As of: March 9, 2024, 3:03 p.m
By: Katrin Hager
Comments
Press
Split
The container accommodation is planned next to the Vivo recycling center in Warngau (archive image).
© Thomas Plettenberg
The district office's plans for asylum accommodation for 500 residents on Vivo in Warngau have been criticized.
The answers to recurring questions at a glance.
Warngau
- Too big, in the wrong place, inhumane: There is a lot of criticism of the district office's plans for large accommodation in containers for up to 500 people next to the Vivo in Warngau - not to mention the xenophobic sentiments of some opponents.
Whether at the heated information evening in Warngau or the regular citizens' meeting in Holzkirchen, the topic causes emotional debates.
We have compiled frequently recurring questions about the plans.
Why should so many people be accommodated in one accommodation on the Vivo?
In order to be able to accommodate the refugees who are assigned to the Miesbach district - like all other districts in Germany - according to the Königstein key, the district office has had three district gymnasiums for two years, when Russia's attack on Ukraine caused a large influx of refugees occupied with emergency accommodation: the halls of the high school (currently 247 residents) and vocational school (currently 127 residents) in Miesbach as well as the sports hall of the high school in Tegernsee (currently 167 residents).
These numbers are in constant flux.
Among the residents there are also so-called false occupiers with recognition who cannot find an apartment.
The number of these incorrect documents is not recorded and is constantly changing, the district office said when asked.
On the one hand, the conditions in the halls are miserable for the residents, and on the other hand, the gymnasiums can no longer be used for school and popular sports.
In the continued lack of alternatives, the district office has been looking for a major solution to free up the sports halls.
Why should the accommodation be built on Vivo?
Because Vivo is a district-owned municipal company and the district therefore has access to their property.
Why isn't the district planning alternatives?
Other properties are currently not available to this extent, as the district office has repeatedly emphasized.
The authority has been looking for free living space or land for years and is calling on property owners to get in touch with offers.
According to the district office, 150 offers have been examined since the outbreak of the Ukrainian war alone.
However, the offer is often withdrawn due to pressure from the environment, or plans fail due to fire protection, says the district office.
In autumn 2023, a special task force was set up at the district office to intensify acquisition.
It continues to meet weekly.
Why aren't the refugees distributed evenly among the municipalities in the district based on population?
The legal requirements do not provide for the distribution of refugees across communities based on a quota.
“The district office has no legal opportunity to introduce such a quota,” explains the authority.
Why aren't people from Warngau first asked in a referendum whether they actually want accommodation in their community?
Since the accommodation of asylum seekers - which the district office fulfills in its role as a state administrative authority - is a state task and not a municipal one, a referendum is not legally permissible.
Can't the district simply say it will no longer accept asylum seekers because it has no space?
The right to asylum is anchored in the Basic Law and the Geneva Refugee Convention.
Due process is necessary after the application to determine or dismiss it.
In Germany, asylum seekers are distributed among federal states, districts and districts according to the so-called Königstein key (in relation to the number of inhabitants and tax capacity).
The Miesbach district has not met the quota for years and is one of the bottom performers in Upper Bavaria.
According to the district office, he is currently fulfilling his quota at 93 percent; the number fluctuates with each allocation.
According to his own repeated statements, District Administrator Olaf von Löwis has nevertheless made many attempts at higher-level authorities to point out the particularly tense real estate situation in the region.
So far he has not received any accommodation.
Miesbach is not alone with this problem.
There is currently another push by local authorities to limit migration.
Will the district office actually be able to keep its promise to operate the accommodation at Vivo for a limited period of two years from the date of occupancy?
The district office at least repeatedly emphasizes that all contracts relating to accommodation are designed for two years.
The Vivo board of directors - identical to the district council's environmental committee - rejected a longer term.
The market town of Holzkirchen, whose sewage treatment plant also disposes of wastewater from the Warngau municipal area, has granted the necessary population equivalents for the operation of the accommodation for a period of two years.
The decision in the local council was made with a narrow majority.
As Mayor Christoph Schmid made clear at the citizens' meeting, he would no longer agree to an extension beyond two years.
When asked by our newspaper, the press office of the district office announced that additional accommodation for the facility in Warngau had been being sought for several weeks.
At the same time, the acquisition of new accommodation and a successor solution for Warngau are underway in two years.
There are no firm commitments yet.
Why doesn't the district office announce where alternatives should be?
The authority does not want to burden negotiations or block options.
“The external pressure on the providers is often extremely great, so that they withdraw out of fear of reprisals,” reports the district office.
In these cases, the planning work would have been in vain.
“For understandable reasons, we cannot discuss every property, house or project that is offered to us.”
Isn't it inhumane to cram 500 people into one accommodation?
“The operation of collective accommodation is always suboptimal,” is also clear to the district office.
Only: For the residents of the three gyms, the container accommodation on the Vivo would be a significant improvement.
In the bed camps there, areas are only partitioned off with wafer-thin curtains, there is no privacy whatsoever, everyone hears everything, says Max Niedermeier, the district's integration officer.
In the container accommodation, on the other hand, there are shared rooms and the residents can close the door behind them.
“For example, you can divide it according to families and offer a place to retreat through the rooms available,” explains the district office.
“The residents have much more privacy.”
If residents of the large accommodation are recognized: Who then has to accommodate them and any family reunification? Does that stick with Warngau?
The legal situation basically stipulates that municipalities are responsible for accommodating homeless people - which in principle also includes recognized refugees who cannot find a place to live.
In practice, however, the soup isn't that hot: "We already have large accommodations in all of them and in the future we won't simply throw out bad people from our accommodations and throw them at the door of a community in the sense of homelessness," emphasizes the district office.
The burden will not remain on Warngau alone, “just as it has not/will remain on Tegernsee and Miesbach alone or on one of the other communities in which there have been large accommodations so far,” such as Rottach-Egern, Valley , Warngau and Holzkirchen.
District Administrator Olaf von Löwis' focus in the next few months will be on finding solidarity-based solutions between the communities in the district with the mayors.
“So far we have always found solutions in the district, and there will also be solutions in the future.”
What is the current status of setting up the container accommodation on the Vivo? When will it be installed and occupied?
It has not yet been decided whether the accommodation will actually be built.
The decision by the government of Upper Bavaria on whether the costs will be covered is still pending.
This could be questionable because the facility at Vivo is intended to be limited to two years.
Such periods are usually too short for the higher authority.
This is supported by the fact that the district has no other options for freeing up the gyms.
The district office expects the approval “in the near future”.
A spokesman for the government of Upper Bavaria confirmed on Thursday that the decision should be made “in the next few days”.
This was not the case until Friday.
other topics
The market town of Holzkirchen comprehensively answered the questions submitted by citizens at the citizens' meeting - many of which had to do with the topic of asylum accommodation.
The municipality publishes these questions and answers on its website.