Could any of you clarify what this measure sets out to do, how it would be implemented, and how it would affect Hans Ueli Eigentumer, should the measure be voted in on 3 March?

For instance, if I understand it correctly, the revision would change the Baulandreserves - if an area (Gemeinde level?) had a disproportionate amout of Bauland to non-buildable land, properties now zoned as Bauland would/could be rezoned as non-buildable.

(Am I even close here?)

So... does this apply only to undeveloped land? Are there situations where a developed property might end up rezoned, and the owner forced to take down the building?

Does this apply only to Bauland in the Landwirtschaftszone, or does it apply to all areas, urban/suburban and rural alike?

If a property owner finds his land re-zoned, is there any compensation for his financial loss? Is there any grandfathering of properties currently in the sales or developmental pipeline?

(Say one buys at today's eye-popping Bauland prices. If the property is rezoned as unbuildable, the land is only now only worth the cantonal agricultural price, between 1/10 and 1/100 of the price commanded as Bauland. Did the property owner just lose the roll of the dice, big time?)

Any insights or comments as to what types of properties this revision would affect, how it would be implemented, would be much appreciated.

Try here: http://www.ja-zum-raumplanungsgesetz.ch

Magyir gave you the legal framework. The point however is two things. A YES means that already used territories will be more densely build over and have an increasing population but that a trebling of the population means a doubling of the traffic infrastructure at best, and a reduced quality of life as an effect. A NO means that the covering of the whole country by buildings will go ahead at a rather increasing speed.

When I see fairly open spaces in other parts of Switzerland, my personal answer has to be NO

A just now sent out by NO to the RPG above and a double YES to the two Abzocker-law-proposals

The Family-law got a Yes from me, mostly because Ayatollah Blocher is so much against it

I'm also going with the «gegen Abzockerei» Initiative and Gegenvorschlag, but with NO to both RPG and Family Law, as they both displace local autonomy with more Bern-centric control, plus the requisite bureaucracy and the taxes to fund them. (While I listen to SVP's arguments, Blocher's position sometimes seems like a broken clock — occasionally correct, but purely by coincidence.)

Well, the family law IS centralistic, and IS expensive, but now needs every vote in order not to get downed too heavily. If it becomes law, alright, as it includes some very good things -- and would be a very nice blow to Mr Blocher, if it is rejected, alright and acceptable, bad would however would be a heavy rejection.

The Raumplanungsgesetz (RPG) was introduced some 30 years ago in order to avoid urban sprawl and to promote the efficient use of the land. Unfortunately, the communities and cantons have in many cases flouted the RPG. Especially in smaller communities nepotism and conflict of interest have been widespread. So it is possible that a farmer, who has a beer with the mayor and fellow party member in the local pub every Saturday evening, becomes a millionaire over night by having his plot of farmland rezoned into building land. Regrettably, the current RPG does not provide the Federation with the necessary instruments to intervene in such cases. The result is a landscape that is not very pleasing to the eye.

The new RPG will give the Federation the powers to make the cantons and communities comply with Federal law. Cantons that have set aside to much land for construction in the past will be forced to reduce the building zones. Land owners concerned by these measures will be compensated if the rezoning amounts to an expropriation. Buildings erected in accordance with communal and cantonal law won't be demolished. Owners whose land is reallocated for construction will have to pay a minimum tax of 20% on their gains. The revenue of this tax will help to compensate owners whose land has been removed from a building zone.

Considering the steep rise in population every year and the unrelenting pace of urban sprawl, something has to be done. The revised RPG would certainly help to preserve a least some of Switzerland's natural beauty.

That's what I love about Swiss democracy. The voters quietly consented to the original RPG, perhaps as a noble idea, but also perhaps because it awarded Bern no real power over the Kantone or Gemeinde. Looking at what has happened in democracies with too much centralized power, a healthy reluctance to allow the same here is worthy of some respect.

That trade-off assumes those with "gains" actually sell that land. To whatever extent they don't sell, the revenue needed to subsidize the losses caused by federal enforcement will have to come from somewhere else — like more taxes.

I don't think that Berne should decide on everything. But many cantons and communities have done a poor job over the last few decades, disfiguring many parts of the country. In Switzerland, every year an area as large as the Walensee is built over. Maybe a huge country like the US can afford such wastage. However, a tiny, densely populated country like Switzerland needs to carefully regulate the use of the land. I also like to point out that with the new RPG the cantons and communities will remain in charge of their land as long as they abide by a the few essential principals set out in the RPG.

I guess that the owner will not only be taxed if he sells the land but also when he builds on it himself.

Yes, there will be a few cantons, communities and landowner that will lose out if the people say yes to the new RPG. But the new RPG would only have consequences for those cantons and communities that have given a toss about the Federal law. They will have to pay for their past sins and assume the costs related to the rezoning of land. A price worth paying in order to preserve our countryside.

So far, I have only read that the tax would apply when selling. In fairness, that comes from RPG opponents, so if you can provide a source that shows the owner will be taxed 20% the value of the land upon his building on it, I'd be very interested to see it.

I suppose it's safe to assume that you don't own land that would be affected.

See Art. 5 1bis RPG: "Planungsvorteile werden mit einem Satz von mindestens 20 Prozent ausgeglichen. Der Ausgleich wird bei der Überbauung des Grundstücks oder dessen Veräusserung fällig."http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/ff/2012/5987.pdf

It's also not a tax in the strict sense. It's a pure windfall profit if land is rezoned by the building authorities and increases in value as a result. So it's only fair if the owner has to pay a levy in order to help financing compensation payments to landowners whose land has been removed from a building zone.


Yes, I'm not a landowner. But don't forget that the land should never have been converted into building land by the local authorities. So the landowner only lose what they should never have gained in the first place.

Thanks, that settles that question fully then.

I'm afraid this is something I find hard to embrace, as it seems to arbitrarily and retroactively judge and penalize — from Bern — every landowner who has made a gain while acting within the boundaries set by Kanton and Gemeinde, as if his motive was unquestionably and deliberately evil and worthy of punishment. I see this as a huge downside, especially if Bern has the unmitigated power to assess such levies where both landowners and local authorities acted in good faith.

Please don't misunderstand me: I don't mean to come across as if I don't care about preserving, as well as possible, the landscape in every locality. I do care very much. So did the public by assenting to the original RPG — and giving them the benefit of the doubt, I believe that sentiment remains in place, even among most landowners.

But a "solution" to the current situation that establishes a central bureaucracy in Bern with the power to unilaterally, arbitrarily and retroactively punish property owners whose gain was achieved in full compliance with the local authorities makes no more sense than a "solution" that fines or imprisons the authors of the original RPG for failing to properly anticipate the need for better enforcement authority and infrastructure in the first place.

This is one of many multi-faceted issues in Swiss politics that aren't likely to be resolved with black-or-white "solutions" — especially the kind that needlessly increase both centralized power and bureaucracy in Bern, and fund themselves by penalizing the innocent victims of an otherwise nobler and less-centralized Swiss tradition.

I don't profess to fully understand the proposed RPG revisions, but if they can't be shown to be unequivocally unlike what I've just described, I can only remain opposed, come 03.03.13.

It won't be necessary to create a huge bureaucratic apparatus in Berne. The RPG allows the cantons to set aside building zones large large enough to accommodate the future development of the canton for the next 15 years. If the building zones are too large, the cantons themselves decide which land should be rezoned. Berne would only check whether the cantonal measures are in compliance with federal law.

The rezoning of the land wouldn't be done arbitrarily but based on certain predetermined criteria. It also can't be considered a retroactive measure since only the future use of the land is concerned. And as I mentioned before, the owners would get compensation if the rezoning amounted to an expropriation.

Levies on gains resulting from a planning measure are nothing new. They already exist in several cantons (e.g Thurgau) and have proved to be a success.

At the end of the day, the interest of preserving the landscape must be balanced against the interest of the landowners concerned by the rezoning measures. I don't thinks you can make the argument that private property rights should take precedence over everything else. If that was the case you couldn't build highways, railway lines, airports etc anymore. In my opinion, keeping the landscape intact is more important and justifies the intervention in property rights.

My aim is certainly not to suggest that private property rights should "take precedence over everything else". (No less untenable, of course, would be an argument to the effect that preserving the landscape should "take precedence over everything else".)

In any place where steady population growth is the norm, "keeping the landscape intact" is a practical impossibility. The best that can be achieved is that the inevitable, if gradual, changes to the landscape are handled in such a way that all relevant interests are balanced carefully and fairly.

I'm optimistic that such a balance can be struck, preferably with little or no need for penalizing people for past actions that were in full compliance with contemporary regulations at local levels (where I remain convinced it matters the most).

Just got my voting papers in Zurich Kanton but I only see one voting paper for the Minder Abzocker-law-proposal; nothing about the alternative Gegenvorschlag.

It is number 2 on the paper; number 1 is about Familienpolitik & number 3 about Raumungplanung; where should I be looking?

By voting NO on the Minder-Initiative, you'd automatically be voting YES on the Gegenvorschlag. It'll be one or the other, depending on whether the original Initiative passes or not (if not, the Gegenvorschlag goes into effect by default).

Thanks, I got confused by Wolli's post where he wrote "just now sent out ......double YES to the two Abzocker-law-proposals"

there is ONE vote about the Initiative
+
there is ONE vote about the Gegenvorschlag

a NO against eighter simply is a NO
-- and NOT a YES to the other law proposal

as the "alternative" is a rejection of both

NO, so sorry but this is wrong. The Eco-Suisse aims of course at a NO. A NO against eighter law proposal does NOT mean a YES to the other but simply a NO. This is why I voted YES YES as I regard BOTH proposals as improvements

I regard the original initiative as the slightly better proposal, but if both get enough votes the one with the more votes will get through.

Ecosuisse with their propaganda of course hopes to get neither law proposal getting a popular yes or a yes per cantons so that BOTH proposals would get rejected

Well, neither Marton (Zürich), nor I (Nidwalden), received ballots including BOTH the Initiative AND the Gegenvorschlag, and most sources I've read indicate that the Gegenvorschlag is the default if the Initiative doesn't pass.

So are you saying you (Zürich) personally received BOTH a ballot for the Initiative AND a ballot for the Gegenvorschlag?

If so, perhaps some form of voting fraud is afoot here.