Talk:Deutsche Wohnen & Co. enteignen

DWE succeeds
Over half of the votes were counted with 57% in favour and achieving quorum. Will wait for closer/final tally before updating the article, Berliner Zeitun ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Which image to use inside infobox?
Hello I noticed you replaced the Wikipedia png with a Wikipedia SVG file. While I do prefer SVG's normally, I think it's important to have the distinctive purple and yellow brand colors visually included. Am open for finding another higher quality image, but in meantime I reverted to prior image which has both yellow/purple motif. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added a version with the yellow background, per your concerns. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

background
So the only missing part of the article is the real background for the voting. Ie. why people wanted to do this. The linked articles suggest one reason was the steeply rising rental prices. I'm sure some Berliners would be able to add more details. After all, this is something that could happen in other cities and countries as well, might be good to know more about it. (And not in the sensational style of newspapers). Hoemaco (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The main background for me is the fact that the entire referendum deals with what used to be public housing residences, where many of the occupants orginally had guaranteed rent caps (linked to general inflation, not inflation of rents) in their contracts and protected by law, and that started to become privatized without their consent bit by bit sometime around 2000. This entire "expopriation" demanded by the referendum consists of nothing but the city of Berlin buying back its own public housing at a much higher price than it has originally sold them to private real-estate companies for, and at a higher price than these residences are even currently worth.


 * Everybody's just panicking because this overpriced buying back was called an "expropriation" (Enteignung) in the referendum. This fundamental misnomer for the mere buying-back of what used to be public property until recently is highly unfortunate, having hurt the entire campaign by making it highly vulnerable to sensationalist claims and assumptions by its opponents, and is related to a recent trend that has emerged as a consequence of the fact that for the past four decades, all of Capitalism has increasingly become associated exclusively with the radically neoliberal supply-side economics of Reagan, Thatcher, Kohl (i. e. the Austrian aka Chicago School of Hayek and Friedman claiming that the only way to economic prosperity and a stable liberal democracy would consist out of small government, massive permanent and re-curring tax cuts for corporations, deregulation, 100% privatized markets and largely privatized public life, and no or next to no labor laws or tax-funded re-distribution, i. e. no social benefits or social security, where Hayek, at the 1981 Mont Pelerin Society summit, even went as far as publically questioning the right to life of millions that did not survive or dared critizize these reforms in the context of the Chicago experiment in Chile as such that they deserved to die either from hunger or systematic eradication by government forces in favor of defending property, democracy, and the mere possibility of making a living exclusively for succesfull owners of large corporations, as he believed these should be special privileges limited to few people that, if granted to too many, would result in a disastrous collapse of the economy), where everything else that the West was based on economically ever since FDR in the US and especially post-1945 in the entire Western hemisphere has since c. 1980 been denounced as some supposed "socialism" by followers of von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman. Hence, you're now getting people citing some radical slogans by Marx or Lenin, simply to justify the starting of unions for Amazon employees or drivers of local food deliveries, and referring to overpriced buying back of public property as "expropriation".


 * Meanwhile, the Berlin real-estate companies wanna cling to the housing property (much of it left unoccupied by them on purpose), rather than being paid more than what it's even worth at the moment, because they're speculating at prices on the private real-estate market rising even more in the future. In short, one or two private real-estate companies are using their near-monopoly (or duopoly) in order to massively drive up the rents in all of Berlin by artificially and willfully minimizing the availability of flats permanently (see Dominance (economics)). The only reason why these companies are not legally persecuted by the relevant controlling authorities regarding abuse of market dominance (based on the German anti-trust laws of GWB) is because these authorities don't care if the dominance is limited to a city, rather than the entire country. All of that led to the referendum demanding the city to buy back its own public housing. Media and spokespeople in favor of the monopolists keep claiming in the media that "no single new flat will be build by the expropriation", but that's not really relevant when such a large number of flats and housings that used to be public are now held unoccupied on purpose in order to drive up the rents. --2003:EF:170A:9235:F80E:CB77:4911:45E6 (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)