designate more building land or to make building permits easier to issue. To design development plans so that denser building is possible. That costs the state relatively little and only once. Building and maintaining social housing costs money every year, and after a few years many of the residents are actually no longer needy. But nobody wants to evict them...

But that is a naive calculation. If the state rents unprofitably, it has to subsidize every year. The money must either be saved elsewhere or raised through taxes. And then the question arises whether the money could be used more wisely elsewhere. For example, the state has the option to designate more building land or to grant building permits more easily. To design development plans so that denser construction is possible. That costs the state relatively little and only once. Building and maintaining social housing costs money every year, and after a few years many of the residents are actually no longer in need. But no one wants to kick them out...

The long-term financing of social (municipal) housing can be easily initiated. Since property tax is already quietly being raised anyway, simply add another 20% on top and then the municipal housing companies can be refinanced/subsidized *irony off*

Can we agree that we need housing? And who can finance it?
- Private individuals (who are currently increasingly reluctant)
- Vonovia and co (who are also currently reluctant, although they at least averted expropriation)
- The state

Yes, if you rent apartments below value, it costs money. Overall, that can definitely be worthwhile because it buys me control options. And here too: you can certainly further develop systems, especially if you are just starting out with them.

I believe that in this country, people simply have a first-generation DDR prefab building in mind when they think of "state housing construction." I know them, both those in the DDR and the HDB apartments in Singapore (Google search: HDB Singapore). Of course, I was also glad when I could move into my condo, and something like HDB is always a child of its time and political circumstances (ahem). That is why I actually see such a program currently as an opportunity to also show people that there is a middle way between the excessively individualized single-family house and the hipster tiny house. Honestly, I am still asked with disbelief whether you really don’t need a gas connection and whether the heat pump really suffices. I don’t just find a concept that fits today’s conditions (so NOT a copy of Vienna, DDR, or Singapore) but also the suitable name and slogan. "Living in the tin shack" wouldn’t be done by anyone either, "TinyHouse" immediately.

But unfortunately the state has been sleeping on the job for many years.

100% agreement.

What is needed is rather an 86-point program to get the housing market back on track.

And precisely because you can see what happens when you have missed many years (decades), in my opinion you should start right now. Yes, it will be difficult to communicate, especially because it has 86 points and not ten of which only the first three are read anyway. But I’d say: Just do it. Build the first house, learn from it, develop version two from it. Build version two ten times. And so on.

We want to reduce construction costs, simplify Bavarian building regulations, and reduce the requirements of the Building Energy Act.

Builder deception instead of con artistry (for the upcoming elections)