Archive post: »Undocumented versus documented assertions.« · 2020-03-05

• Carsten Porskrog Rasmussen — Mentioned in a historical text version
• Inge Gillesberg — Mentioned in a historical text version
• Leif Andersen — Mentioned in a historical text version
• Peter Hansen — Mentioned in the current archived text

Source title: Udokumenterede vs. dokumenterede påstande.

Text version dated 5 Nov 2021

Udokumenterede vs. dokumenterede påstande. Da Skansegården blev sat til salg stod der ikke noget om: - At bygningen var fredet - At bygningen var hårdt ramt af skimmelsvamp - At man ikke måtte rive den ned - At man skulle renovere den En tidligere borgmesterkandidat (V) har brugt det sidste års tid på, at forsøge at sprede usande påstande via sociale medier samt sine ”egne” aviser. For at mane disse rygter til jorden, vil vi fremlægge dokumentation: Hermed en kopi af udbudsmaterialet: https://site.dybbolbanke.dk/?fbclid=IwAR1u3XV_AdoeknGatVh1JSHiO8gQXooEyGEAsKBfOS84Y65m6svVdsiH94M Den tidligere ejer – Staten – har selv undersøgt mulighederne for en nedrivning: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/864417563911151 Den tidligere borgmesterkandidat Peter Erik Hansen (V) bliver ved med at henvise til udbudsmaterialet med en masse ukorrekte oplysninger – mon han overhovedet selv har læst det?

Han er ligeledes citeret for at sige: ”Kendsgerningen er nok, at det aldrig har været hensigten at renovere ejendommen, men i stedet købe en fem mio. kroners byggegrund.” Kilde: https://jv.dk/artikel/skanseg%C3%A5rdens-fremtid-bliver-afgjort-i-byr%C3%A5det – Alle forhandlinger om nedrivning med kommunen startede efter der blev konstateret skimmelsvamp, og flere eksperter gjorde det klart at ejendommen ikke stod til at redde – selv forvaltningens folk mente ikke der var meget håb. Kilder: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/1090131464673092 og https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/1102841160068789 Der er andre der har forsøgt at renovere ejendomme med skimmelsvamp – uden held: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/871729109846663 Den tidligere borgmesterkandidat (V) udtaler yderligere: ”Det har så betydet, at de mennesker som bød mindsteprisen, fordi de vidste det ville koste at renovere, aldrig har fået chancen.” Kilde: https://jv.dk/artikel/skanseg%C3%A5rdens-fremtid-bliver-afgjort-i-byr%C3%A5det – Igen en forkert udtalelse; udover det vindende bud var der ingen der bød mindsteprisen. Kilde: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/924543561231884 Ejendommen blev vurderet af Merete fra Home A/S, en dygtig ejendomsmægler fra lokalområdet, som kender til liebhaver-markedet i Sønderborg.

Vurderingen blev baseret på selve grunden, da bygningen ifølge hende og sælger ingen værdi havde. Kilde: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/871124536573787 Sælger – Staten – gjorde det meget klart, at pris var en vigtig faktor for at ejendommen blev solgt. Kilde: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/864393603913547 Den tidligere borgmesterkandidat (V) har ad flere omgange fået det til at lyde som om, at bygningen er vigtig for området, hvilket er modsat af hvad alle eksperter siger.

Kilde: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/864397840579790 Der findes rigtig mange sager igennem årene – både inden og udenfor Dybbøl Fredningen – hvor borgere har fået lov til at fjerne fredede/bevaringsværdige huse, og hvor den tidligere borgmesterkandidat (V) har syntes det var en god ide. Mange af sagerne handler om nedrivning efterfulgt af nybyggede pragtvillaer uden krav til udseende, stil og materialer. Her er bare ét af mange eksempler: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/924062284613345 Vi har forsøgt at få den tidligere borgmesterkandidat (V) og hans parti til at forholde sig til facts i denne sag, men svarene lader vente på sig.

Se mere her: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/1102642246755347 Vi kan samtidig læse at den tidligere borgmesterkandidat (V) vil have nedrivningssager for byrådet igen. Sidste gang argumenterede han for at alt skulle rives ned. Nu vil han argumentere imod sagen om Skansegården.

Lad os håbe det bliver en saglig diskussion i byrådet – baseret på dokumenterede facts og ikke rygter. Kilder: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/940716592947914 og https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/936742746678632 Det virker angiveligt som om, at den tidligere borgmesterkandidat (V) og hans parti hellere vil larme og sprede rygter frem for at forholde sig til facts og hvad de selv har sagt ja til tidligere. Det må være svært for andre partier, at arbejde med så skiftende holdninger hele tiden.

Kilde: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/1090249534661285 Vi er dog enige med den tidligere borgmesterkandidat (V) på ét punkt: ”Hele forløbet i denne sag skriger også til himlen, mener Venstres ordfører Peter Hansen” Kilde: https://jv.dk/artikel/skanseg%C3%A5rdens-fremtid-bliver-afgjort-i-byr%C3%A5det (Opslaget har tidligere været bragt på vores Facebook side)

This is an automatic reading translation. The source’s allegations and assessments have not been independently confirmed through translation. Check wording, qualifications and meaning against the preserved Danish original. Some retained numbers may use Danish separators: a dot for thousands and a comma for decimals. Check amounts against the Danish original.

Undocumented versus documented assertions. When Skansegården was offered for sale, there was no mention of: - The building being listed - The building being severely affected by mould - Demolition being prohibited - Renovation being required A former mayoral candidate (V) has spent the past year trying to spread false assertions through social media and his “own” newspapers. To put those rumours to rest, we will present documentation: Here is a copy of the sales materials: https://sites.google.com/view/dybbol-banke/skanseg%C3%A5rden-p%C3%A5-dybb%C3%B8l-banke?fbclid=IwAR0NuK6iqzfMm2_6UJNrQisCUbG6frvNdEvCRQDpzDDVmhVw2N0sCQxQuus The former owner, the state, itself explored the possibilities for demolition: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/864417563911151 The former mayoral candidate (V) keeps referring to the sales materials with numerous incorrect details—has he even read them himself?

He is also quoted as saying: “The fact probably is that renovating the property was never intended, but instead buying a building plot for five million kroner.” Source: https://jv.dk/…/skanseg%C3%A5rdens-fremtid-bliver-afgjort-i… – All negotiations with the municipality about demolition began after mould was discovered and several experts made clear that the property could not be saved—even the administration's people thought there was little hope. Sources: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/1090131464673092 and https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/1102841160068789 Others have tried to renovate properties with mould – without success: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/871729109846663 The former mayoral candidate (V) further states: ‘This has meant that the people who bid the minimum price because they knew renovation would cost money never got the chance.’ Source: https://jv.dk/…/skanseg%C3%A5rdens-fremtid-bliver-afgjort-i… – Again, an incorrect statement; apart from the winning bid, no one bid the minimum price. Source: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/924543561231884 The property was valued by Merete from Home A/S, a skilled local estate agent familiar with the exclusive-property market in Sønderborg.

The valuation was based on the plot itself because, according to her and the seller, the building had no value. Source: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/871124536573787 The seller – the State – made it very clear that price was an important factor in the property being sold. Source: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/864393603913547 On several occasions, the former mayoral candidate (V) has made it sound as though the building is important to the area, which is the opposite of what all the experts say.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/864397840579790 Over the years, many cases both inside and outside the Dybbøl protected area allowed citizens to remove legally listed/buildings worthy of preservation, which the former mayoral candidate (V) considered a good idea. Many involved demolition followed by magnificent new villas without requirements for appearance, style or materials. Here is just one example: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/924062284613345 Fredningsnævnet’s handling of the case: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/1079931009026471 We tried to have the former mayoral candidate (V) and his party address the facts here, but answers remain outstanding.

See more: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/1102642246755347 We can also read that he wants demolition cases before the council again. Last time, he argued that everything should be demolished. Now he will argue against the Skansegården case.

Let us hope for a substantive council discussion based on documented facts rather than rumours. Sources: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/940716592947914 and https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/936742746678632 It apparently seems that the former mayoral candidate (V) and his party prefer noise and rumours to addressing facts and what they themselves previously approved. It must be difficult for other parties to work with such constantly changing views.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/DybbolBankeSkansegaarden/posts/1090249534661285 We do agree with the former mayoral candidate (V) on one point: “The entire course of this case is also outrageous, says Venstre spokesperson Peter Hansen.” Source: https://jv.dk/artikel/skanseg%C3%A5rdens-fremtid-bliver-afgjort-i-byr%C3%A5det?fbclid=IwAR0Nncn9Bd82DCZIi87mry3V5aHpx1H9lqUH8bAbAV8eYDsrUI9ss_TV824

This is an automatic reading translation. The source’s allegations and assessments have not been independently confirmed through translation. Check wording, qualifications and meaning against the preserved Danish original. Some retained numbers may use Danish separators: a dot for thousands and a comma for decimals. Check amounts against the Danish original.

Undocumented versus documented assertions.

When Skansegården was put up for sale, there was no mention of:

– That the building was legally listed

– That the building was severely affected by mould

- That it could not be demolished

- That renovation was required

A former mayoral candidate (V) spent time trying to spread untrue assertions through social media and his “own” newspapers.
To put those rumours to rest, we will present documentation: 

See a copy of the sales particulars 

The former owner, the state, had itself investigated the possibilities for demolition.
“There is no clause prohibiting demolition of Skansegården. We asked about the historical circumstances. Skansegården is not worthy of preservation in itself. We have no further authority once we have sold the building,” says state forestry official Inge Gillesberg of Naturstyrelsen, which sold Skansegården.
Read more here

Former mayoral candidate Peter Erik Hansen (V) keeps referring to the sales particulars with numerous incorrect details.
– has he even read it himself? He is also quoted as saying: “The fact is probably that the intention was never to renovate the property, but instead to buy a building plot for five million kroner.”
Source: jv.dk
– All negotiations with the municipality about demolition began after mould was discovered and several experts made clear that the property could not be saved—even the administration's people thought there was little hope.

Sources:
DMR report
The administration’s inspection on 5 April 2019

Others have tried to renovate properties affected by mould—without success: 
Parish council: Vicarage poses a health hazard
“There is mould in the house, and it is very severe, says Leif Andersen, chairman of the parish council. The problem was discussed thoroughly, and the decision was to seek demolition of the existing rectory and construction of a new one. “There have been repeated problems with mould in the building, and now we will spend no more money on it.

As recently as two years ago, the rectory was renovated because of mould,” says Leif Andersen.

The former mayoral candidate (V) further states:
“This meant that those who bid the minimum price because they knew renovation would cost money never got the chance.”
Source: jv.dk

– Again, an incorrect statement; apart from the winning bid, no one bid the minimum price. 

When Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet put the house Skansegården on Dybbøl Banke up for sale, the sales material stated the following:
“The property consists of a farmhouse with a retirement wing for the former farmer. It has stood empty for many years and is uninhabitable.” – “Very little value in the building itself” – “Good foundation size for a new building project”. The property was valued by Merete from Home A/S, a skilled local estate agent familiar with Sønderborg's prestige-property market.

The valuation was based on the plot itself, as both she and the seller said the building had no value.

Read more here

The seller, the state, made very clear that price was an important factor in selling the property.
Source: jv.dk

On several occasions, the former mayoral candidate (V) has made it sound as though the building is important to the area, contrary to what all the experts say. 

The 300-square-metre farm in the redoubts is not a building that Museum Sønderjylland and Historiecentret will go to the barricades to preserve, because it was built after the 1864 war and is in very poor condition, so its commemorative value is primarily as part of a historical landscape. DYBBØL BANKE: “We do not object to demolition of Skansegården. In general, it is sad when part of the cultural heritage disappears, but Skansegården is in poor condition.

It was built after 1864. It is not a building monument of high value. The only thing supporting it is that it forms part of the cultural-historical landscape.

It lies in the middle of the Dybbøl landscape and was probably demolished by soldiers before the Battle of Dybbøl, so the farmer had to rebuild it. The farm buildings have been demolished. Only the farmhouse remains,” says Carsten Porskrog Rasmussen, unit head in Museum Sønderjylland's historical department.

Source: jv.dk

We have tried to get the former mayoral candidate (V) and his party to address the facts in this case, but the answers are still awaited.
Read more here

We can also read that the former mayoral candidate (V) wants demolition cases put before the municipal council again.
Last time he argued that everything should be demolished. Now he intends to argue against the Skansegården case. Let us hope for an objective discussion on the municipal council, based on documented facts rather than rumours.

Sources:
Sønderborg Kommune TV
‘We just need to think carefully, because we are setting a precedent. And down in the administration, there are well-meaning people sitting and looking: well, that is the line being taken, and you know what, every time we have to introduce a section 14 measure, we have to allocate resources that are taken away from other local plans that need to be drawn up. It costs money.

And how many does it take before people understand? Does it have to be 5, 6, 10 section 14 prohibitions? You just need to consider that.

I can see that, of course, there is a majority for it today, but we vote against it for the reasons mentioned. Thank you.’ Peter Hansen’s (V)

The Facebook page Politik i Sønderborg
“Demolition of old properties:
Another item was demolishing ‘buildings worthy of preservation’. The administration had two cases in which it wanted to impose a so-called section 14 ban. Such a ban means a local plan must be drawn up within 12 months.

In these years, we are seeing a steadily increasing desire to demolish old and uninhabitable properties. In one case, empty properties were bought by the company to avoid noise complaints and with a view to demolition. In other words, if they are not demolished, they will stand and deteriorate further over the coming years.

Meanwhile, the municipality spends resources drawing up a local plan that will NEVER be applied. It can quickly turn into judgments of taste by the decision-makers, who have no other interests in the properties. In the worst case, payment will later have to come from the demolition fund when they have deteriorated further in a few years.” Peter Hansen's (V)

It apparently seems that the former mayoral candidate (V) and his party would rather make noise and spread rumours than address facts and what they themselves previously approved. It must be difficult for other parties to work with such constantly changing positions. Source: jv.dk
‘But it certainly is not all quiet agreement.

We have many discussions in the committees where, after a consensus decision, we do not air our disagreements. Otherwise, though, I can point to, among others, the Dalsmark case (the care home in Rinkenæs, editor’s note), demolition cases in Ulkebøl and Vollerup...... where we certainly are not in line with Socialdemokratiet,’ emphasises Peter Hansen (V). 

However, we agree with the former mayoral candidate (V) on one point:
“The entire course of this case is also outrageous, believes Venstre spokesperson Peter Hansen.”
Source: jv.dk