Rents in the city continue to rise even as a cornucopia of controls—rent cap, rent brake, bans on vacancy, and rules about first occupancy after modernization—tries to shield tenants from market forces. Yet the real machinery of enforcement remains private and costly, anchored in litigation that many tenants cannot or will not pursue. In one Berlin neighborhood, a new renter pays roughly 18 euros per square meter where a predecessor paid under 8, and the supposed loophole for “first occupancy” after a big renovation seems misapplied when the landlord says only cosmetic work was done. A single landlord group faces four separate lawsuits in the same building, with rents well above the local norm, yet complaints often settle rather than punish, and the firms insist they are complying with the law. Beneath this surface lies a conviction that without lawsuits there is no judge, and many tenants—especially the elderly and migrants—lack either the know-how or the means to defend themselves. Critics warn that weak state enforcement encourages rule-breaking and drains trust from the legal system. Politically, voices press for more state action, not merely for individuals to fight landlords, including proposals to exempt investment from the debt brake. The Left pushes for stronger public intervention, while the federal government plans to tighten the rent brake and sanction violations, with concrete proposals not expected before late 2026. The pressure extends to furnished housing, where cap circumvention via short-term rentals persists, and districts seek to curb conversions in protected Milieuschutz zones, with one district aiming to anchor measures in broader law. Tenant associations report rising Eigenbedarf notices and suspect practices aimed at evictions, though proving fraud is arduous; reform ideas for longer protection periods appear in some places but lack momentum. In short, even with instruments and administration, the gap between enforcement and the persistence of rent growth leaves many tenants exposed to rising costs and insecurity.

What we are witnessing is a familiar inversion: good intentions dressed as policy, attempting to mend the market by decree rather than by allowing the market’s own checks and discoveries to do their work. The ill effects of price controls are not merely about numbers in a ledger; they are about the misallocation of resources that follows from trying to choreograph a complex, dispersed market from above. When the state substitutes its sense of justice for the quiet discipline of price signals, incentives warp, suppliers retreat, and the very option of building new homes becomes a question not of opportunity but of bureaucratic calendar and fiat.

The knowledge problem speaks with brutal clarity here. Central planners cannot know local conditions, the timing of renovations, the real costs of upkeep, or how much a particular block can bear before the supply tap is twisted shut. Meanwhile, enforcement becomes a theater of technocratic certainty: yet certainty in policy often rests on assumptions that reality is malleable by decree. The result is that misapplied rules breed evasion, settlements without penalties, and a growing patience with the idea that the law’s stern face must be bent to fit expediency. If the aim is fair treatment for tenants, we should not mistake harsher penalties or longer lists of prohibitions for justice. We should instead clarify and speed the processes that already exist, reduce the cost of lawful action, and ensure that honest, transparent rules bind both landlords and tenants alike.

To relieve the pressure, we must favor reforms that expand genuine housing supply rather than constrain prices further. Cut through regulatory thickets that deter new construction, streamline permitting, and remove needless barriers to renovation and conversion where such actions would actually increase usable housing. Encourage competitive outcomes by clarifying property rights and reducing the latitude for arbitrary disruption of contracts, not by expanding the reach of the state into every corner of the rental relationship. Any targeted assistance to the neediest must come from general, transparent social support rather than from expansive price controls that discipline the market’s willingness to respond.

And when it comes to enforcement, we should insist on speed, predictability, and due process. Courts ought to resolve disputes quickly, with clear rules that reduce the cost and ambiguity of challenging evictions or improper charges. Fraud, genuine abuse, and manipulation must be deterred with proportionate, fair remedies, but not by turning the housing market into a perpetual test of wills between citizens and the state. If tenants are to have real protection, a reliable rule of law that respects property rights and rewards honest conduct will do more than a slate of prohibitions ever can.

Let the public purse be reserved for broad, inclusive support rather than for propping up price ceilings. Let municipalities and districts exercise their own local knowledge within a simple, stable framework that rewards investment and honest dealing. In the end, the most humane tenancy is not secured by collective ceilings but by a sturdy, predictable order in which prices can adjust to reflect true scarcity and value, and where those who need help can obtain it without distorting the very market that could deliver them a home.