A controversial new policy is being introduced in Germany, granting local authorities the power to impose maximum price limits per square meter for rents paid by households receiving basic income support (“Bürgergeld”). The move, spearheaded by Federal Labour and Social Affairs Minister Bärbel Bas of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), aims to curtail perceived abuse of the social welfare system through the exploitation of dilapidated properties – often referred to as “Schrottimmobilien.
Currently, payments for rent and heating are capped based on household size and overall living space. However, the ministry argues that these blanket figures fail to account for situations where multiple households are crammed into substandard housing, leading to disproportionately high per-square-meter rental costs. This practice, they contend, allows unscrupulous landlords to inflate prices at the expense of taxpayers and vulnerable individuals.
The proposed “square meter cap” would shift significant authority to local authorities, obligating them to establish maximum rental prices within the existing frameworks of affordability criteria. While officials insist the caps should reflect regional price levels and primarily target extreme cases, critics are already voicing concerns about potential unintended consequences.
The policy’s delegation of authority to municipalities raises questions about potential inconsistencies in application and the risk of reinforcing existing inequalities between regions. Concerns have been expressed regarding the potential for local governments to prioritize cost-cutting over the needs of Bürgergeld recipients, potentially forcing them into even more precarious living situations. Opposition parties have also cautioned against the policy’s potential to exacerbate the already strained relationship between the federal government and local municipalities, who often bear the administrative burden of implementing these complex programs.
If a household’s rent exceeds the imposed limit, Job Centers will be empowered to initiate cost-reduction procedures, raising further anxieties about due process and potential hardship for those affected. The move signals a hardening stance on welfare recipients and a willingness to experiment with increasingly localized controls, though its ultimate effectiveness and fairness remain highly contested.
