> Your post is bordering on propaganda. Please don't. That's not how a civilized debate works. > First of all: the problem at the core is that Berlin is prett

> Your post is bordering on propaganda. Please don't. That's not how a civilized debate works. > First of all: the problem at the core is that Berlin is pretty much built out Sorry, when comparing to other cities world-wide, that's hard to buy. Places like San Francisco, ok, maybe. Ocean in 3 of 4 directions. Vancouver, ok, maybe. Mountains on 2 sides, ocean on one side, border to US on one side. But Berlin? It's all flat, fields and tree plantations ("forest") all around. Even just adding a floor or two here and there would be fine. There are many areas that could get quite some more density with 5-6 floor houses. But then NIMBY hits. Easier to be angry at the "rich landlords". > Second: that law was enacted because people were fed up with rents going up all the time I'm trying to tell you that that's not solving the problem. High rents are just a symptom. The root cause is a mismatch of supply and demand. It's as if you are trying to legislate away gravity. That won't work in the long run. Either you need to increase supply or decrease demand. I can see that you argue that rural areas should be strengthened, but I fail to see how that would suffice. People want to live in Berlin. > Third: People were especially pissed off about the large landlords (Vonovia etc.) which bought their stock at fire-sale prices The people should be pissed off at the politicians that sold them the stock. It was rational to buy it. Selling out was not. And that wasn't just CDU. Even the SPD+Linke senate did similar things later on. Yet, everybody gets reelected all the time. (Not defending CDU here, they are just as guilty.)