In the Berlin state group of the SPD parliamentary group, there is resistance to the planned investment protection law by Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU). The MPs Hakan Demir and Ruppert Stüwe express considerable constitutional concerns about the project with which the federal government wants to make it more difficult for large housing companies to be socialized.
The criticism from Neukölln Bundestag member Hakan Demir was particularly sharp. The deputy domestic policy spokesman for the SPD parliamentary group tells WELT: “Dobrindt’s law is on a ghost flight into the legal Bermuda Triangle.” The Minister of the Interior acts as if the federal government had exclusive legislative authority when it comes to socialization. There is competing and exclusive legislation. Dobrindt sets up conditions “that make the practical exercise of the constitutional right of a state government impossible.” Demir is convinced: “This law will be stopped by Karlsruhe at the latest.”
Asked whether he would agree to a bill based on the key points, Demir replied: “I hope that this bill never reaches parliament.”
The representative for the Steglitz-Zehlendorf district, Ruppert Stüwe, is also skeptical about Dobrindt's plans. "The Basic Law expressly provides for the possibility of socialization. In my opinion, legal regulation by the federal government does not make sense," says Stüwe to WELT.
Significant constitutional questions remain unresolved. Unlike Demir, Stüwe is not yet committed to a possible vote. “Only when a draft law is submitted to the Bundestag will I decide on my voting behavior.”
This means that the opposition within the SPD against the black-red federal government's plan is growing. The Berlin SPD state chairman Steffen Krach had sharply criticized Dobrindt. “The Union’s actions reveal a blatant lack of plan,” Krach told the “Süddeutsche Zeitung”. By interfering in the Berlin election campaign, the Union itself fueled the debate about socialization. Dobrindt must realize that he cannot undermine the constitution. Although he himself is not a supporter of socialization, he considers the Interior Minister's approach to be wrong. “But what comes from Dobrindt seems increasingly actionistic and embarrassing,” said Krach.
The background to the dispute are socialization plans by the Left Party, the Greens and the SPD in Berlin. In their explorations, the parties agreed to transfer around 160,000 apartments from large private real estate companies into public ownership on the basis of Article 15 of the Basic Law. Companies with more than 10,000 apartments would be affected. The compensation should be limited to a total of 16 billion euros. This is probably well below the market value of the apartments.
Dobrindt wants to make such projects more difficult at the federal level. According to the key points he presented for a corresponding law, owners should only be compensated for the full market value. The money would have to be paid out immediately. Financing via long-term bonds, as proposed by the Berlin initiative “Expropriate Deutsche Wohnen & Co”, would therefore be ruled out. In addition, it would have to be proven that all other housing policy measures have been exhausted and that socialization is absolutely necessary.
Whether the federal government is allowed to impose such requirements on the states is constitutionally controversial. Article 15 of the Basic Law expressly allows land and certain other goods to be transferred to public ownership for the purpose of socialization. The federal government can make regulations within the framework of its legislative competence. What is controversial, however, is whether he can tighten the requirements to such an extent that the states can no longer actually make use of this option.
The decision for an investment protection law was made at the beginning of July in the coalition committee of the black-red federal government, with the approval of the then SPD leadership around Lars Klingbeil and Bärbel Bas. Dobrindt recently announced that he wanted to use the law to make it clear that an “arbitrary left-wing socialization fetish” was incompatible with the Basic Law.
Federal Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig (SPD) also sees a need for clarification. There are “many question marks,” she told the “Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger”. She takes the constitutional and political concerns seriously, but at the same time referred to the coalition committee's decision. Hubig also considers the Berlin socialization plans to be unsuitable. Instead of spending billions on compensation, Berlin should invest more in building new, affordable apartments.
This means that the lines of conflict run not only between the federal and state governments, but also within the SPD. While the federal party leadership supports the Investment Protection Act, Berlin Social Democrats are questioning its constitutionality. Even a law later rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court could initially delay Berlin's plans. Until legal clarification is reached, it remains unclear under what conditions the country will be allowed to implement its socialization plans.
