New city development plan (PAG: plan d’aménagement général) – We demand coherence and proper citizen participation

Europawahlen-2014_Isabel-Wiseler169The discussions sourrounding the PAG are far from over. Citizens were allowed to submit their grievances and 800 of them took the opportunity to do so. The College of Aldermen on the city council must now grant a hearing to each and every one of them. We, as elected members of the opposition in the city council, look forward to seeing the outcome of these hearings and hope that the citizens’ complaints will be taken into account by the Aldermen to increase coherence of the PAG.

For us it is incomprehensible that the residents as well as the opposition political parties on the city council have not been involved in the process from the start.

The number of incoherences in the PAG beggars belief. For instance, how could we accept that certain buildings of 300 m2 are limited to housing a single household ? Or that almost identical houses in the same street receive different classification, one being classified as protected, the other one not at all? Property owners and citizens cannot accept the arbitrary treatment that is inherent in the current version of the new PAG.

But there are other issues as well : The College of Aldermen speaks of giving priority to the quality of life of residents, while in fact accelerating the number of jobs in the city without proper planning, thereby increasing the imbalance between housing and employment. Moreover, the mobility plan is based on outdated figures;  it is simply a box of ideas without  credible solutions for the future !

As members of the opposition in the city council, we shall therefore be demanding substantial changes to the current PAG in order to guarantee the quality of life that the citizens deserve.

Isabel Wiseler-Lima
Member of the City council
President CSV Stad

Please wait outside

Too small meeting rooms, not enough meetings. In organising the PAG information meetings, the College of Aldermen clearly wanted to keep dialogue with citizens to a minimum. There can be no other explanation for the fact that only one meeting was organised for all the residents of Kirchberg, Weimershof, Neudorf, Cents, Hamm and Pulvermühlen. For over 18,500 residents? Hardly surprising, then, that many interested citizens who turned up for this meeting had to turn around and go back home. And not just from this meeting!