As of: February 8, 2024, 6:42 a.m
By: Katrin Hager
Comments
Press
Split
Accommodation with space for up to 500 asylum seekers is planned at Vivo in Warngau (archive photo).
© Thomas Plettenberg
The supposedly simple solutions received applause from the audience at the citizens' meeting on the planned asylum accommodation in Warngau.
But Greiling and Rott am Inn would be the wrong role models for the community.
Warngau
- With two supposedly simple solutions as to how the municipality could prevent asylum accommodation on the Vivo for up to 500 people, some speakers at the citizens' meeting in Warngau - one of them an AfD member of the state parliament from the Rosenheim district - received applause from the audience harvested.
Circumstances in Rott am Inn are not comparable
With reference to cases in neighboring districts, they brought up a block on change by the local council, as in Rott am Inn, as well as a lawsuit by the community at the administrative court, as in Greiling.
However, both methods would come to nothing in Warngau.
The municipality could only apply a change ban with which Rott am Inn in the Rosenheim district is trying to defend itself against a planned facility for asylum seekers in the industrial area in conjunction with land-use planning.
However, there is no such thing for the area of the planned asylum accommodation.
None would be necessary for the construction of the accommodation, as the district office explained at the request of the Holzkirchner Merkur: This would enjoy privileged construction law, similar to agricultural buildings or the waste disposal company Vivo.
“Prevention planning” would be inadmissible
Assuming that the municipality now wants to draw up a development plan specifically, it would first have to be able to justify this with an urban development goal.
Preventing asylum accommodation would not only be insufficient - this would also be inadmissible as prevention planning.
“It seems impossible to develop a viable urban planning justification at this point that goes beyond illegal prevention planning,” explains the district office.
“A ban on changes would therefore have to be objected to by local authorities at this point due to obvious illegality and, if necessary, lifted by means of a replacement measure.”
Replacement by municipal supervision
The district office could, by the way, issue such a replacement, as is the case in the event of a rejection of a building application for the Vivo asylum accommodation - which is known to be politically desired by the local council - because the authority has legal supervision over the cities and municipalities in the district.
Such replacements are not made arbitrarily, but rather to enforce applicable law.
My news
“Escalation of tone”: Politicians across party lines criticize asylum posters in the Holzkirchenlesen area
Constitutional medals in a pack of three: President of the State Parliament honors Wasmeier, Hodbod and Alfred Aigner
Because of plans for asylum accommodation: district administrators are met with anger and derision
Still “mysterious”: Warngau municipal council is puzzling over what happened in Kiesgrubelesen
Black clouds of smoke over the A8: Operation completed - blocking lifted
First badges of honor in the market town: Holzkirchen honors three particularly committed citizens
In the event of a dispute, a lawsuit by the municipality would be conceivable.
But as Mayor Klaus Thurnhuber already made clear: only if there were realistic prospects of success.
The municipality has not yet raised any doubts about the legal integrity of the district office's plans for the accommodation.
No case of Greiling in the Miesbach district
A lawsuit based on Greiling's model is out of the question in the Miesbach district.
This was successful because the Bad Tölz-Wolfratshausen district office wanted to assign arriving refugees directly to the community;
The court made it clear that the district may not pass on its responsibility to the municipalities.
The Miesbach district office has never practiced such forced assignments.
“A lawsuit could be filed if the district office sent the next bus with refugees assigned to the district office directly to Warngau in front of the town hall and then the town hall had to take care of the accommodation,” the district office clarified when asked.
“But that is exactly not the case here, because the district office runs the accommodation itself.”