The political debate on the nationalisation of large housing companies in Berlin is being conducted primarily from the perspective of tenant protection. In reality, however, there is far more at stake: namely, a fundamental restructuring of ownership structures in the housing market. This is highlighted by the Munich-based lawyer Dr Christoph Brandenburg. An analysis of historical and current political programmes shows that the call for nationalisation is part of a broader concept that fundamentally calls into question the private-sector provision of housing.
“In public debate, socialisation is often portrayed as a particularly far-reaching tool for capping rents. However, anyone who examines the policy underpinnings will realise that there is much more at stake. At its heart lies the question of whether, and to what extent, private ownership of rented flats is still desirable in the future,” explains Brandenburg, founder of the law firm Brandenburg.Legal, which specialises in public construction and planning law.
Socialisation as a means of changing the economic system
The constitutional basis for this is Article 15 of the Basic Law. This provision allows land, natural resources and means of production to be transferred into public ownership or other forms of public-sector management for the purposes of socialisation. It dates from a time when the economic system of the Federal Republic had not yet been definitively established. Even the CDU called for the socialisation of key industrial sectors in its 1947 Ahlen Programme.
As early as 1954, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the Basic Law does not prescribe any specific economic system. Article 15 of the Basic Law thus, in principle, opens up the possibility of a different system of property ownership and economic organisation. However, the provision has never been applied since the Basic Law came into force in 1949. “Article 15 is not simply a more stringent form of traditional expropriation. Rather, the provision opens up the possibility of organising entire sectors of the economy differently. This aspect is frequently underestimated in the current debate,” said Brandenburg.
Striking parallels between earlier concepts and current housing policy
Brandenburg refers to two policy documents published by the Interventionist Left in 2012 and 2018. These explicitly call for the abolition of the private housing market. The plan envisages first reducing the profitability of private housing stock through interventions in tenancy law, tax measures and further regulations. Falling property values are then intended to facilitate the expansion of public and socially-owned housing.
According to Brandenburg’s analysis, the similarities in content with the election manifesto of Berlin’s Left Party for the House of Representatives election on 20 September 2026 are noteworthy. The manifesto calls for a socialisation act that is intended to entail a “deliberate break with the logic of private exploitation”.
Parallels can also be drawn with numerous individual measures. These include the abolition of the modernisation levy, the increase in land transfer tax from six to eight per cent, restrictions on share deals, and the reintroduction of a local authority right of first refusal at purchase prices that enable letting in the public interest. Furthermore, the party advocates the decriminalisation of squatting.
“The similarities in content are striking. It is not possible to deduce from this whether, and to what extent, the earlier papers have been directly incorporated into the election manifesto. What can be established, however, is that numerous demands are geared towards the same objective: curbing private-sector ownership and management structures in the housing market,” explains Brandenburg.
Implications for investment and the housing stock
From a lawyer’s perspective, the debate is of considerable significance for the property sector. This is because political measures that go beyond the regulation of rent levels and specifically influence the profitability of private housing portfolios also have an impact on investment decisions, valuations and long-term planning certainty. Brandenburg is familiar with this perspective from his own business experience. After around 20 years practising as a solicitor, he spent some ten years as managing director of a property development company, where his responsibilities included managing a housing portfolio in Berlin. He experienced the consequences of Berlin’s rent cap – which was declared null and void by the Federal Constitutional Court in 2021 on the grounds that the state lacked the legislative authority to enact it – first-hand from a business perspective.
“For investors, it is not just the legal regulations currently in force that are decisive. Equally important are the long-term political objectives being pursued. Anyone investing in residential property is making decisions that will last for decades. If the private-sector management of housing stock is fundamentally called into question, this significantly alters the framework conditions,” emphasises Brandenburg.
He therefore calls for a more open debate on the actual aims of socialisation policy. “In a democracy, it is possible and indeed necessary to debate different models of ownership. What is crucial, however, is that we clearly state what is at stake. When it comes to the socialisation of large housing companies, it is not just the level of rent that is under discussion, but ultimately also the future of the private housing market.”
