Germania

House of Representatives election Berlin 2026

Bündnis90/Grüne

Die Linke

Die PARTEI

Die Urbane.

ÖDP

Tierschutzpartei

Volt

Since the start of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine in 2022, Germany and other countries have imposed sanctions on Russia. These include, amongst other things, trade restrictions on Russian energy resources such as oil, gas and coal, restrictions on Russian banks’ access to the international financial market, and the freezing of Russian assets. These sanctions are intended, on the one hand, to punish Russia for its actions in breach of international law and, on the other hand, to weaken it economically in order to bring the war to an end more quickly.

Critics are calling for the sanctions against Russia to be lifted. Some argue that this would, amongst other things, allow cheaper gas to be supplied from Russia once again. Other critics also doubt that the sanctions are significantly weakening Russia’s war economy. Furthermore, they see the lifting of sanctions as an opportunity to initiate new negotiations aimed at bringing the war to an end.

The Abitur is the highest school-leaving qualification in Germany. So far, there is no standardized high school diploma for the entire country. the individual federal states determine their own exams and, in some cases, their own grading criteria.

Some people want to change this. They argue that a nationwide standardized Abitur would make student performance more comparable—for instance, for the benefit of universities—by ensuring that all students face the same requirements. It could also make the transition easier for students moving to a different federal state.

Opponents of a standardized Abitur point out that education in Germany is the responsibility of the federal states and insist that it remain so. They argue that the states are better able to align educational standards and exams with their specific school systems. A uniform *Abitur* exam could restrict regional variations and diverse teaching approaches.

A ban on smartphones in schools aims to reduce distractions and negative influences on children. Proponents argue that this would foster concentration and social interaction.

Opponents, on the other hand, believe that children should learn how to use digital media at an early age. They argue that it would be better to integrate the meaningful use of smartphones into classroom instruction.

Almost all federal states have a debt ratio exceeding ten percent, meaning their accumulated debt amounts to more than one-tenth of their annual economic output. Only Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, and Saxony have lower debt levels in relative terms.

Some view this high level of debt as a risk to future economic prospects. Consequently, certain economic experts call for the states to stop incurring new debt. They argue that high debt leads to rising interest costs in the long run, thereby leaving less funding available for education, infrastructure, and social services. Furthermore, states with high debt levels might have less room for maneuver during economic crises.

Others counter that strictly avoiding new debt can hinder necessary investments. If insufficient funds are allocated to infrastructure, education, and digitalization, schools, transport networks, and public facilities could fall into further disrepair. In the long term, this could place a greater strain on economic development than the debt itself.

Germany has a wealth tax, though its collection has been suspended since 1995. If it were to be levied again on a regular basis, individuals with substantial assets would have to pay higher taxes.

To determine this, an individual's total assets—such as real estate, cars, or business holdings—would first be calculated. The tax amount would then be set based on this total value. Under current law, the tax rate is 1.0 percent for individuals and 0.5 percent for business assets.

However, the wealth tax would not apply to everyone; it would only be levied once a certain asset threshold is reached.

Since the wealth tax is a federal tax, individual federal states cannot reactivate it on their own. They can, however, advocate in the Bundesrat (Federal Council) for its reintroduction nationwide.

Opponents of reintroduction argue that wealth is often derived from income that has already been taxed. They also consider the administrative burden excessive, noting that some assets are difficult to value or fluctuate significantly in price—such as cryptocurrencies or stocks. Furthermore, they emphasize that possessing substantial assets does not automatically mean a person has a large amount of cash at their disposal; for instance, owning a house or a business stake does not necessarily provide the immediately available funds needed to pay the wealth tax.

Proponents counter that a wealth tax can help reduce wealth inequality. It would ensure that the wealthiest individuals contribute more significantly to funding government functions. The additional revenue could be used for areas such as education, infrastructure, or social services, thereby benefiting people with lower incomes as well.

Public property belongs to the state—specifically, for instance, to a federal state or a city. Examples include hospitals, housing, and utility companies. Privatization occurs when such facilities or properties are sold to private companies.

When public property is privatized, proponents often argue that private companies can manage public facilities more efficiently. They anticipate increased investment, faster decision-making, and more cost-effective operations. Evidence of productivity gains is found primarily in sectors characterized by competition and clear state-imposed regulations.

However, there is no proof of a general efficiency advantage for private providers; the outcome depends heavily on the specific sector involved. Opponents also fear that economic interests will take precedence over the provision of essential public services. They warn that the quality of services—such as healthcare or housing—could suffer, or that important offerings could be curtailed.

Anyone buying a house, an apartment, or a plot of land in Germany must pay real estate transfer tax. Each federal state determines the rate itself; depending on the state, it ranges from 3.5 to 6.5 percent of the purchase price.

Proponents of a reduction to 3.5 percent argue that this would make purchasing a home more affordable. They hope that more people would then be able to afford to buy a house or an apartment.

Opponents counter that real estate transfer tax is a crucial source of revenue for the federal states. They fear that a reduction would leave less money available for areas such as education, roads, and public administration. Furthermore, they argue that it is uncertain whether lower taxes would actually lead to lower real estate prices.

Research with potential military applications refers to developments that can be used in both civilian life and the military sector. Examples include artificial intelligence, drones, and new materials.

Some research projects are developed specifically for military purposes.

Those who advocate rejecting such research argue that science should primarily serve peaceful ends. They fear that universities might otherwise contribute to the development of weapons or other military technology and that their independence could be compromised by funding from the defense industry or the military.

Opponents argue that it is often impossible to clearly distinguish between civilian and military research. Many research findings can be utilized in both sectors. A ban could restrict academic freedom. Furthermore, the development of new technologies might be slowed down, and collaboration between universities and state institutions—such as the Bundeswehr—could be hindered.

"Citizen work" refers to community-service activities that individuals are expected to undertake when they have been unemployed for an extended period. Examples include maintaining parks, providing support in social institutions, or performing other tasks for the benefit of the community.

Proponents argue that this allows the long-term unemployed to regain work experience and facilitates their re-entry into the labor market. They also view it as a form of reciprocity for the state support received.

Opponents counter that no one should be compelled to perform such work. They fear that it could displace regular jobs. Furthermore, they point out that the reasons for long-term unemployment vary widely and that a mandatory work requirement does not solve these underlying issues.

For many applications—whether related to construction, business, or other administrative matters—citizens and companies must wait for a decision from the authorities. The proposal stipulates that an application is automatically deemed approved if the responsible authority fails to make a decision within six months.

Proponents argue that this could reduce long waiting times, cut red tape, and allow projects to be implemented more quickly.

Opponents counter that some applications require careful scrutiny. They fear that automatic approvals could lead to errors or result in a failure to adequately assess important environmental, construction, or health and safety standards.

In Germany, most shops remain closed on Sundays and public holidays. This is regulated by law. However, there are exceptions—for instance, for petrol stations, bakeries, or specific Sundays when shops are permitted to open.

Proponents argue that longer opening hours offer greater flexibility for shopping. They also suggest that this could boost sales and strengthen the retail sector.

Opponents counter that Sundays and public holidays should remain days of rest. They argue that employees need time for family, friends, and relaxation. Furthermore, they fear that regular Sunday opening could put smaller shops under pressure.

In Germany, the individual federal states decide what is taught in schools; they determine the curricula. Topics such as Germany’s dictatorships or National Socialism feature prominently in these plans.

However, the German colonial era and its consequences have often received only brief attention in schools to date. Some textbooks still contain outdated terminology or present a one-sidedly European perspective.

Consequently, some are calling for a targeted revision of the curricula. Germany bears responsibility for its history. Students should learn precisely how colonialism emerged and where racism still manifests in everyday life today.

Critical instruction helps to dismantle prejudices. This fosters mutual respect and leads to a better understanding of the perspectives of people from other countries.

Others consider this the wrong approach. Curricula are already packed with material; constantly adding new topics leaves insufficient time for essential fundamentals in subjects like mathematics, German, or the natural sciences.

Furthermore, opponents warn against the politicization of schools. Instruction should remain objective and convey historical events neutrally. Moreover, teachers already have sufficient freedom to discuss current social issues flexibly in the classroom.

In Germany, individual federal states decide what is taught in schools; they determine the curricula. Topics such as Germany’s history of dictatorship or National Socialism feature prominently in these plans.

However, the German colonial era and its consequences have often received only brief attention in schools to date. Some textbooks still contain outdated terminology or present a one-sidedly European perspective.

Consequently, some are calling for a targeted revision of the curricula. Germany bears responsibility for its history. Students should learn precisely how colonialism emerged and where racism still manifests in everyday life today.

Critical instruction helps to dismantle prejudices. This fosters mutual respect and leads to a better understanding of the perspectives of people from other countries.

Others consider this the wrong approach. School curricula are already packed with material. If new topics are constantly added, there is insufficient time for essential fundamentals in subjects like mathematics, German, or the natural sciences.

Furthermore, opponents warn against the politicization of schools. Instruction should remain objective and convey historical events neutrally. Moreover, teachers already have sufficient freedom to discuss current social issues flexibly in the classroom.

In Germany, there is currently no mandatory requirement to attend kindergarten. While parents have a legal right to a childcare place starting from their child's first birthday, they are free to decide whether their child attends a daycare center or is cared for at home.

Compulsory schooling does not begin until the age of six.

Some advocate for mandatory daycare attendance starting at age four to ensure equal opportunities for all children from an early age. In daycare, children learn how to interact within a group and receive early developmental support, with a particular focus on speaking and understanding the German language.

A mandatory year is intended to prevent children with language difficulties or those from socially disadvantaged families from falling behind at school.

Critics oppose such a mandate, emphasizing the parents' right to decide how their children are raised and supported.

A major issue is the acute shortage of early childhood educators and available daycare places; a mandate would overwhelm many facilities.

Opponents therefore suggest providing targeted support only to children who need it, rather than introducing a universal mandate.

In Germany, so-called youth officers from the Bundeswehr regularly visit school classes.

During lessons, they discuss international conflicts, alliances such as NATO, and the military's duties.

Direct recruitment for service in the Bundeswehr is already banned or heavily restricted in many schools.

To date, schools and teachers themselves decide whether to invite soldiers to their classes.

Proponents call for a total ban on military personnel appearing in schools. They emphasize that schools must be places of peace where the military has no place.

Furthermore, opponents fear that young people could be subjected to one-sided influence and covert recruitment for military service. In their view, civic education belongs exclusively in the hands of trained teachers and civilian professionals.

Critics reject such a ban.

They argue that the Bundeswehr—as a "parliamentary army"—is firmly anchored in democracy and is an integral part of society.

Youth officers do not engage in recruitment; instead, they explain key issues regarding security policy.

A ban would deprive students of the opportunity to ask soldiers questions directly and form their own critical opinions.

In Germany and Berlin, the fiber-optic network is primarily being expanded by private companies. They decide for themselves in which neighborhoods laying the new lines is financially worthwhile.

To date, the State of Berlin has only provided funding to support expansion in outlying areas where companies would not otherwise build on their own.

While some providers offer free connections during the initial construction phase, there is currently no guaranteed right to a free connection provided by the state.

Proponents argue that the State of Berlin should provide fiber-optic connections to all citizens free of charge. For them, high-speed internet is now part of essential infrastructure, just like water or electricity.

State-led expansion would ensure equal opportunities for digital participation for everyone—regardless of income or place of residence.

Furthermore, the state could significantly accelerate the rollout, as it would not limit construction to areas where companies anticipate quick profits.

Critics oppose state involvement, pointing to the extremely high costs that would place a heavy burden on the Berlin state budget.

Moreover, private telecommunications companies are already investing heavily in network expansion. State intervention could crowd out private investment and potentially even delay the rollout.

Opponents also emphasize that many households already have access to high-speed cable or mobile connections and that public funds are more urgently needed in sectors such as education or healthcare.

Municipalization would mean the State of Berlin buying back GASAG and regaining ownership. Currently, GASAG is owned by private energy corporations; a planned acquisition by Berlin fell through in 2024.

Arguments in favor include the fact that Berlin could have a greater say in key decisions—such as the expansion of climate-friendly energy and investments in the city's utility infrastructure. Proponents also hope for greater control over a major energy company.

Arguments against include the likelihood of high costs for the buyout. Ultimately, this financial risk would fall on the State of Berlin—and thus on the taxpayers. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a state-owned company would automatically result in lower gas prices.

It is important to note that GASAG and the Berlin gas grid are not the same thing. The gas grid is operated by a GASAG subsidiary; according to an industry report, the contract for this operation has been extended until the end of 2034.

In Germany, advertisements for beer, wine, or spirits can be seen on many streets, at bus stops, and in public squares.

Unlike tobacco products, outdoor advertising for alcohol in public spaces is currently permitted. There are few legal restrictions.

For instance, advertising must not specifically target children, nor may it downplay excessive drinking. In cinemas, alcohol advertisements are only shown after 6 p.m.

Proponents seek to implement a ban on outdoor advertising, primarily to protect public health. Alcohol harms the body and carries a high risk of addiction. Street advertisements are difficult to ignore in everyday life.

This particularly affects children, young people, and individuals at risk of addiction. Studies show that advertising encourages drinking and makes it easier to start.

A ban aims to reduce consumption and save the healthcare system significant costs.

Opponents reject a ban on alcohol advertising. They emphasize consumer personal responsibility, arguing that informed citizens can decide for themselves what to buy and drink.

A ban would constitute a disproportionate interference with citizens' freedom of choice and companies' freedom to conduct business.

The industry also points to existing regulations and the Advertising Council's codes of conduct. They argue that targeted education is more effective against alcohol abuse than a blanket ban.

Berlin already has zones where weapons and knives are prohibited—specifically at Görlitzer Park, Kottbusser Tor, and Leopoldplatz. Carrying weapons or knives in these areas is generally forbidden. Furthermore, a similar ban has been in effect since July 2025 across Berlin’s entire local public transport network, including at train stations and stops.

Arguments in favor include the following: police could intervene sooner in areas prone to violence. They are authorized to conduct checks in these zones even without specific grounds for suspicion. If knives or weapons are discovered, they can be confiscated. Proponents hope this will lead to fewer people carrying weapons and make public spaces safer.

Arguments against include the following: a ban alone does not necessarily prevent an attack; it is only effective if the police carry out sufficient checks, which requires personnel. Critics also fear that violence will simply shift to other locations. They also see a risk of people being subjected to checks more frequently without any specific cause.

Görlitzer Park is a public park intended to be accessible to everyone. Since March 2026, it has been subject to intermittent nighttime closures. The Senate cited drug dealing and other criminal activity as the reasons for this measure.

Arguments in favor of a nighttime closure include the fact that police and public order officers could monitor the park more easily at night. Proponents hope this would reduce drug sales and violence, and that local residents might feel safer.

Arguments against the measure include the fact that people would no longer be able to use the park at night. Critics also argue that crime might simply shift to neighboring streets and question whether locked gates can actually resolve the root causes of drug dealing and violence.

The closure has since been temporarily halted. The Berlin Administrative Court ruled that the Senate administration lacked the authority to implement the measure; consequently, the park must remain open at night for the time being. A final decision on the matter has not yet been reached.

Prostitution is generally legal in Germany when adults voluntarily offer sexual services. Those working as prostitutes are required to register and attend regular health consultations.

A ban on street-based prostitution would mean that sex work could no longer be solicited on public streets.

Restrictions are already in place in certain areas; public sex is prohibited regardless.

Arguments in favor of a ban include reports from residents in some locations regarding drug dealing, violence, litter, and harassment. Proponents aim specifically to protect children and young people.

They also argue that authorities can better monitor conditions and offer assistance in indoor settings.

Arguments against a ban include the fact that it does not necessarily put an end to prostitution; it could simply shift to hidden apartments or other streets. This would make it harder for counseling services, the police, and support organizations to reach sex workers.

The German Women's Council therefore warns that bans can place people involved in sex work at greater risk.

In Berlin, refugees are accommodated in both apartments and larger shelters.

In many collective shelters, residents share kitchens, bathrooms, or common areas. However, there are also facilities that consist of individual apartments.

Arguments in favor of apartments include the fact that families and individuals enjoy greater privacy and can organize their daily lives independently. This can facilitate integration.

Living in a standard residential area often makes it easier to connect with neighbors, schools, and counseling services. Studies show that people living in their own apartments are generally more satisfied with their living situation than those in large shelters.

On the other hand, Berlin has a shortage of affordable housing, making it difficult to find living space for large numbers of people quickly enough.

Large shelters can provide more accommodation places on short notice. They also often offer access to counseling, medical care, and support services all in one location.

Should the capital, Berlin, bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games? This is currently a subject of heated debate among politicians and the general public.
The German Olympic Sports Confederation will decide in September 2026 which German city will enter the international race. Berlin is putting forward the "BERLIN+" concept, involving neighboring federal states.

Potential years for hosting the games are 2036, 2040, or 2044.
The Berlin Senate supports the plans and is conducting public surveys within the city.

What are the arguments in favor of a bid? Proponents emphasize that Berlin already possesses almost all the necessary sports venues; there is little need for major new construction projects.

Instead, the plan is to renovate existing arenas and sports facilities. After the Games, this would primarily benefit grassroots sports and local clubs.

Investments could also accelerate the expansion of local public transport.

Furthermore, supporters see an opportunity to boost the city's image. Germany could present itself as an open-minded democracy—exactly 100 years after the 1936 Games held under Adolf Hitler.

What are the arguments against it? Opponents warn of high costs and financial risks. In the case of past Olympic Games, actual expenditures were usually far higher than originally planned.

Critics argue that Berlin should instead use the funds to address pressing issues, such as affordable housing, modern schools, and infrastructure maintenance.

Many citizens also worry about construction sites, traffic disruptions, and strict security measures affecting their daily lives.

Ultimately, the question remains: Do the opportunities for urban development and sports outweigh the financial risks for taxpayers?

A packaging tax would be a levy on single-use packaging for food and beverages. It could apply, for instance, to coffee cups, pizza boxes, or french fry trays. Reusable packaging would generally be exempt. Berlin does not currently have such a tax.
In 2024, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that cities are permitted to levy a packaging tax. Borough mayors subsequently advocated for such a tax in 2026, though the Senate has so far rejected it.

Arguments in favor of the tax include the fact that single-use packaging generates significant litter in public spaces. The levy is intended to make reusable options more attractive and to reduce cleaning and disposal costs.

For example, a tax of 50 cents per single-use container and 20 cents per piece of single-use cutlery applies in Tübingen.

Arguments against the tax include the increased administrative burden for restaurants, snack bars, and cafés. These businesses might pass the cost of the tax on to customers through higher prices.

The Berlin Senate also warns of the additional workload this would create for businesses and the administration.

Every year on New Year's Eve, millions of people in Germany celebrate by setting off fireworks. However, calls for a ban on private fireworks are growing louder.

What is the current legal situation? Under German explosives laws, adults aged 18 and older are permitted to purchase standard New Year's Eve fireworks.

As a general rule, setting them off is permitted only on December 31 and January 1.

However, cities and municipalities already have the authority to impose bans in specific areas. Such restrictions often apply near half-timbered houses, hospitals, nursing homes, or churches. To date, there is no blanket ban for private individuals.

Proponents of a ban primarily cite environmental, health, and safety concerns.

The celebrations generate massive amounts of fine particulate matter on New Year's Eve. The noise causes immense stress for wildlife, pets, and livestock.

Furthermore, hospital emergency rooms are often overwhelmed on New Year's Eve due to severe injuries to hands, eyes, or ears.

Incidents involving attacks on police officers and emergency responders using firecrackers also fuel the argument for a ban. Added to this is the issue of hundreds of tons of litter left on the streets.

Opponents of a ban, on the other hand, emphasize tradition and personal freedom. For millions of citizens, fireworks are an integral part of the New Year's celebration.

They argue that a ban would punish the peaceful majority for the misconduct of a few individuals.

Additionally, the German fireworks industry points to potential revenue losses and job cuts.

Critics also question the feasibility of a ban. They fear it would fuel a black market for dangerous, illegal firecrackers imported from abroad.

Berlin already had the €29 ticket for a brief period. The Berlin Senate introduced the so-called "Berlin-Abo" (Berlin subscription) in the summer of 2024. Subscribers could use all local public transport within the city limits—specifically, fare zones A and B.
However, due to major budget shortfalls, sales were halted just a few months later, in December 2024.

Since then, passengers in the capital have mostly used either standard tickets or the *Deutschlandticket*, which costs more than twice as much.

Proponents of reintroducing the ticket view it as a significant source of financial relief for citizens. Lower fares for buses and trains ease the financial burden on passengers.

This can encourage more people to switch from cars to public transport. Reduced car traffic relieves pressure on the roads and protects the environment.

Furthermore, the offer enables people on lower incomes to enjoy affordable mobility in their daily lives.

Opponents primarily point to the high costs incurred by the state of Berlin. The ticket requires millions of euros in annual subsidies funded by taxpayers. These funds are then unavailable for other priorities, such as daycare services or the expansion of bus and rail networks.

In addition, the ticket offers no benefit to commuters from the surrounding region, as its validity ends at the city limits. Many experts therefore consider the nationwide *Deutschlandticket* to be the better solution.

Plans are in place to extend Berlin’s A100 urban motorway. Following the section that reaches Treptower Park, the focus has now shifted to the 17th construction phase.

This phase is intended to carry the motorway across the Spree River and beneath the Ostkreuz railway station, extending as far as Storkower Straße.

The project is firmly included in the federal government's transport plan, and federal authorities are consequently pushing ahead with the planning process. However, the scheme remains highly controversial among Berlin politicians and the general public.

Proponents emphasize the motorway's importance to the city. The aim is to shift car traffic from residential streets to the expressway, thereby relieving local neighborhoods of noise and through-traffic.

Furthermore, commercial traffic requires reliable routes; trucks and delivery vans transport food, construction materials, and other goods into the city.

Smooth-flowing traffic on the motorway also generates fewer exhaust emissions compared to the constant stop-and-go driving found in the city center.

Opponents, however, view the extension as sending the wrong signal regarding climate protection.

They point out that, historically, more roads tend to attract more car traffic, making it difficult to permanently prevent congestion.

The project's enormous cost—projected to reach up to one billion euros—is another key argument against it.

In addition, construction would require the removal of green spaces, and residents living near the new route would face increased noise and exhaust fumes.

The area in question is a section of Friedrichstraße, approximately 500 meters long, situated between Französische Straße and Leipziger Straße.

Cars were largely banned from this stretch between 2020 and 2023. Since July 2023, the street has been open to car traffic again.

Arguments in favor of a pedestrian zone include: more space for pedestrians, cafés, trees, and seating areas. The street could become quieter and safer. During the previous trial, both pedestrian and bicycle traffic increased.

Arguments against it include: cars would be forced onto other streets. Furthermore, delivery services, taxis, people with disabilities, and customers must still be able to easily access the shops.

Critics therefore fear negative impacts on retailers and increased traffic in the surrounding area.

The Senate is not currently planning a strictly pedestrian-only zone. Instead, the plan involves redesigning the street to feature wider sidewalks, fewer parking spaces, trees, and slow-moving car traffic.

A city toll is a fee charged to drivers wishing to take their vehicles into the city center. To date, no such levy exists in Germany.

Currently, cities and municipalities cannot independently decide to implement a city toll; the federal government would first need to amend the law to grant local authorities the right to do so.

Proponents of a city toll primarily aim to reduce traffic congestion in urban areas. Fewer cars on the road would lead to improved air quality and reduced noise levels.

Cities could use the toll revenue directly to further expand bus and rail services as well as bicycle paths.

This is intended to encourage even more people to switch to public transport.

Opponents view the city toll as an unfair financial burden. In particular, low-income earners and commuters from the surrounding areas who rely on their cars would face higher costs.

There are also concerns that traffic would simply shift elsewhere; cars might increasingly drive through residential areas located just outside the toll zone.

City-center retailers also fear financial losses, as customers might avoid shopping in the downtown area.

Additionally, there is the issue of the significant technical effort required to monitor license plates.

Berlin has approved an apprenticeship levy, though it has not yet come into effect. Starting in 2028, companies will be required to contribute to a shared fund if they do not provide enough apprenticeship positions.

The measure applies to businesses with at least ten employees subject to social security contributions whose apprenticeship rate falls below the current national average of 4.6 percent.

The funds collected are intended for businesses that create additional apprenticeship positions. The levy aims to expand apprenticeship opportunities and counteract the shortage of skilled workers.

Arguments for abolishing the levy include reduced bureaucracy and lower costs for companies.

Even businesses unable to find suitable applicants or lacking the capacity to provide training would still have to pay. Proponents of abolition fear that the levy would place an additional financial burden on companies during economically challenging times.

Arguments against abolition point out that, without the levy, the costs of training are borne primarily by the businesses that actually provide it.

For this reason, some view the regulation as a fair balancing mechanism. Smaller businesses could also receive funds from the pool, making them more likely to create new apprenticeship positions.

The question, therefore, is: Should Berlin scrap the levy to relieve the burden on companies? Or should it remain in place to ensure more businesses contribute to the costs of training?

Berlin’s Tempelhofer Feld is one of the world’s largest open spaces located within a major city. A special law has been in effect there since 2014.

At that time, citizens decided in a referendum that the former airport site must not be built upon and should remain a protected park.

However, the Berlin state government—a coalition of the CDU and SPD—wants to amend this law. The reason is the city's severe housing shortage. Plans call for development along the edges of the site.

Proponents argue that Berlin urgently needs affordable housing. The field offers ample space on municipal land that is already well-connected to bus and rail networks.

By limiting construction to the perimeter, the vast central area would be preserved as a park. This would allow for the creation of many housing units without sacrificing a recreational space for the public.

Opponents, on the other hand, emphasize that the referendum result must be respected. Furthermore, the field plays an important role in climate protection.
It generates fresh air and cools down the densely built-up neighboring districts during the summer.

Critics also fear that high construction costs would result primarily in expensive housing and lead to the loss of popular recreational areas along the edges.

The six state-owned housing companies are owned by the State of Berlin. They are already subject to stricter rules than private landlords.

Under the current agreement, the average rent increase across a company's entire housing portfolio is capped at 2.9 percent per year.

For individual apartments, increases of up to 11 percent over three years are permitted.

A cap of one percent per year would offer tenants greater protection. Low-income households, in particular, would benefit from increased security and be better able to plan for their housing costs.

The state has the authority to set such rules for its own housing companies. Furthermore, these companies are tasked with securing affordable housing.

On the other hand, housing companies require revenue to fund repairs, modernization, and new construction.

If construction, interest, or energy costs rise by more than one percent, a fixed cap could limit their operational capacity.

In that scenario, the State of Berlin might have to allocate additional funds from the budget.

The question, therefore, is: Should tenant protection take precedence? Or do state-owned housing companies need more flexibility to maintain existing properties and build new ones?

In 2021, more than half of Berlin’s citizens voted in favor of the referendum.

The demand: The State of Berlin should expropriate large private housing companies—specifically, firms that own more than 3,000 apartments.

In total, this involves around 240,000 apartments.

The legal basis for this is Article 15 of the Basic Law, which permits the transfer of property into public ownership. An expert commission has confirmed that such a law is legally feasible.

However, the initial referendum was not legally binding on policymakers. To date, the state government has not passed an expropriation law.

Consequently, the citizens' initiative is now planning a second, binding referendum.

What are the arguments in favor?

Proponents emphasize that housing is a fundamental right. Rents in major cities have been rising sharply for years. Large corporations prioritize profits for their shareholders, which drives up prices.

If the state takes over these apartments, the pressure to generate high profits is removed. This could keep rents affordable in the long term.

Furthermore, by owning more housing itself, the city would regain influence over the housing market as a whole, helping to protect tenants from displacement.

What are the arguments against?

Opponents point out that expropriation does not create a single new apartment, whereas the actual problem is a shortage of housing.

Moreover, the state would have to pay billions in compensation to the corporations. This money would then be unavailable for other areas of the budget, such as schools or roads.

Critics also warn of economic damage. State expropriation unsettles private investors, leading them to build fewer new apartments.

Ultimately, this could exacerbate the housing shortage.

Supporta questo progetto