At least in democracies, the protection of property is very important; it is usually included in the constitution alongside other protected goods such as life, health and personal freedom. This is also the case in this country, but this protection is not absolute. In addition to the famous sentence “Property obliges”, the Basic Law also contains the provision that expropriations “for the public good” are permissible. The community of Vaterstetten, for example, could refer to this when it comes to plots of land for the cycle path to Purfing: The well-being of those who then no longer have to cycle on the dangerous road outweighs the unwillingness of some landowners to take up a very manageable part of their land to sell the community. However, it would be better for everyone involved if it didn’t come to that in the first place.
Of course, even a legally flawless expropriation does not necessarily create a good atmosphere in the town – which the mayor is probably aware of. Finally, while Leonhard Spitzauer brought up the issue of ownership, he pointed out in the same breath that almost all of the disputed properties were owned by people who did not live locally. Nevertheless, it is not necessarily good for the image of the community if people – even if they are from outside – are forcibly separated from their property.
Which – and this is the other reason that speaks against the admission of possession – is not a very simple process. For example, a lengthy procedure is necessary for a property to be transferred to a new owner against the will of the original owner. In the specific case, a purchase or exchange offer must first be submitted. If these negotiations are unsuccessful, the community must first draw up a land use plan, which then forms the basis for the actual expropriation process. This is not only lengthy – it can drag on through several instances of administrative courts – the outcome is also open, since there is no fixed definition of when there is a public interest that is worth expropriating.
Also open is the question of how expensive the whole thing will end up for the municipality, because of course the former owners must be adequately compensated – there are no specific guidelines in the law as to what is appropriate, only the market value must not be undercut. If the process is successful, the municipality buys a plot of land at an unknown price.
That doesn’t mean the municipality shouldn’t pull the ownership deed option under any circumstances. If it turns out in the end that it depends on a few plots of land or even just one plot of land whether the cycle path that has been planned for almost 20 years can be built, an expropriation procedure would certainly make sense – it just won’t be easy and quick.