The cancelled pre-emption of a house by the district wants to use the Opposition to discredit the medium itself. However, the case is more complex.
Not in the range: a Protest against the sale of a residential building in Berlin photo: dpa
BERLIN taz | The mood in the Berlin real estate market heats up a few weeks after the decision of the rent cap and the political debates to take sharpness significantly. The most recent occasion: the failed purchase of the dwelling-house of the Riga street 101 by a cooperative.
The district of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg want to secure the house by means of right of pre-emption, the pre-emption for the purposes of cooperative “EC” stood ready as the buyer. Now, the climb-down came in the course of this week: “We have set up a calculation that would have been provided because of the much higher rehabilitation needs of a rent development, which neither we nor the lessee nor the district want,” said the spokeswoman, Elena Poeschl on Friday, the taz. Because at the same time, Grant had refused to give money, “we need to withdraw from the purchase”.
For the tenants, this is a shock. The conservative Opposition in the house of representatives sees this as an opportunity to make the right of first refusal, generally, in question – and thus at the same time, the policy of Florian Schmidt, green Baustadtrat of the district. Because the previous owner of the Riga 101 through the non-completion of the sale damaged. To the morning post, he spoke of a total loss of several hundred thousand euros.
The FDP parliamentary group in the house of representatives demanded on Friday of the consequences will be Should the district actually “failed pre-emptions, then Schmidt is no longer the city Council as a District portable”. The Green should have been now “in their place”.
For Schmidt, however, the incident is not nearly as exceptional as he is represented by the Opposition. “A pre-emptive decision is a negative Kalebet decision, it can be repealed in accordance with the administrative procedure act, if the factual situation changes,” he said of the taz and called two more cases in which in October the decision was revoked: the urban road 131 and 67. The buyer would have accepted, in both cases, the cancellation, “although the terms of the rent cap were already known”; it had come to agreements with the tenants for the next decades.
a compensation claim is looking forward to the city Council left: so Far, this is the district to a “not known”. On the other hand, the risk in the case of cancellation of pre-emption be not proud “is manageable, because the sellers still have their property and continue to receive rental income”.
Also, the EC reviewed the case of the Riga 101 sober. You’ve only had four days for the decision and the examination of the condition of the house. “We would not be able to make it due to deadlines, much different,” says Poeschl. Rumors, the cooperative was due to the Riga 101 unable to pay, calling them “nonsense”. Three houses have already bought and paid for.
The report, which assumed that the cooperative prior to the commitment for the Riga 101 templates, according to Poeschl of a significantly lower need for Remediation. However, the state-owned housing company Mitte (WBM) had looked at the house – she was originally to have been, as the buyer, instead of the EC, and had rejected due to high Renovation, such as WBM spokesman Christoph Lang of the taz confirmed. This was communicated in the summer, the district office. What is it doing with the Information, it was not his thing.
The cooperative is not received, the WBM-investigation-to-face, as Poeschl criticized. She claims that “reports state-owned housing would have to be companies for third-party purchasers accessible”. And: “We need to talk about the future, about how a pre-emption to the traffic value is generally not possible, so that no absurd prices per Square metre are called.”
A concern, which also supports the city Council Schmidt. However, the Federal government was on the train and from the Grand coalition there is, as yet, no signals that something should change.
the question is, what is the role of the 2020 planned rent cover plays in all of these discussions, and speculation Remains. May be to lowering Rents of the reason for this is that the seller of the Riga street 101 does not want to have the house, maybe even back? The lid makes the Opposition so fuzzy that you can’t keep up with withdrawal demands on yourself?
After all: The WBM speaker assumes that because of the rent cap, and possibly lower revenues, the possibility of right of first refusal, in principle, is limited. “We consider each case. Since there is no lump-sum judgment,“ he says. There are even objects for which the WBM should not apply for grants from the Senate.
