The single-family house is so socially contested precisely because of its private ownership form. Demands for regulation have shaken not just the foundations of bourgeois housing concepts and values, but also the very notion of private property rights, particularly in terms of home and land ownership (cf. Neubacher, 2021). Therefore, reactions to local political efforts to limit single-family home zones can be as fervent as calls for the socialisation of extensive private housing portfolios (cf. Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen, n.d.). Interfering with private property not only risks the individual's right to property but also, as argued by Göbel (2020), the essence of freedom itself.

From this perspective, private home ownership under capitalism is considered not just a way to make housing efficient and affordable, as Nuss (2019) points out, but also carries numerous promises. For instance, the Deutsche Stiftung Eigentum, advocating for private property since 2003, suggests that privately owned residential property enables wealth accumulation, bolsters retirement provisions, and even offers protection against displacement (cf. Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen, n.d.). However, in the context of rising interest rates, increasing building and land prices, and growing disparities in wealth and income, the attainability of homeownership is becoming progressively more challenging, as highlighted by Die Welt (cf. Fabricius, 2020).

Property, initially an abstract concept, is frequently associated with private property. Yet, numerous other forms of property exist, including community property, communal property, customary property, and indigenous property (cf. Leibiger, 2023, p.22). The German Civil Code defines private property as granting the owner unlimited authority over an object and the right to exclude third parties from its usage.

However, this legal definition offers only limited utility for a theoretical approach to ownership (cf. Leibiger, 2023, p.18). Theoretically, property can be better described as a relationship, or more precisely, as a 'complex of relationships'(ibid. ,p.19) .

Home and land ownership, as it pertains to the single-family home, can be understood in the following way: It encompasses not only the relationship of individuals to a house and a piece of land but also, as a social relationship, extends to interactions between individuals or social groups. In single-family housing estates, this aspect of exclusion is often symbolically represented by a no trespassing sign on the garden fence.

Home and land ownership endows certain individuals and social groups with 'power over use' (cf. Menke, 2015, p. 208), as well as the economic appropriation of resulting profits (cf. Krüger, 2020, p.239). It thereby shapes these dynamics as a social relationship or, more specifically, relationships among people (cf. Dyk & Rosa, 2021, p.5).

The concept that housing in Germany ought to be structured around homeownership can be traced back to historically conservative forces. These forces were responding to the challenges of industrialization and urbanisation accompanying the rise of capitalism in Europe (cf. Kohl, 2018, p.8). The vision was for the single-family house, complete with a garden, to emerge as the new standard of housing for the working class, thereby mitigating their impoverishment in cities caused by substandard housing and living conditions.

... this was perhaps the fundamental assumption underpinning the use of residential and land ownership to appease the working class and address social issues (cf. Kohl, 2018, p.9). Concurrently, the single-family home gave rise to a new capitalist production sector, increasingly involving workers and reflecting their interests (ibid.; cf. Matthiesen 2023). This conservative approach to housing policy persisted under the CDU in the post-war era, as exemplified by the 1953 Housing Act. This act stipulated that home ownership should be attainable for the wider population, with the dispossessed encouraged to achieve home ownership through saving, self-help, and public subsidies, thereby escaping proletarianization and homogenization (cf. Kohl, 2018, p.9), a demand inherently linked to family values. From the 1980s onwards, home ownership also emerged as a significant issue in non-conservative political arenas. Starting from the 1980s, homeownership gained political popularity even among non-conservative groups. Policies were implemented to subsidise homeownership, targeting the middle-income brackets, with the aim of reducing the burden of costly property subsidies. The acquisition of residential property was encouraged through state subsidies and bank mortgages, exemplified by the introduction of Baukindergeld in 1982. Concurrently, state investment in social housing diminished, leading to a broader commercialization of the housing sector (cf. Egner, 2014).

The home ownership subsidy, in existence until 2005, was replaced by Baukindergeld, a program concentrating on family homeownership that continued until 2022. At the recent construction summit in September 2023, the current government announced a new initiative: a construction program aimed at supporting climate-friendly family housing (KfW-loans).

However, the apparent unwavering popularity of owner-occupied housing masks the ecological, social, and political repercussions of private ownership, as well as the potential of communal forms of ownership. In both current and new housing developments, the model of individual private ownership of land and housing is increasingly seen as insufficient in various aspects for the socio-ecological transformation of existing and future housing. 

Land is an immobile and non-renewable commodity that, with the advent of capitalism, was violently turned into a privately appropriated and exploitable commodity. It is predominantly held in private ownership in both urban and rural areas. While land forms the foundation for fulfilling human necessities like food and housing, in capitalist societies, it primarily serves as an investment and speculation asset. Increases in land value, often due to social activities, result in private gains as unearned profits. Consequently, the escalating prices of land and property, driven by private land and housing markets, are increasingly straining housing availability and presenting significant challenges to municipalities in urban development.

Single-family homes have recently faced significant challenges due to rising land and construction costs. In light of the growing scarcity of municipal land and efforts to reduce the daily allocation of new land, a range of measures are being explored to facilitate the transfer of land into municipal or non-profit ownership (cf. Heinz & Belina, 2019). One such measure could be the expansion of the right of first refusal set out in the German Building Code (Section 28 BauGB), which would enable municipalities to progressively reacquire privatised land (vgl. Heinz & Belina, 2019, p.22). Currently, these approaches are also being examined within the framework of proactive municipal land policies. These policies aim to prioritise public interests over individual ones through municipal land ownership. As a further measure, land could be aggregated into 'Bodenfonds' (land funds) for development with social goals in mind (ibid., p.23). For instance, leaseholds would enable municipalities to lease land for a fixed period, such as 99 years, thereby enhancing their long-term control over land use. In the context of single-family homes, this approach would result in a distinction between private residential property and municipal land ownership. As single-family home areas occupy substantial space, increasing consideration is being given to densification possibilities. This could include enhancing the exclusively residential zones with work and supply facilities. However, implementing such changes would necessitate amendments to building regulations (cf. Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung 2018). Single-family home areas not only require substantial municipal investments for development and infrastructure maintenance but also present an opportunity for cost recovery through a land value growth tax. Community land trusts or land foundations are innovative models where land remains under resident control for communal benefit, thereby promoting a democratic, self-managed, and non-profit approach to affordable housing (vgl. ARCH+, 2018, pp.44ff.). However, acquiring the land at market prices is a prerequisite (vgl. Heinz & Belina, 2019, p.33). Thus, adapting land trusts, typically used in urban settings, to single-family housing estates becomes a feasible consideration.

Leasehold land could be allocated to housing cooperatives or rental housing syndicates through concept procedures, applicable to both existing and new areas. Originating in the 19th century to provide affordable housing in expanding cities, housing cooperatives today strive to decommodify housing stocks of all sizes, shifting the focus away from profit (cf. Praum, n.d.). Instead of earmarking new areas for single-family homes, cooperatives might, in the future, take over and increase the density of both self-built and existing structures.

The Mietshäusersyndikat, a collectively managed organisation, focuses on securing privately owned residential buildings through loans to ensure long-term affordability for housing communities. Despite being structured as a limited liability company, where both land and buildings remain privately owned, the Mietshäusersyndikat is deeply committed to its goal of providing long-term affordable and secure housing, a principle embedded within its organisational framework.