European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 303

Hamburg is now checking if they can confiscate empty officebuildings, Berlin is trying to get to private landlords, forcing them to take refugees.

On September 25 2015 08:00 Paljas wrote:
Terminating actual contracts of private persons is unfortunate and pretty stupid.
However, people get their contract terminated all the time, without anyone caring. To make such a big deal out of it right now is pretty hypocritical.

Dont see anything wrong with this

I'd like to see a source in English but for now I'm convinced the article just twists facts and legal terms to make it look like the evil government is harassing poor people for no reason. It's too absurd to be true.

On September 25 2015 08:08 m4ini wrote:
Dude, you don't see anything wrong with your belongings confiscated by the government because apparently it wasn't forseeable that "everyone is welcome!" wasn't sustainable?

Troll.

If i own something, appartment, house, whatever, it's mine. If i decide to lower the value of the house/building/whatever (and that exactly is what happens), that's my choice. Not yours, and clearly not the governments.

On September 25 2015 08:08 m4ini wrote:


Of course, if someone doesn't pay his rent, the contract is terminated. That's because he or she didn't hold his end of the contract. In this case, the council decided it needs that appartment, and threw her out. Especially since it's not a private landlord who would need the appartment for his son or whatever - it's a council deciding that it's more important to house refugees than germans. And i don't know if googletranslate doesn't work for you (or if you even bothered to check) - the lady has serious trouble finding a new appartment because she has two dogs.

But yeah, no big deal.


Dude, you don't see anything wrong with your belongings confiscated by the government because apparently it wasn't forseeable that "everyone is welcome!" wasn't sustainable?

Troll.

If i own something, appartment, house, whatever, it's mine. If i decide to lower the value of the house/building/whatever (and that exactly is what happens), that's my choice. Not yours, and clearly not the governments.



It's n24. A news agency, belonging to axel springer verlag. But to satisfy you, here.

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/fluechtlingskrise-darf-der-staat-privathaeuser-beschlagnahmen-a-1054572.html

Spiegel good enough, or need more?

On September 25 2015 08:08 m4ini wrote:


Of course, if someone doesn't pay his rent, the contract is terminated. That's because he or she didn't hold his end of the contract (and yes, that's pretty much the only way to get your contract terminated - if you fuck up, you got rights in germany as a tenant). In this case, the council decided it needs that appartment, and threw her out. Especially since it's not a private landlord who would need the appartment for his son or whatever - it's a council deciding that it's more important to house refugees than germans. And i don't know if googletranslate doesn't work for you (or if you even bothered to check) - the lady has serious trouble finding a new appartment because she has two dogs.

But yeah, no big deal.



Dude, you don't see anything wrong with your belongings confiscated by the government because apparently it wasn't forseeable that "everyone is welcome!" wasn't sustainable?

Troll.

If i own something, appartment, house, whatever, it's mine. If i decide to lower the value of the house/building/whatever (and that exactly is what happens), that's my choice. Not yours, and clearly not the governments.



It's n24. A news agency, belonging to axel springer verlag. But to satisfy you, here.

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/fluechtlingskrise-darf-der-staat-privathaeuser-beschlagnahmen-a-1054572.html

Spiegel good enough, or need more?

edit

http://www.focus.de/immobilien/wohnen/sie-lebt-allein-auf-90-quadratmetern-bin-voellig-ueberrumpelt-nrw-stadt-nieheim-kuendigt-mieterin-wegen-fluechtlingen_id_4971014.html

Focus.de, i think i linked you enough sources - especially reliable ones, so if you come up with something that proves that they're twisting facts, i'll happily concede. Until then, i think it's safe to say that it's true.

As the "Germany" near my name suggests, I am acutally perfectly able to speak german, no need for google translator.

And yes, contracts get terminated for all kinds of reasons, including personal use, profit maximizing and many more. Like I said, this is case is, like all the others, a tragedy and I feel sad for this woman, but a sudden focus on this topic because refugees are involved is hypocritical.

You thoughts about property and the involvement of the goverment are not realistic and pretty naive. Governments usually take the property of their citizens, its called tax.

Also dude, you dont see anything wrong with denying people basic human needs because you are clinging to nonsensical property rights?

Troll

Using empty office buildings isnt bad and nobody is hurt. Of course, the situation could be solved more easily if our government didnt cut down on subsidized housing.

I meant that I'd like to see something in a language I can understand so I could judge it on my own without gambling in google translate or having to rely on your translations.

On September 25 2015 08:16 Nyxisto wrote:



Nope it's not. Have a look at our constitution, article 14:

(1) Property and the right of inheritance shall be guaranteed.Their content and limits shall be defined by the laws.

(2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.

(3) Expropriation shall only be permissible for the public good.It may only be ordered by or pursuant to a law that determines
the nature and extent of compensation. Such compensation shall be determined by establishing an equitable
balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected. In case of dispute concerning the amount of
compensation, recourse may be had to the ordinary courts.

Fälle wie dieser sind juristisch hoch umstritten. Haus-und-Grund-Geschäftsführer Warnecke geht davon aus, dass die Kommune vor Gericht kaum Chancen hätte. "Eine Kommune kann keinen Eigenbedarf anmelden." Außerdem halte er das Vorgehen des Bürgermeisters für "sozialpolitisch katastrophal". Man dürfe nicht damit beginnen, Mieter gegeneinander auszuspielen.

On September 25 2015 08:56 dismiss wrote:

Yeah, your understanding of the law is actually really flawed here.
These:
Baugesetzbuch (BauGB)
Bundesfernstraßengesetz (FStrG)
Landbeschaffungsgesetz (LBG)
Luftverkehrsgesetz (LuftVG)
Allgemeines Eisenbahngesetz (AEG)
Energiewirtschaftsgesetz (EnWG)
Bundeswasserstraßengesetz (WaStrG)
Landesenteignungsgesetze[4]
Landesstraßengesetze
Landeswassergesetze
Are the codes that specify when you are able to expropriate peoples stuff. Now I am not an expert on the matter but none of these are dealing with refugees, they're mostly for large scale construction projects. Certainly some random mayor declaring it just doesn't just make it so.

On September 25 2015 08:56 Toadesstern wrote:
That seems to be a single case and in general it's only allowed if the buildings are unused, there really are no other options and if the owner gets compensation.

The Spiegel article you linked yourself ends in:
(roughtly: if someone were to sue, the city would not have a chance to win this as a city can't claim personal needs.)

That one case in particular obviously is a joke... as for the empty buildings: I don't see a problem with it either. It's at least implied that this is a temporal solution for winter, at least that's how I'm reading it. Furthermore if the owner does get a compensation and there's really no other way around it that's the least probelmatic thing to do imo.

Assume so, yes. It actually is possible as a landlord to terminate contracts based on so called "Eigenbedarf" ("for own use") - but the council can't move in the house, since it's obviously not a person. That's (as i understand it) how it works. But who knows what law-twisters can make out of that.

"I own my property, so I can do with it what I want" is not how German or for that matter pretty much any European society functions.

On September 25 2015 08:58 Nyxisto wrote:


There's nothing flawed about it. The bottom line here is that we have such a thing as a social contract, and part of it is that your property is not only your own but also serves the public needs. "I own my property, so I can do with it what I want" is not how German or for that matter pretty much any European society functions.

Now as a landlord, you got me interested. Contracts SOMETIMES get terminated for personal use, yes. But there's a little bit more to it than just sending a termination letter, let me tell you. Profit maximizing, no. Doesn't work. Many more, feel free to state them, since it might help me in the forseeable future - apparently you're not really into renting stuff out, because you're apparently oblivious to how hard it actually is to get rid of a tenant. You might wanna read up on that.

How about instead of confiscating peoples stuff, send them to another country?

On September 25 2015 08:58 Nyxisto wrote:


There's nothing flawed about it. The bottom line here is that we have such a thing as a social contract, and part of it is that your property is not only your own but also serves the public needs. "I own my property, so I can do with it what I want" is not how German or for that matter pretty much any European society functions.

On September 25 2015 09:06 Paljas wrote:

Dont worry, I know enough. You are right of course that contracts shouldn't be able to get terminated due to Profit or other reasons, but after all, thats just what the law says. It looks different in practice (I admit that my wording wasnt 100% clear on that one. Sorry).
http://www.abendzeitung-muenchen.de/inhalt.trend-zur-entmietung-vermieter-tricks-so-werden-mieter-rausgeekelt.f6067f4d-c27f-4efe-9aaf-9a5669371906.html
http://www.focus.de/immobilien/mieten/renoviert-und-rausgedraengt-vermieter-immer-dreister_aid_782505.html
I am also not sure why we are debating the case of the poor woman. We were in agreement that it's not acceptable.

You then decide to give no value to the right of the refugees for an accommodation and rate the possiblity of business opportunities higher. Unlike your average german person, refugees dont have the possibility to search for a flat on themself.

To which country exactly? Syria?

On September 25 2015 09:02 m4ini wrote:


I actually said that too.



About compensation, it's really only eyecandy. Just ask yourself why the council/government doesn't rent a place/house whatever, but instead takes it and gives you "a fair amount of money". For winter: of course, if a office-building is empty, and it's for the winter, nobody would see a problem with it. But it's just not for a single winter. There's more refugees coming that need to be housed in some way - there's no place for them to go. And it's not my job (or any landlord for that matter) to iron out the shortsightedness of the government (which is a nice thing to say - in reality i'm pretty convinced they knew that beforehand) - it's their job. Rush and build new asylantenheime, i don't mind. But don't put it on the Laender/Kommunen/privateers.



No, i certainly can't. True. Neither can the government - especially not for stated reasons. It's not for "the public good". By that reason, the government would be able to disown literally everything and anything, by just claiming bullshit-reasons. Luckily, courts seem to see it the same way, that's why nobody did it yet. Because "for public good" is not a reason in this case.