is now the date for the referendum that will decide the further course of the shooting turf project moved up. The debate about the pros and cons have to the shopping center at the current festival site meant that condenses the hot stage for further political issues of the local election campaign in the city and the districts in the two weeks between March 2 and referendum.
The club president of FSV and protection as well as mayors and the project developer Eckardt tbw have made several attempts to topple the mood in the city. But the more they scattered glossy brochures and personally hostile to opponents of the project, the fewer points they made in the population. The tendency for the two citizens' already showed that about two thirds of citizens want to vote against the gun project. Considering that the election according to democratic rules is anonymous (as the bad word again) and not have to disclose his name as the citizens' initiative, would result in findings perhaps even more clearly against the project.
One of the biggest annoyances throughout the previous planning steps regarding the shooting is certainly the turf project inadequate and often only piecemeal information given by the mayor at city councils and citizens. The recognized quickly that the bulk of the information flyer but had many empty words and colorful pictures, but contained no useful information about the opinions and the financial burdens of the city.
The inconsistencies start at all even when asked to vote on exactly WHAT for a plan to citizens. Sufficiently different in the different time steps presented sketches, plans and views of the project over again from each other in details.
time was beside the shopping markets other commercial sites and farms provided, and then again not. Since then emerges once a fast food restaurant in the planning, which is currently as gone. a planning progress can not call when something moves on the plans, what is in front of the movement discussed first in the City Council.
From the beginning the overall planning was based on the so-called "great solution", which provided that 30.200m ² shall become the property of the investor. Figures that were created by the city planning. It picks a detail of the city architect and complained against the turf-shooting opponents, the investor would pay for 19,000 square the usual 120 € per sqm. Right, Mr. municipal architect. But why do you say about how the remaining area will be charged and with what means exorbitant benefits the city, directly related to the reconstruction of the whole shooting-area turf available, including for example, the roundabout and paths are.
request when we further opportunity: If the city has departed in the meantime by the so-called Great solution, which then have the city councils to the amendment say? Know anything, what the ownership of the whole area for a possible implementation in detail?
So, should the plans be so much has changed with the knowledge of the city council, then the project design meets clearly no longer the original tender. On what basis tbw then has received the award for project development?
Those who continue to support a project in which, although there are detailed reports of the Water Management Office on the very important question of flood control, but no one knows the full and content. The waving of paper and the citing of passages from the opinion has nothing to do with information. Even if the mayor has finally come out with the report in full would, it is probably asking too much of the city councils a screening, testing and opinion to be expected within hours.
same applies to the full opinion of the district administration office, all if the mayor and his friends in the project to the lead time is available. "We have something to hide", which is the tenor of public opinion - and she's probably right.
is interesting to note that upon obtaining the information to clarify the cost of the project by shooting Wasen largely neutral people quite different Receives information. So you have sent to us by mail at least three cost models show, however, all concluded that the city has to bleed financially strong when the project is implemented. Only the mayor and his office, the TBW and the two club chairmen have a different opinion.
no clarity on the financial burden and the future tax!
no clarity about the report on flood protection!
no clarity about the future and cost of a new hard place!
knowledge is power, Mr. Mayor! But not knowing makes sour!
With our votes do not count on Sunday!
0 comments:
Post a Comment