Ten Years of Standstill Are Enough
At the last monthly meeting of the Free Democrats Norderney, the Booken site was discussed intensively. For the island liberals, it is clear: this issue must no longer be suppressed, postponed, or ignored during the upcoming legislative period, which runs until 2031. We will keep it on the political agenda until a solution is reached within the next legislative period!
Booken – Facts
The approximately 12,000 square meter site has been lying fallow for years (2017). After the purchase by Stadtwerke Norderney, numerous usage and development models were discussed—but in the end, every plan failed.
The result is sobering: 4.2 million euros purchase price, ongoing financing costs (estimated at approximately 150,000 euros annually at minimum), and planning costs already incurred of around 60,000 euros burden the budget*, without any discernible benefit having been created for Norderney.
Booken: The purchase was a mistake, the current situation is no longer acceptable.
Public Sector as Developer
For almost ten years, the public sector has failed to create a viable solution for this central property. Instead of development, there is standstill. Instead of benefit, there are costs. Month after month, an estimated 12,000 euros in financing costs flow (several hundred thousand so far!) without any added value being created for the island on the site.
We also view critically the hope that the public sector could economically create urgently needed housing there. The staff housing at the mill, with costs of 5.2 million euros*, has shown at the latest how difficult it is for the public sector to actually realize affordable housing economically.
Special Permit – Water Protection Zone
We view the water law construction surrounding the Booken site as particularly critical. In 2023, an exemption from the otherwise applicable restrictions was granted or put in prospect for the property in water protection zone 2—but only on the condition that the site remains in municipal ownership. Should the property pass wholly or partially into private ownership, this exemption would lapse according to the previous regulations.
From our perspective, this is incomprehensible. If residential development is possible under water law with strict conditions, then this possibility must not depend solely on whether a municipal or private entity builds. Such unequal treatment contradicts the rule of law and must urgently be clarified legally and politically. Because in the end, the same must apply to all: equal rights under equal requirements.
Booken Possible Course of Action
Therefore, Norderney now finally needs clarity instead of further announcements. From our perspective, there are only three honest paths:
- Partial sale and development to enable housing under reasonable economic conditions.
- A sensible interim use so that at least the ongoing financing costs are partially covered.
- Draw the clear consequence from a wrong decision and market the property instead of continuing to put money into standstill.
For the Free Democrats, it is clear: simply keeping silent, putting it on ice, and continuing to pay high sums month after month for nothing is not a solution. The Booken site must be at the top of the political agenda in the next legislative period—until a viable decision is finally made.
Residential Development Nordhelmsiedlung
Especially in view of the housing needs on Norderney, a site of this location and size must not remain unused permanently. The Nordhelmsiedlung is fundamentally suitable for residential development—private, public, or in a viable mixed form. But what is needed now is not further hesitation, but political will, economic reason, and a realistic view of what is feasible.
The FDP Norderney will pursue this issue vigorously in the upcoming legislative period. Not to merely lament old mistakes, but to finally ensure that an expensive problem becomes a viable solution for the island.
*The buyer was a municipal enterprise of the city of Norderney, which is why the burdens are not found in the city budget
*In the first version, we incorrectly assumed 6.2 million, this was subsequently corrected to 5.2 million