A bitter argument about a new street rages between the residents of a new development area and the city of Erding.
That should end up in court.
The allegations are tough.
Erding - Ingrid Sollanek was a popular teacher, city councilor and second mayor in Erding.
For months there has been an angry dispute about the planned path, which is named after the CSU woman.
The 26 residents of the adjacent Tassilohof, a dignified residential complex, as well as a few other residents are resisting the city's plans to build a continuous one-way street here.
Street was initially explicitly excluded
You refer to the development plan 203, which explicitly excludes this and on the basis of which you have bought a condominium here.
On their behalf, Ernst Bichlmaier and Jörg Krinke accuse Mayor Max Gotz and city architect Sebastian Henrich of incorrect planning and of spreading false information and untruths.
It is becoming more and more likely that Ingrid-Sollanek-Weg will end up in court.
On December 10, 2020, the planning and construction committee of the city council passed the statute resolution for the development plan 191 (we reported).
It is supposed to regulate the development of the Rewe area on Freisinger Straße.
Apartment buildings and a hotel with 100 beds are planned here.
This development plan also includes the Ingrid-Sollanek-Weg.
It should be accessible to everyone as a one-way street from Freisinger Strasse to Gießereistrasse.
Town hall lawyer: A common occurrence
In this area, the development plan 191 replaces the 203.
It was created for the Tassilohof a good ten years ago.
It is clearly regulated in it that the Ingrid-Sollanek-Weg in the area of the Tassilohof is purely a residential entrance to the underground car park of the residential complex.
It should be cordoned off at the Rewe site.
According to the first development plan, only parking spaces south of the future development area should be accessible from Freisinger Straße.
But the new development plan now replaces the old one.
“A common process”, as town hall lawyer Andreas Erhard has repeatedly explained in various meetings.
But local residents insist on the legal basis on which they bought.
Like most of the owners, Bichlmaier moved in in 2013, Krinke the last one a year later.
Residents discover a number of contradictions
In an interview with our newspaper, the two draw attention to all sorts of contradictions.
And they are outraged that Gotz was not even ready to listen to their arguments.
Because Krinke and Bichlmaier had asked for an appointment last year on behalf of the owners' association, but had not been admitted.
Instead, her lawyer received a letter from Henrich stating that such dates were not possible in the context of the interpretation of a development plan in order to allow the proceedings to proceed in a legally secure manner.
The observer's silence angered the complainant
“I can only be amazed at such a statement,” says Bichlmaier.
He was in the public service for 42 years, including 37 years as an executive officer in the town hall in Finsing.
Something like that was always possible there.
“I don't know any district mayor from that time who would have refused to speak to his citizens.” He now knows that it is common practice in Erding to avoid contact with citizens.
"Here citizens are only courted when elections are pending."
The two are particularly annoyed by Gotz's statements that it was clear from the start that a thoroughfare would be built.
If the property developer has kept this from the buyers, that's their problem, says Gotz.
In this context, Bichlmaier speaks of “defamation” and refers to the development plan 203. And it does indeed say that bedrooms, among other things, have to be oriented to the east in order not to get any noise.
But that's exactly where the traffic should roll.
City: Everyone knew there was a road coming
The city also argues that the thoroughfare was already part of the expert competition for the Rewe site in 2006.
From this, Krinke and Bichlmaier draw the conclusion “that the development plan 203 in the Tassilohof area was drawn up with completely wrong reasons and also became legally binding”.
It was then either “knowingly wrong planning or terrible sloppiness,” said Bichlmaier.
"The principle of good faith is obviously a foreign word for the mayor and the majority in the building committee", concludes the administrative expert.
For him and many other buyers it is clear: "Under these circumstances we would certainly not have bought."
He also reacts angrily to a statement by Gotz in December that the neighbors of the Tassilohof had to accept disadvantages with its construction.
"Then we ask ourselves how he justifies the lush development on the Rewe site."
How dangerous is the Freisinger Straße?
They also consider the justification for the necessity of a thoroughfare to be absurd.
The committee argued that residents would hardly have to worry about traffic when the roundabout Freisinger Strasse / Krankenhausstrasse is ready.
Then, according to the opinion of the city, abuse as a shortcut to Gießereistraße would become obsolete.
“So there is no need to drive through”, conclude Bichlmaier and Krinke.
A turning hammer at the end of the cul-de-sac is sufficient.
The argument that these drivers would then have to turn left onto the poorly visible Freisinger Strasse, they do not accept.
“The Rewe site is intended to provide precisely this traffic route for residents and hotel guests, much closer to the dangerous bend in the street,” says Krinke, “and with a lot more traffic at the intersection”.
Most of those affected are ready to file a lawsuit
With the resolution of the articles of association, the development plan 203 is now legally binding.
The only thing left for the residents is to file a lawsuit.
It is still open whether they will do this.
However, the majority seem willing to fight this through, as most are not prepared to accept an unauthorized thoroughfare with noise emissions and the risk for pedestrians, cyclists and children.
ham