‘I wish I had advised them in a different way’

Martin van Rossem had already turned his back on the PvdA nationally since Rutte-2’s cabinet, but ‘this is local, not patriotic’, as he said a few weeks ago on the Op1 TV show, which is why he didn’t see any problem with the party locally. He defended the list when the Utrecht PvdA approached him again about it in November. However, he was not aware of one thing during that broadcast, that this party, along with several other opposition groups, meanwhile had voted against plans to turn Maliban into a theme park, created in part on his initiative.

Written by: Paul Hustinx

Many ideas for the “Van Rossum Collection” Incorporated into the planLike a middle lane free of cars. The PvdA’s unequivocal vote against this, by the way, dates back to early February, just a week before the respective telecast, and the pre-announced on this in a board committee in mid-December. So this was not known until now when Van Rossem accepted the position of the roster payer.

However, this does not change the fact that the party has been pursuing this position for some time, mainly due to dissatisfaction with the course of the participation process. The party had already voted against the park variant at an earlier stage, without expressing itself explicitly in favor of the then-resident alternative (a bike street with cars as guests in the central driveway). At the last council meeting, the party chose Caspar Moll’s population plan in more detail, with speed bumps now in the middle track. “We think the Population Plan is better in terms of content, and participation is really an issue for us,” said party chief Rick van der Zuyth.

Van Rossum’s vision for the future of Maliban

Whether he knows anything about this or not, in the face of his party’s voting behavior, Van Rossem is not happy about it. “I didn’t know the PvdA voted against it, and I think it’s very unfortunate, if I had known – it would have been very good if they had informed me – I would have advised them not to.” He found the vote against “too short-sighted,” because it could mean that after the election you can “start the whole project from scratch or it’s off the table for a quarter of a century.”

Engage in a conversation to see if you can adjust the plan

He finds it “disturbing to hear” that his party voted against “the only project I have been involved in”. He also believes that the party should not let its ears dangle too much in the neighbourhood. “If you leave it up to the neighborhood, you’d better stop the whole project, because the neighborhood is so divided, basically against everything.” If the party wants to listen to the neighborhood “don’t vote against it, but start a conversation to see if you can adjust the plan,” he says, because with the delay “you know nothing will come of that.”

sharing

Van Rossem does not expect much participation. While the PvdA still refers to participation as “really a point,” Van Rossem considers this “not a good argument”: “It is sometimes forgotten that participation does not always lead to the best solution. The collective interest. If you collect and subtract all opinions, you will not Something happens.” He sees it primarily as a matter of political will. “There are no more cars on the Neude either.”

He believes that reducing car space is a matter of a political initiative with the aim of improving the quality of the urban environment. It is believed that restricting traffic to essentially local traffic is feasible. He does not believe that after years of debate, you can say that something is being pushed, as many residents and opposition parties believe. With this line of reasoning, Van Rossum seems, for that matter at least, more in line with GroenLinks and Alderman Van Hooijdonk than the path chosen here by PvdA. Van Hooijdonk said in recent debates that after a long discussion process, she wants to stick to the previous council’s decision, that residents simply aren’t always on the same page, and that the municipality also takes citywide ambitions and its own experience into account.

What does the Labor Party think?

How is the sound of a PvdA different. Maliebaan spokeswoman Irene Centaur weighed heavily on the 3,000 signatures collected by the neighborhood for the resident alternative. Senator says the petition’s signatories are “quickly dismissed as against or weak, but in this case think constructively about how they might achieve the same thing differently.” But is the middle track of cars the same? “The intention was to provide more space for pedestrians and cyclists.” In the municipality variant, I found that “also a matter of how much space is available as pedestrians in the central lane, pedestrian space is given in both scenarios”. The cars will also drive much slower on a “car-to-guest street” than they are now, she says.

While Van Rossem strongly places the role of participation in perspective and values ​​vision among administrators, the PvdA faction attaches great value to participation and support and local preference is put into proper perspective. Participation doesn’t just have to take place “to be able to check the box,” says Center, “if you invite residents to participate, there must also be some willingness to adjust plans,” and now there are many frustrated residents spending a lot of money. time in it. Stab.

“My support for social democracy is broader than just the Maliban cause.”

It became clear to her from conversations with residents and passers-by as well as from the objections made that there were more opponents than supporters. I have also noticed that many proponents do not want to participate in the traffic debate or believe that the traffic problem should be resolved first before cultural and historical values ​​are considered. So Senter believes that current supporters and opponents will be able to find each other. “There are a lot of things” that both sides “want”. You see the prospects of creating a Maliban park in the long run.

How does Van Rossem handle the mix of list pushers and opinions about the Maliebaan?

Van Rossem does not plan to do anything special about PvdA in this matter. After all, he stopped being active on this issue for several years. It also maintains support for PvdA. His overall reason for accepting the list’s payer position was that he “did not want to blame the Rutte-2 on local politicians and youth”. As he says, “My support for social democracy is broader than just the Maliban cause.”

According to him, it is quite possible to be an advocate of social democracy in general and at the same time “I do not think it wise” how the representatives of Utrecht acted on this issue. When he has to give advice on voting, he still says: “Vote for Social Democracy.” He has no desire to withdraw just because of Maliban’s position on this party.