7 ms·

I think most Berliners would read your comments as "it is a good thing that we give a part of our public park to the rich because they'll give us their less-des

I think most Berliners would read your comments as "it is a good thing that we give a part of our public park to the rich because they'll give us their less-desirable apartments in return. Like trickle-down economics, but for apartments". And if the current situation is any indication, those rich people will keep their old apartment and rent it, or sell it to foreign investors. Either way, say goodbye to ever owning a place in the city where you grew up. As for the second part: Berliners feel that the city should belong to those that lived there when no one wanted to, and recognize that those people are probably not rich. Kicking the hairdresser that lived there for 40 years to make room for the tech bro is not generally seen as a positive development. Social housing would ensure that the city remains in the hands of its citizens.

notanzaiiswear 5y ago
So most Berliners know nothing about economics? The park would not be "given to the rich", presumably the parts open for building would have been sold to "the rich", with the money benefitting every Berlin citizen (ideally - but we know our government her is composed of very good people, right?). Also what does it matter if the "rich" rent out their old apartment? What is needed is supply of apartments. Per supply and demand, more supply means lower prices. Do the people expect to live in luxury apartments for little money? And it is very touching that nobody wanted to live here 40 years ago and the people held on. But then they could have bought their living places for very little money. Also the whole place was subsidized by the USA as a stand against the Soviet Union. The people staying benefitted a lot. There already is a construct for the place where you live belonging to you: it is called "buying your own place to live". If you choose to rent instead, you signal that you don't necessarily want to stay forever.

notanzaiiswear 5y ago

So most Berliners know nothing about economics? The park would not be "given to the rich", presumably the parts open for building would have been sold to "the rich", with the money benefitting every Berlin citizen (ideally - but we know our government her is composed of very good people, right?). Also what does it matter if the "rich" rent out their old apartment? What is needed is supply of apartments. Per supply and demand, more supply means lower prices. Do the people expect to live in luxury apartments for little money? And it is very touching that nobody wanted to live here 40 years ago and the people held on. But then they could have bought their living places for very little money. Also the whole place was subsidized by the USA as a stand against the Soviet Union. The people staying benefitted a lot. There already is a construct for the place where you live belonging to you: it is called "buying your own place to live". If you choose to rent instead, you signal that you don't necessarily want to stay forever.