Germany Confiscating Homes To Use For Migrants

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Bone75

With automation on a grand scale, I can see some of your ideas coming to pass.

Automation on a grand scale would be the result of my ideas, not the catalyst that makes my ideas work.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
You people are really a special kind of work, right?

Because the ONE case I have heard about was 2015, when the major of a larger town ordered the fire brigade to open up an abandoned C&A (a clothes retail, closed 15months earlier) to house several refugees while they waited for their place on a ferry to Sweden.

There is no confiscation of homes for refugees, immigrants, illegals and others in Germany.

Fake news on a very wrong level.

So you have only heard of one instance, that means there aren't any more? Could it be possible that you haven't heard of them all? Looks like the "special kind of work" in this thread may be you.

a reply to: Swills

please check the link I posted on page 4.
This is true. Only the "to migrants" part is not true:

"this is confirmed by German news:
www.abendblatt.de...

link is in German, but Google translate provides a good translation for it.
However, nowhere is mentioned this is for migrants.

Seems this is part of a law passed in 2013 in Hamburg, to avoid empty flats left unoccupied.

Seems the owner had been reminded several times, he promised to rent the flats, but actually never did.
So according to the law, the city is now "acting".

In my opinion, the debate should be: should a city be allowed to do so?
I must say I find it pretty harsh. But at the same time it is really difficult to find a flat to rent nowadays in many EU cities.
And in this case the city is not taking the flats away from him, they are forcing him to rent. "

a reply to: seasonal

If it wasn't for all the rotten and dirty proxy wars of the US, Europe wouldn't be in this situation. America is just as bad as the next Muslim terrorist, it just knows how to market war better.

Apparently not enough of these caring generous leftists are offering these refugees/migrants their own homes to stay in...
Imagine that!?!?
Even less surprising is no outrage from the left over the establishment confiscating private property to house immigrants.

Meanwhile the American leftists are up in arms about the imminent domain confiscations that will probably happen with the building of the fence(not wall) along our southern border to keep out illegal immigrants. Liberalism is now it's own worst enemy. It was gotten to such a level that to take one liberal stance you must perform mental gymnastics over the previous days stance. Literally self contradicting every 24 hours.

Just watch.
The leftists stance towards confiscations of land in Texas and Arizona will now soften as not to cast to much light on just another leftist hypocrisy.

originally posted by: KarmaComa
a reply to: seasonal

yes, this is confirmed by German news:
www.abendblatt.de...

link is in German, but Google translate provides a good translation for it.
However, nowhere is mentioned this is for migrants.

Seems this is part of a law passed in 2013 in Hamburg, to avoid empty flats left unoccupied.

Seems the owner had been reminded several times, he promised to rent the flats, but actually never did.
So according to the law, the city is now "acting".

In my opinion, the debate should be: should a city be allowed to do so?
I must say I find it pretty harsh. But at the same time it is really difficult to find a flat to rent nowadays in many EU cities.
And in this case the city is not taking the flats away from him, they are forcing him to rent.

There was a big kerfuffle in the UK about vacant properties and absent owners. There are several categories; one is abandoned properties that are boarded up, where somebody has died abroad, in hospital or in prison, can't be traced, and the property can't be sold until one or more relatives have been contacted. In France, there is Napoleonic law, where
a property can't be sold until every relative who has a 1/2, a 1/4, a 1/8th share has been contacted.

The other case is where the owner has gone abroad to work for a couple of years or more and left their valuable antiques in the property because they don't want to risk them getting damaged while being put in storage.

Another problem is elderly people holding onto large properties such as Victorian townhouses as inheritance for their relatives. They are now living alone on the ground floor in a bedsit, can't afford or don't want to pay to renovate and they don't want to leave due to the rapidly rising house prices. So all those rooms remain unused.

A similar sitation happened with council housing. In the past anyone at the top of the list would be offered a unit that had a close match to their needs even if it had more bedrooms than they needed. Then when there was a shortage of properties for the waiting lists, the government introduced a "bedroom tax" to encourage residents to downsize. This just led to suicides because tenants couldn't find or were offered anywhere nearby and couldn't afford the payments.

All of these situations lead to at least one residence in every street being left empty with no council tax being paid. For London, that's around 40,000 homes and maybe 80,000 bedrooms, which could house 160,000 people.

These situations are happening in Germany and across Europe. In other countries like Canada, they maintain the vacancy rate for apartments. Usually it's between 95% and 97%. Below 95% it becomes a buyers market and condo owners have to drop their rents/prices. Above 97%, they can jack up rents, but then that encourages new condos and rental apartments to be built, which then brings down prices. They did allow property speculators to buy and flip empty lots.

In Europe we don't really have that kind of system, as all property rentals are done either directly with the landlord or property agency for existing Victorian era buildings that have been modernized. With Sweden, the government deliberately maintained a housing shortage to the point that people sub-let properties to the N'th degree because waiting lists stretched out for years. But if they had built more apartments, the high vacancy rate would have led to self-segregation.

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
Don't really care since it's Germany's problem. Sucks to be them, I have no sympathy for thier stupidity. They made their bed, now they will sleep in it and get a good nights rest. For tomorrow there will be dispair.

a reply to: stormcell

thanks stormcell for this additional info.

Erh....didnt they do this already when they evicted legitimate owners, who happened to be jewish. And gave that property to germans or lackeys from an invaded country ?

a reply to: pataatemesosisse

I imagine you have a point, or a 1/2 point.

The US has been involved in wars because of weapons of mass, Tokin Bay, because of 911, Pearl Harbor......

It seems like Charlie Brown would catch on but the world keeps spinning.

a reply to: ClydeBuilt

Pesky facts.

originally posted by: KarmaComa
a reply to: Swills

please check the link I posted on page 4.
This is true. Only the "to migrants" part is not true:

"this is confirmed by German news:
www.abendblatt.de...

link is in German, but Google translate provides a good translation for it.
However, nowhere is mentioned this is for migrants.

Seems this is part of a law passed in 2013 in Hamburg, to avoid empty flats left unoccupied.

Seems the owner had been reminded several times, he promised to rent the flats, but actually never did.
So according to the law, the city is now "acting".

In my opinion, the debate should be: should a city be allowed to do so?
I must say I find it pretty harsh. But at the same time it is really difficult to find a flat to rent nowadays in many EU cities.
And in this case the city is not taking the flats away from him, they are forcing him to rent. "

You really didnt need to clarify. This is a target piece, and it hit the mark rightfully so. Sort of like bait set in a trap...
Its easier to fool some than it is to convince them they're being fooled.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

You really didnt need to clarify. This is a target piece, and it hit the mark rightfully so. Sort of like bait set in a trap...
Its easier to fool some than it is to convince them they're being fooled.

Hello, sorry I do not understand your point.
Please could you elaborate?

So this is actually not new at all. The law has been in existing since 2015 but recently it came more into focus because the city has failed to properly scale the size of available housing with the growth of the city and they starting to "feel" it.

So they turn to enforcing their city laws that basically states that any unused area within city limits can be enforced to be occupied.

The whole reason is that the government (all of them) failed year over year to issue meaningful building permits to construction companies. With all the requirements, etc -nobody can build for profit - not even for equalizing cost. It goes as far as some politicians of Hamburg expected construction companies to go bankrupt while operating within Hamburg and they absolutely cool with it.

Now it turns ugly and they go after private homeownership to fulfill "their" promises.

These are truly the reasons why I left Germany - this is maybe an extreme example - however these things are very common in Europe - sacrifice the individual needs for the greater good. While it's noble in some cases, it's abused too much and usually the people worked hard for their individual needs are the looser and have the largest damage with no recourse.

And that's why we all here in the United States shall never allow such intrusion by an "short-lived" system.

originally posted by: ClydeBuilt
Erh....didnt they do this already when they evicted legitimate owners, who happened to be jewish. And gave that property to germans or lackeys from an invaded country ?

Yes, Jews weren't allowed to own and rent out property, run business such as pawn shops, antique dealers or money lending. All because it was thought to cause inflation and make financial life impossible for Germans.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Seems it's empty commercial properties, not homes

Not sure that matters.

How would like it if a property you owned was confiscated, put to a use of the government's choosing, they did all kinds of work on it, and sent all the bills to you?

a reply to: odzeandennz

Hmmm, so what are the laws on renting?

a reply to: TrueBrit

UKTruth wrote

So you would agree then that poorer people who don't maintain their homes correctly (to your standard) should be evicted and their houses given to someone else then, right?

Which is a valid point; based on your reasoning they too should be evicted. Why can't you see the similarity?

a reply to: Bone75

Seriously....you sound like you have no respect for property rights. You want to go squatting and hunting for free so lets do away with others people freedom to buy property?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

While I agree with the automation crap storm and the sh creek we are going to up in a decade or less.

I can't see the value in someone jumping a fence, throwing up a tent and start carrying a gun on someone elses property. In Michigan that can lead to a very bad situation.