The possibility of enshrining a constitutional right to housing is now under serious consideration within the German government, according to Housing Minister Verena Hubertz. In an interview with Funke-Mediengruppe, Hubertz acknowledged the mounting crisis in affordable housing and suggested that the absence of such a legal guarantee within the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) has contributed significantly to the current situation.
Hubertz’s remarks represent a potential shift in German housing policy, traditionally reliant on market-driven solutions. She attributed past failures to a prevailing assumption in the 1990s that Germany’s construction boom was complete – a belief that now appears demonstrably false given the sharp rise in housing costs and shortages. While acknowledging the theoretical obligation arising from fundamental rights and the principles of the social state, she emphasized that a constitutional amendment is only one piece of a complex puzzle.
The Minister stressed the crucial role of “socially oriented” actors, including non-profit housing cooperatives, municipal housing providers and – notably – even private investors, in forging a sustainable solution. This emphasis reveals a nuanced understanding of the realities of the housing market, suggesting a move away from purely state-led interventions towards a collaborative approach.
However, Hubertz’s statements also sparked debate, particularly regarding her commentary on the image of landlords. She cautioned against the tendency to caricature property owners as inherently exploitative, warning that such generalizations are overly simplistic and fail to acknowledge the diverse range of actors involved. This observation was delivered as a direct response to the increasingly polarized discourse surrounding rental practices. While recognizing that some actors, such as foreign investment funds and negligent property managers, contribute to the problem, she argued that demonizing all landlords is counterproductive and risks alienating those who contribute positively to the housing ecosystem. Critics, however, are likely to see this as a softening of stance at a time when many tenants face precarious living situations and escalating rents.