Much disagreement on housing land

Created: 12/27/2022, 6:00 p.m

By: Wolfgang Krzizok

Creating affordable building land: that's what the municipality of Moosinning wants.

© Symbolic image: Klaus-Dietmar Gabbert/dpa

There was a detailed and very controversial exchange of views in the Moosinninger municipal council on the fundamental decision to procure residential building land.

Moosinning - After more than an hour of discussion, the item was finally adjourned.

Lawyer Stefan Figiel had revised the basic decision regarding the change in the deductible of the landowners.

He presented the changes and answered questions via video conference.

The basis is a 50:50 rule, he explained.

This means that if the municipality designates new building land somewhere, they have access to 50 percent of the respective land and can purchase it at market value - the other 50 percent remains with the owner.

However, many landowners would parcel out beforehand and could then no longer sell anything because the parcels were too small.

"The municipality then only shows building land if it can acquire it," explained the lawyer, pointing out that 90 percent of the municipalities would apply this 50:50 rule: "In practice it works quite well."

He added that in the event of development, both the municipality and the owner would have to give up development areas - "the owners free of charge".

The community can pass on the acquired land to less well-off people or young families from the community, in the "classic local model", as Figiel noted.

In this case, the purchase price can also be reduced to the point of being cost-neutral for the community, which is rarely practiced.

Very important: You have to impose a “construction obligation” on the buyers within a certain period of time.

"In justified cases, the municipality can also deviate from the principles," Figiel finally clarified and added: "It is important for the municipality to take into account the owner's own needs."

During the discussion, Werner Fleischer (BE) wanted to know whether a limit of 1000 square meters was tenable.

"There is no legal upper or lower limit, it's a political decision," Figiel replied.

"You can even build a single-family house in 600 square meters."

When asked by Andreas Humplmair (CSU) whether the seller had a buyback option or a right of first refusal, the lawyer said he had never heard of anything like it.

"That would be legal nonsense.

If so, then rather the other way round, i.e. the community has a right of first refusal.”

Monika Stangl (CSU) and her parliamentary colleague Marietta Burger-Braun agreed on the size of the property: "It should still be possible to build." Manfred Lex (CSU) said with a nod: "That's why I would stay with 1000 square meters. "

also read

Munich Airport: Investigators discover two roasted antelopes in luggage

READ

St. Wolfgang: stuck just before Christmas - rescue team rescues Bulgarians

READ

Bettina's (24) dream comes true - a cake baker with a farm shop and her own café

READ

From beef to burgers: Erding's largest restaurateur is retiring

READ

Chaos at Munich Airport: Insider predicts the "absolute catastrophe" at Christmas

READ

Fancy a voyage of discovery?

My space

Christian Nagler (BB) asked whether everyone gets the deductible in property communities with several owners.

"Basically yes," said Figiel, "but this case is very error-prone".

He recommended only considering the children and not the grandchildren when deductible, “otherwise the circle will keep getting bigger.”

Lex said: "I would do 600 square meters per child." Christian Nagler then said, shaking his head: "Now we're back to the old model - there are always exceptions."

Fleischer found: "Actually, everyone is right, and we will never be able to rule out attempts to deceive." He therefore recommended 600 to 800 square meters.

"We're doing small states again," scolded Josef Romir (SPD).

"We should look at big things, with 10,000 to 20,000 square meters.

Our model works there.” And he added: “The more complicated our models become, the more difficult it becomes to implement them.”

Lex disagreed. "I don't see it that way, it's a simple arrangement," he said, adding, "At today's prices, it doesn't work that way anyway.

How are low-income earners supposed to build then?”

After further contributions to the discussion, Christian Nagler said: "Everyone is right somewhere" and made the motion to postpone the item on the agenda, "then we can discuss internally in the parliamentary groups again".

This motion was accepted unanimously.