Berlin locals vote to expropriate real estate giants(dw.com)
dw.com
Berlin locals vote to expropriate real estate giants
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-berlin-locals-vote-to-expropriate-real-estate-giants/a-59315431
3 comments
> I think I can state with near 100% certainty that the city state government is not going to respect the will of the people in this instance.
Well, sure, the Berlin government doesn't have the funds to do this, so voting that it happen isn't exactly going to move the needle. The problem here is that the voters are stuck between the two pincers of Germany's obsession that debt is evil with Germany's law abiding tendencies.
To be legal they would need to purchase the houses at market prices and in our current low IR world, those prices are high.
At ~5,000 euros per square meter[1], and say 50 sq meters the average flat size, that's 250K euros per flat. Berlin has 2 million flats. To purchase only 10% of them and hand them over to politically-connected households would cost 50 Billion Euros, and you'd still have 90% of flats in private hands. To get 50% of flats in public hands and make things more democratic would be 250 B euros. Berlin's entire budget is ~30B, and here you have Germany's fear of taking on debt working against them, but even in the US, most people would agree it's a terrible time to get into the real estate investment business.
But even if it wanted to, Berlin, being a mere city government, is not able to void things like property rights and so must pay market prices. Berlin, also being a mere city government, is not able to borrow at risk free rates like the Federal government and is wary of taking on debt. Thus this is something that requires the support and financing of the Federal government, which isn't going to happen no matter how many resolutions the people of the city of Berlin pass. Because this is not fundamentally a city-specific issue, it is a national issue, and individual cities can't really go their own way on this except in very small token gestures.
[1] https://guthmann.estate/en/market-report/berlin/
Well, sure, the Berlin government doesn't have the funds to do this, so voting that it happen isn't exactly going to move the needle. The problem here is that the voters are stuck between the two pincers of Germany's obsession that debt is evil with Germany's law abiding tendencies.
To be legal they would need to purchase the houses at market prices and in our current low IR world, those prices are high.
At ~5,000 euros per square meter[1], and say 50 sq meters the average flat size, that's 250K euros per flat. Berlin has 2 million flats. To purchase only 10% of them and hand them over to politically-connected households would cost 50 Billion Euros, and you'd still have 90% of flats in private hands. To get 50% of flats in public hands and make things more democratic would be 250 B euros. Berlin's entire budget is ~30B, and here you have Germany's fear of taking on debt working against them, but even in the US, most people would agree it's a terrible time to get into the real estate investment business.
But even if it wanted to, Berlin, being a mere city government, is not able to void things like property rights and so must pay market prices. Berlin, also being a mere city government, is not able to borrow at risk free rates like the Federal government and is wary of taking on debt. Thus this is something that requires the support and financing of the Federal government, which isn't going to happen no matter how many resolutions the people of the city of Berlin pass. Because this is not fundamentally a city-specific issue, it is a national issue, and individual cities can't really go their own way on this except in very small token gestures.
[1] https://guthmann.estate/en/market-report/berlin/
Does Germany have a Supreme Court or maybe a Constitutional Court? It feels to me you need a strong independent judicial branch to act as a check against the tyranny of the majority. You know there was that episode a while ago when a majority of the German electorate was quite happy to expropriate a certain minority, how did that work out?
This is just like any infrastructure project where the government can force you to _sell_ resources of national interest, for adequate compensation.
Just like land can be aquired this way to build a highway.
And just like whole towns have been expropriated for surface coal mines.
It feels like liberians only take offence in expropriation when it affects companies for the benefit of the people, but never vice versa (see https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/landespolitik/braunkohle-rwe...)
And please, spare us Godwin's law.
Just like land can be aquired this way to build a highway.
And just like whole towns have been expropriated for surface coal mines.
It feels like liberians only take offence in expropriation when it affects companies for the benefit of the people, but never vice versa (see https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/landespolitik/braunkohle-rwe...)
And please, spare us Godwin's law.
You are presenting a false equivalence. Eminent domain is not expropriation. The law stipulates fair compensation, as you pointed out. In the US at least, that law is not some obscure regulation, it's the Constitution, in the 5h Amendment, and it carries enormous weight.
Maybe Germany has a similar postulate in its Constitution, maybe not. Still, it feels absurd to me that the voters feel it's ok to decide to carry a vote to expropriate some people. Maybe the article is simply misrepresenting what happened there, and maybe the "expropriation" is actually appropriation with fair compensation. But if it's simply expropriation, this is just a small step on a slippery slope.
Maybe Germany has a similar postulate in its Constitution, maybe not. Still, it feels absurd to me that the voters feel it's ok to decide to carry a vote to expropriate some people. Maybe the article is simply misrepresenting what happened there, and maybe the "expropriation" is actually appropriation with fair compensation. But if it's simply expropriation, this is just a small step on a slippery slope.
In every dictionary I've found, including wikipedia, "eminent domain" is either a synonym for, or
defined in terms of, expropriation:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
Furthermore, let's not act like these massive publicly traded companies are people. It's not like voters are deciding to take away some grannies appartment that she rents out as her sole source of income/rent.
We're talking about the companies that have been over and over shown to defraud the granny for fees of services that they don't provide (like snow removal when there is no snow, or window cleaning when there are no windows), colluding to arbitrarily inflate housing prices, and engage in unlawful behaviour to prevent tennants from cancelling contracts.
In german law there is no fundamental right to profit at the stock exchanges. There is however a right to live in dignity. And I don't know about you, but not being scammed for the place that I live in, is a pretty dignifying thing.
Furthermore, let's not act like these massive publicly traded companies are people. It's not like voters are deciding to take away some grannies appartment that she rents out as her sole source of income/rent.
We're talking about the companies that have been over and over shown to defraud the granny for fees of services that they don't provide (like snow removal when there is no snow, or window cleaning when there are no windows), colluding to arbitrarily inflate housing prices, and engage in unlawful behaviour to prevent tennants from cancelling contracts.
In german law there is no fundamental right to profit at the stock exchanges. There is however a right to live in dignity. And I don't know about you, but not being scammed for the place that I live in, is a pretty dignifying thing.
> We're talking about the companies that have been over and over shown to defraud the granny for fees of services that they don't provide (like snow removal when there is no snow, or window cleaning when there are no windows), colluding to arbitrarily inflate housing prices, and engage in unlawful behaviour to prevent tennants from cancelling contracts.
The solution to some injustice is not another injustice. If these guys committed some unlawful thing, then the prosecutors should seek justice in the name of the people.
Now, for eminent domain being synonym with expropriation, I have to admit I was only familiar with the usage of the term in the US, where it most definitely is not. But, you are right, apparently in other countries, Germany included, eminent domain can mean expropriation. I'm completely dumbfounded that in countries that pride themselves as being democracies, expropriation is allowed by the law. But you live, you learn.
The solution to some injustice is not another injustice. If these guys committed some unlawful thing, then the prosecutors should seek justice in the name of the people.
Now, for eminent domain being synonym with expropriation, I have to admit I was only familiar with the usage of the term in the US, where it most definitely is not. But, you are right, apparently in other countries, Germany included, eminent domain can mean expropriation. I'm completely dumbfounded that in countries that pride themselves as being democracies, expropriation is allowed by the law. But you live, you learn.
> The solution to some injustice is not another injustice.
That statement is just absurd in this context. Your premise of this being injustice is wrong, don't engange in shitty rent seeking behaviour and you don't get expropriated, don't murder people and you won't have your right of free movement removed (or in the U.S. case you right to life...). Secondly, your falling for the paradox of tolerance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance), being intolerant of nazism isn't a slippery slope towards nazism, just as being intolerant towards injustice isn't a slippery slope towards injustice. We're not talking about vigilante groups assasinating some CEO and their Family here, but almost litterally that:
> these guys committed some unlawful thing, then the prosecutors should seek justice in the name of the people.
Because hat's literally what's happening. Massive unethical and unlawful behaviour by these companies, and the population asks the government to step in and protect them. Be it in the form of a law or a persecutor for said law, makes little difference.
> I'm completely dumbfounded that in countries that pride themselves as being democracies, expropriation is allowed by the law.
That's rich from someone from a country with only two parties of which one just tried a coup... You still misunderstand what expropriation means in germany, you get the same compensation as you'd get from the 5th.
You seem to somehow complect democracy, which literally derives it's name from the greek words for "power" and "people" with libertarian neiliberalism, where profits are more important than people.
Fun fact, democracy is a form of government and orthogonal to the system of economy. Few democratic countries have capitalism written into their base-laws, so you could just as well have a post money star trek democracy.
That statement is just absurd in this context. Your premise of this being injustice is wrong, don't engange in shitty rent seeking behaviour and you don't get expropriated, don't murder people and you won't have your right of free movement removed (or in the U.S. case you right to life...). Secondly, your falling for the paradox of tolerance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance), being intolerant of nazism isn't a slippery slope towards nazism, just as being intolerant towards injustice isn't a slippery slope towards injustice. We're not talking about vigilante groups assasinating some CEO and their Family here, but almost litterally that:
> these guys committed some unlawful thing, then the prosecutors should seek justice in the name of the people.
Because hat's literally what's happening. Massive unethical and unlawful behaviour by these companies, and the population asks the government to step in and protect them. Be it in the form of a law or a persecutor for said law, makes little difference.
> I'm completely dumbfounded that in countries that pride themselves as being democracies, expropriation is allowed by the law.
That's rich from someone from a country with only two parties of which one just tried a coup... You still misunderstand what expropriation means in germany, you get the same compensation as you'd get from the 5th.
You seem to somehow complect democracy, which literally derives it's name from the greek words for "power" and "people" with libertarian neiliberalism, where profits are more important than people.
Fun fact, democracy is a form of government and orthogonal to the system of economy. Few democratic countries have capitalism written into their base-laws, so you could just as well have a post money star trek democracy.
Putting aside my views on the proposal itself, I think I can state with near 100% certainty that the city state government is not going to respect the will of the people in this instance.
The reason referendum results are always way more left wing than the policies of the city government is that while you can’t bribe the whole populace, you can certainly bribe any representative government.