The emergency debate on the demolition of 42 homes in the Eindhoven district of Prinsejagt ended with a whimper for Alderman Mieke Verhees. A ‘motion of regret’ about her actions in the matter, failed to gain a majority in the council.
Residents of Prinsejagt neighbourhood were surprised at the beginning of this year with the unpleasant message from Woonbedrijf housing corporation that their houses ares to be demolished. The houses must make way for apartments. Residents knew nothing about it and expressed their dissatisfaction. They were not involved in the decision-making process regarding the demolition. Six opposition parties therefore demanded clarification in an emergency debate.
Roles
According to Alderman Verhees*. a number of discussions are going on about different roles and powers in the Prinsejagt issue. “No, the municipality is not responsible for the demolition decision. No, the municipality is not responsible for participation in that demolition decision and no, the municipality is not responsible for the cooperation between tenants and corporations when it comes to complying with the consultation law”, Verhees said in her argument. The consultation law regulates the right of information for residents or tenants.
‘Changing the rules of the game’
Whether it is logical that the municipality has no authority when it comes to demolition seems to be a different discussion. For now the property owner determines whether demolition takes place unless it is a monumental building. “We can have a discussion about that. But we are not going to change the rules during a procedure”, Verhees says.
The responsibility for participation of tenants lies with Woonbedrijf housing corporation. Verhees indicates that she is dependent on the information she receives from the housing company. “Only the rent assessment committee and the subdistrict court have the authority to judge whether or not Woonbedrijf has complied with the consultation law”, Verhees says.
“My responsibility is to ensure that the current residents move to a new suitable home and that the liveability of the neighbourhood is guaranteed in the future”, the Alderman says.
Suspicious
“The Alderman has made it very clear in her answers who exactly has which role”, D66 (democrats) council member, Chris Dams, says. “I actually expect this issue to end up in court, because Woonbedrijf has entered a grey area”. Dams stated several times on Tuesday evening that his party is ‘suspicious’ about the actions of the housing corporation.
Warning
FvD forum for democracy) fraction leader, Nicolas Knoester, announced a motion of censure in Eindhovens Dagblad (Eindhoven daily paper). On X (formerly Twitter) he went one step further by saying that he did not rule out a motion of no confidence either. This was due to the fact that Woonbedrijf organised a meeting for council members behind closed doors on Monday.
In the end, the one-man fraction submitted a motion of regret; a warning for the Alderman. “This has the same value as a motion of censure, but I think the wording of sadness is more applicable to this issue. I also did not receive support from parties for a motion of no confidence”. The motion was eventually supported by opposition parties SP (socialist party) , Volt, LPF (list Pim Fortuyn) and Partij voor de Dieren (party for the animals), a small minority in the municipal council.
Relieved
Afterwards, Verhees told Studio040 that she was touched by the debate and relieved that it was over. “It was a heated debate, because it is about something important. It is about agreements that we make in processes combined with people’s emotions about their home. That is heated. I am relieved when I have been able to show that there are different roles and responsibilities”.
Source: Studio040
Translated by: Bob
*Mieke Verhees: Alderman in the Eindhoven city council of housing, neighbourhoods, environment and services. She is a PvdA (labour party) member.
