Lanz will Linken-Politiker grillen – und VERSAGT!

Summary

Maurice Höfgen reviews a Markus Lanz broadcast about the Left Party’s proposal to bring large housing companies in Berlin into public ownership. He argues that Lanz and several panelists portrayed the proposal as unaffordable and a threat to construction, while Jan van Aken was left to defend it largely alone. Höfgen says van Aken made his case reasonably well, though he could have been better prepared with figures.

What the referendum proposed

Höfgen distinguishes constitutional “socialization” under Article 15 from ordinary expropriation under Article 14. He says the 2021 ballot asked voters to support drafting a law covering private housing companies with more than 3,000 apartments. The proposed model would involve public-benefit management and compensation below market value.

He rejects the claim that the ballot was a leading question promising cheaper rents.

Cost and financing

Panelists cited estimates of roughly €29–42 billion, based on market-value assumptions. Höfgen counters with an IMK study estimating compensation at around €13.5 billion and argues that market value need not determine compensation.

In the model he describes, Berlin would provide about €4 billion in equity, treated as a financial transaction outside the debt brake, and borrow the remainder. Höfgen says rental income from the apartments could cover debt service. These figures reflect the study’s assumptions and Höfgen’s interpretation, not a settled legal or financial outcome.

Construction and large landlords

Höfgen challenges the argument that transferring apartments from large companies would stop housing construction in Berlin. He says these companies often buy existing properties rather than build, while Berlin’s state-owned housing companies have built more in some comparisons despite having smaller portfolios.

He also argues that listed landlords prioritize modernization—which can raise rents and property values—over ordinary repairs. The proposal, he stresses, targets very large corporations, not small landlords, private builders, or cooperatives.

Addressing the housing shortage

Höfgen agrees that socialization alone would not solve the housing shortage. He presents it as part of a broader package that includes public construction and rent regulation. He rejects the idea that socialization necessarily diverts money from new building, arguing that the financing model would not automatically displace construction spending.

The panel also raises land availability and the possibility of building on Tempelhofer Feld. Höfgen argues that the site has recreational and public value, and that the problem is not simply a lack of open land.

Criticism of the broadcast and political stakes

Höfgen says Lanz applied an uneven standard: he criticizes the host for challenging van Aken aggressively while allowing other panelists to make claims Höfgen considers misleading.

He also notes a political risk for the Left: if a coalition fails to implement the referendum, voters’ expectations may be disappointed. Höfgen says van Aken could have explained the debt-brake argument more clearly instead of relying on a point about wealth taxes.

Overall conclusion

Höfgen argues that Berlin’s housing crisis and the referendum deserve serious consideration. In his view, claims about cost, construction, and democratic legitimacy should be assessed against the proposal’s actual terms and financing assumptions.

Presenters and contributors

• Maurice Höfgen — Presenter and commentator of the video
• Markus Lanz — Host of the television program discussed
• Jan van Aken — Left Party politician and former party leader
• Monika Schnitzer — Economist and panelist
• Martin Hikel — SPD politician and Neukölln district mayor, as identified from the subtitles
• Unnamed Politico/Springer journalist — Panelist in the broadcast discussed