give "No more restrictions on our freedom," Different communities
"nature parks" a rejection
thk. The protection of and care for nature in the responsible people in Switzerland of course. One will hardly find someone who is not of this opinion, and therefore it does in our country the way it looks: a cherished environment and a high awareness that this landscape is the foundation of our lives. For the people engaged in agriculture, it is clear that one must never be their own livelihoods, destroy the land, but to its receipt of generations must be assured. No farmer is driving over-exploitation of his country, is finally to be the greatest asset.
Direct democracy does not need a "nature park"
the more absurd it is when cross to be built on Switzerland called natural parks that are already guaranteed by the protection of a nature and landscape protection highly controlled environment. With positive terms such as "protection of our environment," "Living Together", "Park communities connect," "future itself make" and the like - the whole expression is reminiscent of the jargon of the Future Workshop - to the citizen with a positive attitude towards the "nature parks" caused.
is On closer inspection, however, that this is satisfied we already all without "natural parks", particularly in the communities: the protection of our nature is all a big concern, together we make citizens have always shared, individual communities have evolved from always come together to resolve pending issues and problems together, and a free citizen in a country with direct democracy to make its future together with his fellow man himself always
we like to sell our country to tourism?
In the areas that belong to a nature reserve, live, people in villages or small towns to practice their Career there, operate a business and go to work every day. The term park is completely out of place and suggests something quite different. Since when is defined as the habitat of humans as a park or even park? The argument is
tried again and again, tourism and the distribution of any label that aim to ensure economic prosperity in the communities. Do we want our communities to really target only a tourist bubble and thus sell our country to a whatever kind tourism? It is our habitat, and first and foremost we need it to live happy. Mind you, the label assignment is for the federal government. These are the guidelines of the EU, which we submit should. Who met in a park communities can thus be taken more to the apron strings. Nothing of "Shaping the future itself." The opposite is the case, we will dictate to people how to make them more in the future, their environment and especially to not have make.
"... not to let soap of beautiful words,"
In several towns that lie within a nature reserve, perimeter, there have been recent vote. In this case, the citizens of the affected communities decide whether to join the so-called park association and thus endorse the park concept do. In
Oberhalbstein area and in the Albula in the Grisons was Some communities on the Parc Ela tuned. Two of the 21 municipalities which are to form the Parc Ela, voted against a candidate so far, additional votes are pending. If you
with individual citizens were there got to talk, to listen to different arguments. But mostly outweighed the concerns that it is not clear how big the development rights and restrictions in agricultural use are of the soil. The argument of the proponents that the accession no change and can therefore be accepted without hesitation, could not convince the communities in Riom-Parsonz and Tinizong. A resident said therefore: "Why do we need a park, if things remain, as it is? "The restriction of local autonomy, coupled with the loss of direct participation, engaged citizens. "Why should we accept a contract that is in the set do not even realize what they can and can not afterwards. We must not let the soap of beautiful words, or we have lost our freedom. "
serious concerns and observations
In the cantons of Uri and Nidwalden and Obwalden is about the constitution of the" nature park central Switzerland. " There, too, will come in the next few weeks to more votes in each municipality. Engelberg is the community from the project dropped out before the "Park Agreement" to the vote has submitted. As expressed by the municipal administration, was there was in Engelberg from the majority of stakeholders and tourist organizations' concerns and critical opposition. " In a communication from the council it is stated inter alia: ". Other concerns were primarily in the area of any future protection as well as the demarcation issue of the park perimeter in Engelberg» On demand was learned that the park contract not here is clear what impact it had on the construction law and landscape protection, which today is already very strict and had prevented the recent creation of a new ski slopes. According to the local government had the people's decision On the withdrawal from the "park project" supported, and the issue was now off the table.
"The park central Switzerland is not tangible" There
hope of a return to reason not only the example of the two communities in the area and Oberhalbstein in Engelberg, but also the vote of the municipality in the canton of Uri Gurtnellen. Although the council calls for joining the "Nature Park Central Switzerland", had voted against the majority of the community's financial contribution of 11 000 francs and prevented the membership of the park association. At the community meeting itself, it did not look like the result. There were hardly any votes against it, but it was brought to all issues. That was the end the majority, however, shows that the questions were well answered hardly satisfactory. subject to further restrictions need was not for the citizens of Gurtnellen imagine. Same reluctance also entertains the local council of Beckenried, advocating a rejection of the park project. In a statement, he notes that the council "further discussed thoroughly with the park project" was. He came to the conclusion that was "not the natural park Urschweiz tangible". "It remains unclear what additional requirements and limitations such a nature park will bring."
goes on to say, "the political community would in future be free of additional restrictions and conditions ". The Mayor clarified: "It is for every community has a different situation, one can not decide for others, the superior, each community for itself whether it wants to. But we can not advocate for our community. "The concerns expressed herein are entirely justified. IT IS, for example, after the park regulation of the League under Article 20, paragraph d: ". Existing impairment of the landscape and townscape of buildings, installations and uses [are] opportunity arises to reduce or eliminate"
Therefore it is clear how much agency a single municipality still owns.
If "park Unions" constitutionally permissible?
The community autonomy and broad political participation, the key characteristics of Swiss democracy, may not be a club regulation sacrificed at the end, the citizen does not allow more participation. After joining the church in this club is no longer the decision-making authority at the local residents, but at a parent association, through which the executive members of the community residents without representation decisions. This raises serious questions whether the state law is ever permissible. A responsible management of our country and our landscape In the interest of all, it needs to ensure no "nature parks" à la EU, but free and self-determined citizens.
0 comments:
Post a Comment