Should the three brand new single-family houses at Weidacher Isarspitz 24, 24a and 25, which violate all possible building regulations, be demolished by October of this year, as the district authority has ordered? Or are there ways to avoid this radical and spectacular move? Opinions differ on this question, which deals with the fundamental legal aspects, but also with the fate of the families who have meanwhile moved in: It must be clarified whether the construction sins committed can be “healed” by subsequent over-planning of the outdoor area, as is the case with the Greens in the town hall, or whether such a procedure will set a precedent that would disadvantage all builders who correctly adhere to the specifications.
In the latter sense, the building committee of the city council has once again expressed itself in a detailed debate. At the request of the district office, the committee states that subsequent legalization through a new development plan or toleration of the current situation is out of the question; the appropriate action by the building control authority is supported, the building committee stated. A declaration that was approved by the Greens with eight votes to two against that of city councilors Hans Schmidt and Rudi Seibt. They are committed to a “pragmatic line” and therefore to the preservation of the three new buildings.
Both had once again pointed out their main arguments: On the one hand, the demolition was irresponsible in view of the “many desperate people looking for housing in the district”; and the waste of resources in times of the climate crisis should not be accepted. According to Schmidt’s assessment, the current conflict could definitely be resolved in the course of an urban development contract. That does not mean “a license for builders”. On the other hand, Mayor Klaus Heilinglechner (BHW) assured him that the waste of resources associated with the demolition and the fate of the affected families, which weighed heavily on his stomach, also hurt him. But he also rejected the suggestion made in the committee to fix the problem with a heavy fine for the client. A black building cannot be legalized by such a payment. “If that happens, all of Germany would be happy,” predicted the mayor. In any case, he is happy “that we all live in a constitutional state”. There was no approval for the suggestion to impose a fine. After all, the building committee is not a criminal authority, it said.
Gerlinde Berchtold (SPD) also took a strictly legal position: she did not see a way to reach an agreement. “If I drive drunk and something happens, then I have to reckon with the consequences.” Richard Kugler (Wolfratshauser Liste) warned against “obtaining a subsequent building permit through any tricks”. “If it ever comes to the point that the district office replaces a decision by the city, then you can block the entire building committee anyway,” said Kugler. Josef Praller (BVW) had previously pointed out that the city was not responsible for the removal of buildings that had not been approved by the district authority. “That’s not our job,” he said. It is now eagerly awaited how the petitions committee in the state parliament, which intends to deal with complaints from the owner and a tenant against the impending demolition after the summer break, will express itself.