this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2026
446 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2464 readers
705 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The principle is that whatever the national law says has to be followed, but if there isn't a national law, the federal country can do something. Also housing is more of a local issue.
There are laws to "eminent domain" stuff, but it has been mostly used for Autobahn and coal mining in the past and only affected peasants in little villages who couldn't fight back.
Otherwise good question, that's what almost everyone is asking at the moment.
My point is nationalizing means to place it under control of the national government. Presumably you would need the national government's active involvement in this. If they just mean the local municipality taking public ownership of something I think nationalizing is not the right word. Perhaps this is a translation issue?
Yeah, what is definitely happening is that the ownership of significant real estate will be transferred from private companies to... probably public benefit associates that aren't directly controlled by the government but sort of government adjacent. By legal force. I think it's fair to call it nationalization but the word doesn't matter that much.
Back to public ownership I should add, it was sold to private companies to solve some short term debt issues after the reunification.
I think the word does matter. I wouldn't want the national government owning my home because they're distant and unaccountable. A local organization is much more connected to the people.
But maybe that's just my perspective, I'm not sure how common that is.
yes the word matters. nobody here talks of nationalisation. the term used rather translates to communalization.
On a side note: the houses being talked about are currently predominantly owned by large multi-national corps, thus even if it was the national government, that would be an improvement.
But the national government has a lot of money and power, while local and regional governments generally have less.
Anyhow, a lot of the now "private" housing in big buildings in German cities (also former western germany) WAS 'nationalised' until late '90s - '00s. In many cases it was (is) the property of a "city social housing construction/renting company" which has local/regional businesses, banks and political representation on the board. Only the last 20-30 years did these semi-public companies start to sell it all out (after reunification of Germany it sped up a lot). The argument was (and still is) that the renovation of a lot of these 'older' big apartment buildings was too expensive for those 'social' companies to bear, and by selling it fresh private capital would pour in and the old buildings would get renovated. In many cases renters got to stay where they were after sale to private investors for decades still and even keeping their old rent amount for all that time. Until the owner suddenly decides to "seriously upgrade the building": then they can kick everyone out relatively easily and set new prices after renovation. But in reality a lot of those "seriously upgrade" kicking renters out situations was just that: everyone out, a little bit of paint but no serious upgrading, and afterwards every apartment has new rent contracts for way more money. Often also because apartments were split into more units. Result for many inhabitants: being forced to leave the housing they've lived in for many decades, forced to pay higher prices, but get similar or worse housing quality. It's very very reasonable that in cities where this is a very widespread situation, renters are super pissed off at companies like "Vonovia" which dominate entire neighbourhoods and give 0 fucks about renters, only about their shareholders. Germany has a very high % of home renters and a pretty low % of home owners, especially in larger cities.
That's exactly the issue though. Most national governments already have too much power. Giving them more by having them own housing seems to have little upside. I understand the downside of private ownership but I don't see the downside of local public ownership. If they are lacking in funds there are also local options for increasing revenue.