The Greens in Uster have managed to ensure that the forest near Nänikon remains untouched, even if this completely contradicts cantonal planning principles.
Gravel mining entails major interventions in the landscape: here a gravel pit in Hüntwangen near Eglisau.
No one wants a gravel pit or landfill on their doorstep. There is agreement on this in the Zurich Cantonal Council. Nevertheless, or perhaps precisely because of this, the determination of possible locations in the canton’s structure plan has always been accompanied by fierce resistance from the affected communities and residents for decades.
Despite this, Parliament generally does not address regional interests. The extent is debatable, but gravel extraction and the disposal of residues are simply necessities. Importing gravel, one of the very few physical raw materials in the canton of Zurich, from far away would be nonsense that nobody wants. Exporting waste materials is out of the question these days.
Ownership breaks planning sovereignty
That is why there is a need for overarching cantonal planning that can override communal and regional resistance. All of the same is true of Monday’s master plan debate over three controversial sites. But in one case everything is different: It’s about the Näniker Hard, a forest between Uster and Volketswil. Gravel is already being mined there. For years, the canton has wanted to expand the mining volume by 4 million cubic meters.
Against these plans, the Greens in Uster launched the “Forest Initiative” to prevent the gravel pit. Against the resistance of the city council, parliament and all other parties, the referendum was surprisingly accepted in March 2018. The property belongs to the city of Uster, which expected income totaling CHF 24 million over 15 years from the gravel extraction. After the clear verdict of the people, the city council terminated the contract with the gravel company and the parliament confirmed the integral protection of the Ustermer forest.
The canton did not have to worry about any of this. Because his planning has priority. The advocacy of the now mostly red-green Ustermer city council at the building department, which is now led by a green party, was not fruitful either. The government, the responsible committee of the cantonal council and now also the parliament held on to the Nänikon location for the gravel quarrying. The minority request for deletion by Thomas Honegger (Greens, Greifensee) was clearly rejected by 130 votes to 27.
But yes, the Näniker Hard belongs to the city of Uster. And property rights are in turn above cantonal planning. That too was undisputed: if you don’t want a gravel pit on your property, you don’t have to put up with one. The same applies to communities. Cantonal Councilor Stefan Feldmann (SP, Uster), at the time an opponent of the forest initiative and entrusted with its implementation as the Uster construction manager, explained that the declaration of intent by the sovereign should be respected. No gravel will be quarried in the Näniker Hard for the next few years and decades.
It is not even necessary for construction director Martin Neukom (Greens) to assure that gravel quarrying at that location will not be forced. Commission President Alex Gantner (FDP, Maur) feared that the Näniker Hard case would create a prejudice for other possible gravel pits. Thomas Honegger put it into perspective that it rarely happens that the location of a gravel pit also belongs to the municipality in question. Now there is just another planning corpse in the structure plan.
Two landfills fixed in the Oberland
In any case, that is not the case with the two landfill sites that the council decided on Monday. The Lehrüti site in the municipal area of Gossau, Mönchaltorf and Egg for excavation was determined against the resistance of the regional representatives in the council, as was the slag dump Tägernauer Holz in the border area of Gossau and Grüningen.
In the latter case, the cantonal council first got a whistle from the federal court because it had accepted the canton’s rejection of the objections without further clarification. Therefore, meticulous care is now taken to ensure that the congregations are properly heard beforehand. In the case of Tägernauer Holz, the legal dispute meant that Parliament no longer dared to double the volume of the landfill, as originally planned. However, before a gravel pit or landfill can be opened, a legally binding design plan is required.
Left popular initiative for a municipal right of first refusal
sho. A good two years ago, the cantonal council provisionally supported a parliamentary initiative by the SP for a cantonal right of first refusal: if the canton wants to sell a property, the local municipality should be awarded the contract if it wants to acquire it. The government refused this for legal reasons.
During the consultation, the initiators changed their approach: According to this, the canton and municipalities would have to offer each other plots of land that they no longer need at a reasonable price. Like the government, the responsible commission thinks little of it. In particular, they point out that the canton has been able to offer its land to the local municipality on the basis of a government council resolution for five years, but is not obliged to do so.
Building director Martin Neukom (Greens) put the importance of the canton into perspective. With 20 to 30 sales a year, he cannot influence the real estate market. Although the canton of Zurich has a lot of land, it either needs it or the land is not suitable for residential buildings. Neukom, who once co-signed the initiative himself, also objected that a right of first refusal would restrict the canton’s important options for a land exchange.
The SP, Greens and AL do not want to accept the rebuff for their initiative, which failed by 109 votes to 55, and are sticking to the canton’s active land policy. Therefore, as the SP spokesman in the council and the party announced in a statement, they will launch a popular initiative for a municipal right of first refusal in the next few weeks.