The German property owners’ association, Haus und Grund, has launched a scathing critique of Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig’s proposed rental law reform, escalating tensions in the ongoing debate over housing affordability and tenant protections. Hubig’s plans to cap annual rent increases for index-linked leases at 3.5 percent, alongside measures for greater transparency in furnished apartment rentals and stricter regulations on short-term lets, have drawn fierce opposition from the powerful lobby group.
Haus und Grund President Kai Warnecke condemned the proposed changes, arguing that limiting rent adjustments below the general rate of inflation constitutes a profound lack of fairness. He warned that such restrictions could force private landlords to abandon the rental market altogether, potentially shrinking the supply of available housing. Warnecke’s criticism extended beyond rent caps, directly attacking Minister Hubig’s approach. He accused her of acting as a “party soldier” rather than a minister, implying a politically motivated agenda devoid of balanced consideration for stakeholders.
Further fueling the controversy is Hubig’s proposal to extend the moratorium on eviction proceedings, allowing tenants facing arrears to remain in their homes if they demonstrate the ability to settle outstanding debts. Warnecke characterized this measure as a “slap in the face” to millions of private landlords who provide housing with their own savings. He shifted the responsibility for preventing homelessness squarely onto the state, asserting that private individuals with limited property portfolios should not be burdened with protracted tenancies involving non-payment of rent. “It is simply not reasonable to expect a private landlord with one or two properties to remain in a rental agreement when a tenant has failed to pay rent for months” he stated.
The exchange highlights a fundamental divergence in perspective: Hubig’s focus on tenant protection and affordability clashes with Haus und Grund’s concerns regarding the financial viability and incentives for private property ownership. The reform proposals are likely to face intense parliamentary scrutiny and could trigger protracted legal challenges, raising questions about the long-term effectiveness and political feasibility of the government’s housing agenda. The rhetoric employed by both sides suggests a deeply polarized landscape with significant potential for conflict as the reforms are debated and potentially implemented.