I live in Berlin, Templehof is awesome. Highly recommend for anyone visiting.
The Mother of All ‘Abandoned’ Airports (2015)
51–54 of 54 posts
Re: The Mother of All ‘Abandoned’ Airports (2015)
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
So start a petition to change the law so that construction on the tempelhofer feld is allowed while requiring that all buildings constructed on the tempelhofer Feld have to be priced according to the old Mietpreisbremse. If that petition gets enough signatures, it becomes a Volksentscheid, and if that gets enough votes, it'd be law. Especially in Berlin this shouldn't be too hard.
IANAL but I don't think this would pass the Constitutional Court. Voting wasn't what killed the Mietpreisbremse - if you tried this probably we'd get some housing constructed and then immediately any limit ruled unconstitutional.
It would relatively easily pass the constitutional court. The issue with the Mietpreisbremse was modifying existing ownership of land and buildings.
If you make new contracts to sell and develop land, as would happen in this case, you can put any clause you want in there. You could even make a contract that says the CEO of Deutsche Wohnen has to run around in a bunny costume over the Alex if they want to build on Tempelhofer Feld – they don’t have to sign, after all.
Re: The Mother of All ‘Abandoned’ Airports (2015)
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL but I don't think this would pass the Constitutional Court. Voting wasn't what killed the Mietpreisbremse - if you tried this probably we'd get some housing constructed and then immediately any limit ruled unconstitutional.
It would relatively easily pass the constitutional court. The issue with the Mietpreisbremse was modifying existing ownership of land and buildings. If you make new contracts to sell and develop land, as would happen in this case, you can put any clause you want in there. You could even make a contract that says the CEO of Deutsche Wohnen has to run around in a bunny costume over the Alex if they want to build on Tem…
Ah, first, we both (I assume based on your use of "old") made the common mistake of confusing the Deckel and the Bremse. So to clarify, I am assuming you meant "the old Mietendeckel" and that is what the court struck down - the Mietpreisbremse is still in effect. If this assumption is wrong and you rather did mean a pre-2015 version of the Mietpreisbremse implementation, sorry.
> The issue with the [Mietendeckel] was modifying existing ownership of land and buildings.
Was it? My understanding was that the decision ended purely on jurisdictional grounds. (Quick summary for anyone following along from the US, Germany has a kind of "inverse 10th Amendment" - the states can regulate things only as long as the federal level does not.)
https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemit...
By passing §§ 556 to 561 BGB, the federal legislator conclusively exercised its concurrent legislative powers extending to the law governing rental fees as part of civil law... the Berlin Rent Cap Act constricts the latitude afforded by federal law to the parties to a tenancy contract and introduces parallel legislation governing rent at Land level that contains statistical and not market-dependent stipulations.
In other words, I thought the problem was only that the law intruded on a legal framework between private housing providers and the federal government, not any particular aspect of what it changed.
Re: The Mother of All ‘Abandoned’ Airports (2015)
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would relatively easily pass the constitutional court. The issue with the Mietpreisbremse was modifying existing ownership of land and buildings. If you make new contracts to sell and develop land, as would happen in this case, you can put any clause you want in there. You could even make a contract that says the CEO of Deutsche Wohnen has to run around in a bunny costume over the Alex if they want to build on Tem…
Ah, first, we both (I assume based on your use of "old") made the common mistake of confusing the Deckel and the Bremse. So to clarify, I am assuming you meant "the old Mietendeckel" and that is what the court struck down - the Mietpreisbremse is still in effect. If this assumption is wrong and you rather did mean a pre-2015 version of the Mietpreisbremse implementation, sorry. > The issue with the [Mietendeckel] was…
Well exactly, the issue was a state modifying an existing agreement between developers/landlords and the federal government.
But that wouldn't have to happen in Tempelhof, as this requirement wouldn't be passed the same way, it'd just be part of the contract selling the land. And a law from the state, requiring the state to only produce such contracts of sale.