The removal of half a soccer field for social housing in Aufkirchen has led to a tough debate in the district council.
In the end, many Greens voted against it - and drew the wrath of other factions.
Aufkirchen / Starnberg
- Removals from landscape protection areas in the Starnberg district repeatedly cause debates, no matter what. In yesterday's district council, a large part of the Greens group had sharp discussions with the rest of the committee about the removal of 0.46 hectares - 4600 square meters, which corresponds to about half a football field or the parking spaces at the district office - from the landscape protection, so that the Verband Wohnen can build 30 apartments there as a residential center in Osterfeld. Above all from the neighborhood there were objections in the proceedings, but the district council rejected all of them and decided against 14 votes to remove them.
The objections, including a citizens' initiative, had been discussed in advance in several committees (we reported), the proposed resolution provided for a rejection. Adrienne Akontz (Greens) repeated her criticism from the Environment Committee that it was a disproportionate intervention, let Aufkirchen and Aufhausen grow together - the rejected location opposite is better. The nature conservation advisory board had also cited the latter at an early stage in the proceedings. District Administrator Stefan Frey, however, sees it differently: If you were to build across the street, there would be new building rights on the surrounding areas, which the municipality does not want. The interventions there would be greater, but there is no landscape protection area there. The area to be removed is communal, and only that allows social housing at all. Marlene Greinwald (Free Voters,Chairwoman of the Association for Housing), underlined that in view of the land prices one would go to the outskirts of the towns even more often. Incidentally, the entire "Starnberger See Ost" conservation area has 3,000 hectares.
Part of the Greens group rejected the removal on principle. Peter Unger, from Gilching, demanded that no further industrial parks be designated because they increased the pressure on the housing market. Erika Schalper criticized a “yesterday's approach”, building was part of the climate catastrophe, in case of doubt it would be expropriated and landscape protection not taken seriously. Andrea Schulte-Krauss called for no further incentives to be created.
Many district councils were left breathless. District Administrator Frey remained patient, spoke of "huge housing pressure", that immigration could not be limited, and that the other location would also trigger protests. Dr. Jürgen Busse (Free Voters) sharply criticized the Greens for constructing a conflict between “do-gooders” (for landscape protection) and those who wanted social housing. Eva-Maria Klinger (CSU) rejected statements by the Greens that the removal had taken a comfortable path. Rather, the situation has been examined intensively. "It's almost below the belt."
Rupert Monn (CSU parliamentary group, former mayor of Berg) felt the discussion was completely out of place in view of the size and the fact that this area had once been added to the landscape protection area afterwards and without professional examination - the background was disputes in the community.
Manfred Herz (CSU) followed up: The Greens made “grotesque suggestions”, were “completely alien to life” and produced “empty words”.
In the direction of Unger, he said that climate protection would be if a Gilchinger cycled to work in an industrial park in Gilching and not by car to Ottobrunn.
The mistakes in landscape protection were made in the 1970s and 1980s because far too many areas were placed under protection.
