Archive post: »Is it possible to "steal" parking spaces without causing a stir?« · 2024-01-19

• Jørgen Mads Clausen — Mentioned in the current archived text
• Peter Hansen — Mentioned in the current archived text

Source title: Er det muligt at "stjæle" parkeringspladser uden at vække opsigt?

Text version dated 19 Jan 2024

Er det muligt at "stjæle" parkeringspladser uden at vække opsigt? Og findes der magtfulde politikere, som skjuler vigtige oplysninger for byrådet? Ifølge COWI-rapporten var der et presserende behov for 689 parkeringspladser i højsæsonen for Hotel Alsik.

Men mystisk nok reduceredes dette tal til blot 253 pladser, da byrådet skulle vurdere lokalplan 4.2-14. Endnu mere overraskende besluttede kommunen at fritage hotellet – som rummer flere restauranter, 200 værelser og konferencefaciliteter – fra kravet om parkeringspladser. Disse afgørelser blev truffet, før parkeringshuset stod færdigt.

Baggrunden for disse beslutninger er ikke tilgængelig for offentligheden. Er der lagt en skjult plan om, at Hotel Alsik skulle overtage parkeringshuset som en skjult form for støtte fra Sønderborg Kommune? Hvis dette ikke var tilfældet, hvordan havde byrådet og Hotel Alsik da forestillet sig at skaffe de nødvendige parkeringspladser, hvis der ikke forelå en aftale om overtagelse af parkeringshuset årevis før det skete?

Situationen giver anledning til mistanke om, at visse politikere eller forvaltningen selektivt filtrerer de informationer, som når frem til byrådsmedlemmerne. En aktindsigt har afsløret indholdet af et tidligere lukket møde om ejendomshandel, men vi har været forhindret i at tilgå relevante bilag, som kunne kaste lys over de informationer, byrådet har modtaget. Det vækker undren, at myndighederne ikke ønsker at udlevere alt materialet, og de begrænsede oplysninger, vi har modtaget, rejser endnu flere spørgsmål.

Om parkeringshuset: Kommunen synes bevidst om, at de befandt sig på usikker grund, da de besluttede at sælge parkeringshuset – de søgte endda rådgivning hos Ankestyrelsen om lovligheden af handlen. Da parkeringshuset blev solgt til BMC Fonden, havde det 385 pladser. I dag hævder fonden at have udvidet til 463 pladser.

Er dette en skrivebordsmanøvre, eller snød Sønderborg kommune sig selv for en masse parkeringspladser ved salget? Sønderborg Kommunes takstblad angiver, at prisen for en overdækket parkeringsplads er 174.800 kr. Det er bekræftet, at parkeringsfonden ikke har spillet nogen rolle i denne handel.

Vores beregninger, baseret på de få bygninger vi har indsigt i, viser et minimumsbehov på 494 parkeringspladser ifølge lokalplanen, selvom der er mange flere bygninger i området. Disse beregninger inkluderer: - Multikulturhuset (lokalplan 4.2-14) med et parkeringsbehov på 180-200 pladser. - Den planlagte Kunsthal med behov for 40-55 pladser. - Sergenten, et koncertsted med plads til 1500 stående gæster - kan det virkelig være sandt, at kommunen mener, at 22 parkeringspladser er tilstrækkelige? Hvordan har de dog regnet det ud? - Hotel Alsik har et beregnet behov på 253 pladser ifølge kommunen, mens COWI-rapporten angav et behov på 689 pladser i højsæsonen.

Dette resulterer i et samlet minimumsbehov på 494 parkeringspladser og 965 pladser, hvis man benytter de højeste estimater for hver bygning – en markant forskel. Kommunen har ikke kunnet besvare vores forespørgsel om korrektheden af disse beregninger, på trods af gentagne henvendelser. Efterfølgende er der tilkommet flere bygninger i området, herunder et kollegium, en udvidelse af SPA-området på Alsik og andre bygninger.

Uden kommunens svar om de specifikke lokalplaner, er det umuligt at fastslå det nøjagtige parkeringskrav for disse bygninger. En hurtig beregning indikerer, at der mangler mellem 109 og 580 parkeringspladser, plus de 22 tildelte parkeringspladser til Sergentens 1500 gæster – en tilsyneladende uoverensstemmelse. Dette kan forklare, hvorfor kommunen har svært ved at specificere det nødvendige antal parkeringspladser i området og hvorfor lokale beboere oplever parkeringsproblemer.

Kommunen har oplyst, at parkeringsfondsmidler ikke har været anvendt i denne sammenhæng, hvilket rejser spørgsmålet: Hvem har finansieret de manglende 109 til 580 parkeringspladser for de nyopførte bygninger? Ifølge de satser, som kommunen har fastsat for parkeringsfonden, kræves der en indbetaling på 174.800 kr. for hver parkeringsplads i et parkeringshus. Dette kunne medføre en gæld til parkeringsfonden på mellem 19 millioner og over 101 millioner kroner, forudsat at disse tal er korrekte.

Det virker som om, at kommunen bevidst undgår at svare på, hvor mange parkeringspladser der kræves for hver bygning ifølge lokalplanen. I forhold til aktindsigtsafvisninger, har kommunen svaret, at de relevante dokumenter ikke findes. Serganten er kun tildelt 22 parkeringspladser, hvilket virker inkonsistent med kommunens egne regler, som tilsyneladende ikke gælder for Peter Hansens venner.

Peter Hansen og Venstres venner synes at have stor indflydelse i Sønderborg. Det mest bemærkelsesværdige er dog, at ingen borgere, partier eller journalister stiller krav om svar fra politikerne om, hvad der egentlig foregår. Hvis intet ulovligt er foregået, burde det være let at besvare simple spørgsmål om aktindsigt.

Det er væsentligt at bemærke tidsrammen fra Danfoss' første henvendelse til den endelige aftale. Denne hurtige sagsbehandling, hvor borgernes værdier tilsyneladende overdrages i løbet af en sommerferie, skaber tvivl: Er denne proces et resultat af nøje planlægning, eller er det blot et eksempel på kommunens standard sagsbehandling? https://site.dybbolbanke.dk/p-huset-n%C3%B8rre-havnegade-42-6400-s%C3%B8nderborg I denne sag synes det, at visse virksomheder har modtaget specielle takster. Her finder du kommunens takstblad for parkeringspladser, som er relevant, hvis almindelige borgere henvender sig med forespørgsler: https://site.dybbolbanke.dk/parkeringsfonden-budget Cowi rapport som Kommunen ikke vil have du ser: https://site.dybbolbanke.dk/aktindsigt-i-dokument-s%C3%B8nderborg-kommune-n%C3%A6gter-at-udlevere Ingen kommentar er modtaget fra Fonden, forvaltningen, Venstre og Dansk Folkeparti.

Trods Jyske Vestkystens omfattende dækning af parkeringsproblemer i Sønderborg, er det overraskende, at de har valgt ikke at dække denne sag. Dette rejser spørgsmål vedrørende deres redaktionelle beslutninger, især i betragtning af, at Peter Hansen, bestyrelsesformand for Jysk Fynske Medier, tidligere har haft politiske hverv i Sønderborg Kommune. Dette synes dog at stemme overens med Jørn Mads Clausens, ejeren af Danfoss, tidligere bemærkelsesværdige diskretion i forbindelse med brugen af whistleblower-ordningen.

I sidste ende ser det ud til, at meget forbliver det samme i Sønderborg. FOTO: Sønderborg kommune

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.

Is it possible to "steal" parking spaces without causing a stir? 

And are there powerful politicians who hide important information from the city council?

According to the COWI report, there was an urgent need for 689 parking spaces during the peak season for Hotel Alsik.

But mysteriously, this number was reduced to just 253 places when the city council had to assess the local plan 4.2-14. Even more surprisingly, the municipality decided to exempt the hotel – which contains several restaurants, 200 rooms and conference facilities – from the parking requirement. These decisions were made before the parking garage was completed.

The background to these decisions is not available to the public. PHOTO: Sønderborg Municipality

Is there a hidden plan for Hotel Alsik to take over the parking garage as a hidden form of support from Sønderborg Kommune? If this was not the case, how did the city council and Hotel Alsik imagine obtaining the necessary parking spaces if there was no agreement to take over the parking garage years before it happened? The situation gives rise to the suspicion that certain politicians or the administration are selectively filtering the information that reaches the city council members.

An inspection of documents has revealed the contents of a previously closed meeting on property trading, but we have been prevented from accessing relevant annexes which could shed light on the information the city council has received. It is puzzling that the authorities do not want to hand over all the material, and the limited information we have received raises even more questions. About the parking garage:
The municipality seems aware that they were on shaky ground when they decided to sell the car park – they even sought advice from Ankestyrelsen on the legality of the deal.

When the car park was sold to BMC Fonden, it had 385 spaces. Today, the fund claims to have expanded to 463 seats. Is this a desk maneuver, or did Sønderborg municipality cheat itself for a lot of parking spaces at the sale?

Sønderborg Kommune's rate sheet states that the price for a covered car park is 174,800 DKK It has been confirmed that the Parking Fund played no part in this deal. Our calculations, based on the few buildings we have insight into, show a minimum need for 494 parking spaces according to the local plan, even though there are many more buildings in the area.

These calculations include:

The Multicultural House (local plan 4.2-14) with a parking requirement of 180-200 spaces.

The planned Art Gallery with a need for 40-55 seats. Sergenten, a concert venue with room for 1500 standing guests - can it really be true that the municipality thinks that 22 parking spaces are sufficient? However, how did they calculate it?

Hotel Alsik has a calculated need for 253 seats according to the municipality, while the COWI report indicated a need for 689 seats in the high season.

This results in an overall minimum requirement of 494 parking spaces and 965 spaces if using the highest estimates for each building – a significant difference. The municipality has not been able to answer our inquiry about the correctness of these calculations, despite repeated inquiries. Subsequently, several buildings have been added to the area, including a college, an extension of the SPA area at Alsik and other buildings.

Without the municipality's response on the specific local plans, it is impossible to determine the exact parking requirement for these buildings. A quick calculation indicates that there is a gap between 109 and 580 parking spaces, plus the 22 allocated parking spaces for Sergenten's 1500 guests – an apparent discrepancy. This may explain why the municipality finds it difficult to specify the required number of parking spaces in the area and why local residents experience parking problems.

The municipality has stated that parking fund funds have not been used in this context, which raises the question:
Who financed the missing 109 to 580 parking spaces for the newly constructed buildings? According to the rates set by the municipality for the parking fund, a payment of 174,800 DKK is required for each parking space in a parking garage. This could result in a debt to the parking fund of between 19 million and over 101 million DKK, assuming these figures are correct.

It seems that the municipality deliberately avoids answering how many parking spaces are required for each building according to the local plan. In relation to denials of access to documents, the municipality has replied that the relevant documents do not exist. The sergeant is only assigned 22 parking spaces, which seems inconsistent with the municipality's own rules, which apparently do not apply to Peter Hansen's friends.

Peter Hansen and Venstre's friends seem to have a lot of influence in Sønderborg. The most remarkable thing, however, is that no citizens, parties or journalists demand answers from the politicians about what is really going on. If nothing illegal has taken place, it should be easy to answer simple questions about document access.

It is important to note the time frame from Danfoss's first inquiry to the final agreement. This rapid case processing, where the citizens' valuables are apparently handed over during a summer holiday, raises doubts: Is this process the result of careful planning, or is it just an example of the municipality's standard case processing? The car park Nørre Havnegade 42

No comment has been received from the Foundation, the administration, Venstre and Dansk Folkeparti. Despite Jyske Vestkysten's extensive coverage of parking issues in Sønderborg, it is surprising that they have chosen not to cover this matter. This raises questions regarding their editorial decisions, especially given that Peter Hansen, chairman of the board of Jysk Fynske Medier, previously held political positions in Sønderborg Kommune.

However, this seems consistent with Jørn Mads Clausen's, the owner of Danfoss's, previous remarkable discretion in using the whistleblower scheme. In the end, it seems that much remains the same in Sønderborg.

In this case, it appears that certain companies have received special rates. 
Here you will find the municipality's rate sheet for parking spaces, which is relevant if ordinary citizens contact you with enquiries: 

See budget for the Parking Fund

Cowi report that the Municipality does not want you see: 

Go to report