When it comes to the Greens, the right to housing should be enshrined in the Basic Law as a "fundamental social right". This is part of a program against rising rents and lack of housing, which the party decided on at its party congress in Bielefeld.
Also included in the program: billions for social housing, right to home exchange and, if necessary, expropriation. The increase in rents in existing leases, the Greens want to cover at three percent per year, as stated in the resolution, which took several hundred delegates on Friday evening.
Tenants should have the right, according to the will of the party, to exchange their leases with each other. For example, families should be able to move into larger apartments and singles into smaller apartments without concluding a new - and often much more expensive - lease. The right to housing should be incorporated in the Basic Law in order to strengthen it in the case of legal considerations. For the construction of social housing, there should be a federal investment program of at least three billion euros annually. In return, the Baukindergeld should be abolished again.
Expropriations as "last resort"
The debate about the expropriation of housing companies, or more precisely "socialization for compensation", which the Federal Executive Board had expressly mentioned in the lead application as a "last resort", was controversial.
If owners of building land did not build apartments, "the ultimate consequence is an expropriation against compensation," states the decision. "Whether expropriation makes economic sense and is the right means must be decided on a municipal basis and will depend to a large extent on the expected costs for taxpayers," it says restrictively.
It failed an application from the Berlin district association Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, which wanted at the federal level, a law on expropriations. Even a motion that wanted to delete the passage in order not to "speak" the socialization, found no majority.
Party leader Robert Habeck said socialization was a "blatant intrusion on ownership," which should only be carefully considered. The signal "building is no longer worthwhile" should not emanate from the congress. "It is a sharp sword, it must not be dulled by permanent use," said Habeck. "But as lawmakers, we also need to be in a position to enforce our interests."