All three major factions in the city council are in favor of taller skyscrapers than before being allowed to be built in Munich if the concept is right. And two of the three are also in favor of letting the citizens vote on this question – as happened in Munich in 2004. Nevertheless, there will probably not be a council request that would initiate a referendum – because the Greens and the CSU cannot agree on the way. This is bad for the cause and leaves a strange impression.
At the time, the decision was extremely close: 50.8 percent spoke out against high-rise buildings that they thought were too high. However, only one in five entitled persons had cast their vote. That’s 18 years ago, the Munich high-rise decision, which was always viewed as a curiosity from the outside, and the discussions from back then are coming of age this year. So time to finally leave them to themselves? Or rather time to renew the opinion of that time?
In recent months, a clear tendency towards the latter has emerged in a majority of city politics. The SPD refers to the decision-making authority of the city council, but the Greens and CSU wanted to vote again. The ÖDP wants that anyway; if she has her way, no building may be higher than 60 meters. And then there is the initiative around the CSU member of the state parliament Robert Brannekamper, who is collecting signatures with his fellow campaigners against the project at the parcel post hall. They need about 35,000, originally they wanted to submit them to the city in the fall.
The fact that they were only 12,000 at the end of August could show that the topic is less electrifying for many people than they thought. Nevertheless, it would have been wise from the point of view of city politics to take matters into their own hands. It is true that “general height limits do not do justice to the complex reality” of a city, as city planning officer Merk writes in her submission. Nevertheless, in reality, the topic is repeatedly reduced to exactly that – also by politicians.
With her own question, she would not leave the interpretation and mood sovereignty to the opponents and would also have more influence on the timing of a possible vote, so that more people are brought to the election than in 2004. So the impression remains for the time being: a lot talked, long announced. And if you don’t agree on the actual challenge, the formulation of the question? Then you stop.