“Privileged” owners, or “more democratic” development?

Grant an unprecedented and “undemocratic” right to owners, or take their opinion into account to avoid future blockages. Two visions clash within the framework of the modification of the general law on development zones (LGZD), submitted to the Genevans on November 24. This concerns the development of Localized Neighborhood Plans (PLQ), which make it possible to build housing and public facilities, in this case on declassified land mainly in villa areas.

The bill establishes an entire consultation process before a PLQ is defined, including the owners of the targeted area, who are invited to an initial session by registered letter. Once the opinions have been taken into account and the arbitrations made, the project is submitted to the owners of the plots concerned. In the event of refusal by an absolute majority of them, a consultative municipal vote is organized. On this basis, the municipality then gives its notice, with the possibility of a municipal referendum and, at the end of the process, the Canton decides whether or not to adapt the project. In the event of refusal, the Grand Council decides. A cantonal referendum is then possible to rule definitively on the PLQ.

The text, adopted by a right-wing majority of the Grand Council as a counter-project to the Urbadem initiative (see box), was the subject of a referendum launched by the left and associations, including Alsoca. If they do not oppose the first stages of consultation, the referendums contest the fact that the owners, whether they are individuals or legal entities, Swiss or not, can trigger a vote without going through a collection of signatures. They denounce an “undemocratic” law which grants “exorbitant political rights” and “favors the private interests of owners”.

“There are already consultations,” underlines Romain Gautier, member of the Popular Union. By allowing owners to give the green light, we are letting one category decide to the detriment of the residents of an entire neighborhood. This would also allow companies, which perhaps are not domiciled in Geneva, to decide.” “This law is dangerous, it will block the construction of affordable housing, while there is a shortage,” points out Caroline Reynold, socialist MP and lawyer at Asloca. She fears an “instrument of blackmail” which would increase the price of land, resulting in fewer resources for quality developments. And “nothing can happen for 10 years,” warns David Martin, Green MP and member of the Grand Council’s planning commission.

“I think we need to build and densify, and the only way to do it is by consulting people, although that could slow down the process,” explains Adrien Genecand, PLR deputy and member of the planning commission. . In areas where residents do not want to build, the project generally does not go ahead.” As for the undemocratic character denounced by the left, he sees a paradox: “At what point is it undemocratic to make people vote?”

President of the Pic-Vert owners’ association, Michel Schmidt believes that the modification of the law places the Canton, the municipalities, the owners and the municipal population on an equal footing, “which is not the case today ‘hui’: “Currently, some developers are buying plots and then, they are the ones who make arrangements with the Canton to develop a PLQ,” he explains. The project is therefore already very advanced when it is presented to residents.” The amended law makes it possible to “engage in discussions upstream rather than having frustrations and opposition downstream.” And on the contrary of giving too much power to the owners, “the counter-project under vote would allow the population to have their say.”

Fear of an “endless loop”