The debate about the leases of city-owned premises has arrived in Parliament.
The debate about the leasing of the city of Zurich, such as the Primitivo open-air restaurant on the Limmat, is now also occupying the politicians.
“Pity!” “Sad.” «For diversity instead of monotony.» These are the statements on social networks: The Zurich gastronomy scene and the population are discussing the practice of awarding leases for pubs owned by the city.
The trigger for the outrage is the change at the Primitivo open-air restaurant on the Oberen Letten. After almost two decades, the coveted lease on the Limmat goes to Maag Music & Arts AG. A few days later, the debate gained urgency when it became known that something similar was going on with the re-tendering of the kiosk in the Utoquai seaside resort.
For eleven years, Beatriz Sablonier and her team ran the kiosk under the name “Open View of the Mediterranean Sea”. Bigger players were also awarded the contract there, the event caterers Katja Weber and Isa Hackl. The second-placed Freiesicht GmbH wants to ask the city council for a reassessment. She also launched a petition which around 4700 people had signed by Thursday evening.
“Why does the city have restaurants?”
The discussion has now arrived in the city of Zurich politics. The GLP municipal group has submitted a motion to the city council, the AL group a postulate. The two FDP city parliamentarians Flurin Capaul and Dominique Zygmont wrote a question about the approximately 80 restaurants owned by the city. There are a total of 1,780 restaurants in Zurich.
“First of all, we are interested in the basics: why the city of Zurich has restaurants at all,” says Flurin Capaul when asked. Capaul and Zygmont would also like to know in detail how the tendering practice works.
It is noticeable that the City of Zurich properties and the sports department responsible for Badi-Beizen adhere to different rules. For example, decisions on leases can be appealed to the sports department, but not to the City of Zurich. Capaul therefore states: “Here is another case where several different city departments, the finance department and the sports department, are doing exactly the same thing: awarding restaurants.”
In addition, some documents are being searched for “innovative tenants”. This is the case, for example, in the tender for the Badi gastronomy in the Tiefenbrunnen lido. But what “innovative” means, ask the two FDP local councillors. They also want to know what political goal the city is pursuing in selecting tenants.
In addition, the two city parliamentarians would like to have clarified how the city avoids cases of hardship if restaurateurs lose their businesses.
In addition, the two wonder how the city even ensures that it has enough gastronomic background knowledge to be able to have a say in the concept of the leased businesses down to the last detail. And finally: “How could the restaurants be sold?” Because for Capaul it is clear: “If the city were not the owner, there would be no such discussions.”
GLP demands uniform rules, AL a variety of providers
With its motion, the GLP wants the city council to draw up an ordinance. This should apply to all service departments when awarding municipal catering establishments and areas. All interested parties and tenants should be treated equally. A regulation is therefore needed that regulates everything transparently, from the application process to the duration and extension of the rental contracts.
In its postulate, the AL faction is bothered by the tendency that “large companies in particular, which already operate a large number of restaurants and cafés, are awarded the contract and small companies are left behind”. Even if the independent operators were already successful, they would have to make way for “larger restaurant chains”.
Similar to the FDP local councils, the AL is also uneasy about the word “innovative”. The faction of the alternative list complains that the administration justifies its decisions to the defeated with arguments that are difficult to understand, such as “less innovation”. The city weakens diversity and competition in the industry. Therefore, the city council should consider introducing an additional evaluation criterion that takes into account the diversity of providers in addition to the previous award criteria.
According to Leupi, the city is accommodating with restaurants
City Councilor Daniel Leupi also reacted to the criticism of the city’s allocation practice on Wednesday evening. In a personal statement, the green finance director defended the procedure in the case of the “Primitivo” and the kiosk in Badi Utoquai before Parliament.
The fact that changes in gastronomy trigger criticism is a constant in Zurich politics. “When your favorite pub disappears, it moves you, it goes to your heart.” That’s how he feels too. He therefore fully understands the questions, sadness and annoyance of the affected hosts, said Leupi.
However, he has less understanding if allegations are simply made and facts are twisted. Leupi gave an example: “It’s just not true that there is now a supply shortage and the city prefers large restaurants.” The opposite is the case. There is great diversity among the companies that rent the municipal properties. The fact that the city has restaurants has also grown historically. “The city is not actively buying up restaurants. But we have properties that also have restaurants.”
Leupi also defended the award procedure. The companies are treated very carefully. Not infrequently, the city is also accommodating with the restaurateurs, which is often forgotten. As an example, Leupi cited support during the Corona crisis.
Leupi also says about the procedures: “We have nothing to hide. But do you really want us to publish how much the participants in an award offer and what turnover they want to generate?” The awards would be publicly advertised in a multi-stage process, the city is transparent.