Rent campaigns are shaping local elections but have yet to become a nationwide movement pressing the federal government. An eviction in Madrid has sharpened the comparison with Spain.
Concern over high rents and displacement is growing in Germany’s major cities, but public anger has not yet become a nationwide movement. Tagesspiegel compares Germany with Spain, where the case of 87-year-old María del Carmen Abascal became a symbol of protests over evictions and rising housing costs.
Abascal had lived in her central Madrid flat for more than 70 years. After an investor bought the building, her rent rose fivefold to €2,650 a month. Even a later reduction to €1,650 was unaffordable. Police evicted her on their fourth attempt in late September. The newspaper’s analysis links the protests around her case to Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s decision to call an early election.
Housing is also influencing local politics in Germany. Tagesspiegel says a focus on the issue helped Green politician Dominik Krause win the Munich mayoralty, while housing promises contributed to the Left Party’s recent victory in Berlin. Yet a major tenants’ demonstration in Berlin in early September drew 11,000 people, short of the 20,000 expected by organisers.
Frequently cited rents of €15 or more per square metre mainly concern new leases. The average net cold rent in existing tenancies is €7.71 per square metre, while Vonovia’s Berlin average is €8.26. The article argues that the problem is serious but unevenly experienced.
Many key decisions rest with the federal government because rent law is set nationally. Since Berlin’s rent cap was struck down in 2021, the city has relied on pre-emption rights, restrictions on short-term use and protected neighbourhood zones. Tagesspiegel describes these as limited tools while federal action on construction and affordable housing support lags.
The analysis says uniform rules fit markets as different as Berlin and Bitterfeld poorly. It points to more housing subsidies and legislation for “Building Type E,” intended to give builders legal certainty when using lower standards to reduce construction costs.