Debate on the Uetlihof purchase – the municipal council surprisingly sinks the billion dollar property

And in the end, the supposed minority won. After a two-hour debate, the Zurich municipal council voted against the Uetlihof purchase. He sinks the deal by a vote of 61 to 57.

The city council wanted to buy the huge office complex at Albisgütli for at least 1.2 billion. He had Backing from the SP, the centre/EPP faction and the greens. They emphasized that buying the land would be a great opportunity for future generations, who could one day build affordable housing on this land reserve.

In purely mathematical terms, this coalition should have won. But things turned out differently.

In the end they could Opponents of the FDP, the SVP and the GLP cheer. They fought the “high-risk business” vehemently. Leftists helped them win. Several councils voted for the Greens – including Markus Knauss and Dominik Waser – against the purchase. And because the AL had also decided in favor of a no shortly before the meeting, the majority tipped from a yes to a no. The Uetlihof purchase by the city is thus off the table.

The defeat hurts the SP. In a statement after the debate, she criticized the “unholy alliance” that caused the purchase to fall. In particular, the role of the AL displeases the Social Democrats. “The SP is disappointed that this important purchase cannot come about because of the AL.” SP National Councilor Jacqueline Badran also comments on Twitter, she speaks of “treason” by the AL.

—

Finally, the responsible city councilor Daniel Leupi (Greens) spoke. He emphasizes the uniqueness and importance of the business. It is strategically important to acquire land reserves. “But the big green meadow no longer exists in Zurich.” The city has always invested far into the future. The risks are bearable, says Daniel Leupi. The Uetilhof is the heart of Credit Suisse. “That’s where the bank goes out last if things go bad.” Leupi promises that the city council will not pay a fantasy price.

—

Yesterday, 7:30 p.m

Reto Brüesch from the SVP says he had a déjà vu when he saw the deal. Around 10 years ago he already had the Uetlihof dossier on the table at his employer, a real estate investor. At that time they had decided that it was a high-risk business. This is not an A but a C location. The purchase is clearly to be rejected.

—

Yesterday, 7:20 p.m

The debate has now lasted two hours and the arguments are repeated. The fronts are clear: the commoners, the GLP and the AL reject the purchase. The city should not speculate unnecessarily, further accelerate the real estate price spiral and keep their hands off the Uetlihof. “Should a majority agree to the purchase today, Mr. Leupi should please submit a bid that is so low that the city does not get the bid,” said Severin Pfluger (FDP). The supporters of the SP, the Greens and the center/EPP emphasize the great opportunity that the purchase of the large piece of land offers. Mathematically, the proponents would have a majority. Because the left AL will vote no and there are dissenters among the Greens and various councilors are absent, it is still unclear who will prevail in the end.

—

Yesterday, 19:08

Karin Weyermann (Die Mitte) assumes that the city council has calculated very precisely how far it wants to go and will not overpay the Uetlihof. Land is a scarce commodity that cannot be increased. So the chances are good that the price of the land will rise in the future and not fall. This land should therefore be bought at a properly calculated price. “We see this as a huge opportunity, the risks are bearable for the city of Zurich.”

—

Yesterday, 19:04

The green Dominik Waser also rejects the purchase. He joins the votes of the AL and Markus Knauss. What he is missing is the climate perspective in the debate. One cannot look into the future and assume that the next 100 years will continue in the same way as the past 100 years. Climate catastrophes would put an enormous strain on the economy in the future. These risks would also affect Zurich, investments would become stranded and worthless. “The global financial and real estate market will be severely affected,” says Waser. He doesn’t see much sense in buying an office complex for a major bank now.

—

Yesterday, 18:58

The decision was difficult for the AL. But the AL does not want to buy an office monster at the foot of the Üetliberg. The price for the land should be compatible with the intended use, says Maag Sturzenegger. That is not the case here. “We depend on Credit Suisse doing its homework and paying its rent by 2037,” she says. If the tenant doesn’t do that, everything falls back on the city. The sum of the Bednekn is so large that the AL reject the advance. The price for the many question marks is too high. It is an investment project, but not a strategic safeguarding of living space. This purchase does not fit into AL’s portfolio.

—

Yesterday, 18:46

Markus Knauss (Greens) provides a little surprise. He will vote against the Uetlihof purchase – contrary to his group. The Uetlihof is a well-preserved office property – and that will still be the case in 2052. “If we were to have cheap apartments, a lot of capital would have to be burned,” he says. The then incumbent chief financial officer would then have to spend a lot of money if he wanted to decide to build an apartment. “Whether he or she then has the guts to do so is completely open.” Because it certainly needs a copyist – in the range of several hundred million. Inexpensive apartments can hardly be realized there. The city council wants to buy a property at the maximum price. “The Uetlihof does not have the potential to realize inexpensive ones.” Knauss therefore votes against the purchase.

—

Yesterday, 18:42

There are 17 names left on the list of speakers. You all have five minutes to speak. The debate will probably last another hour.

—

Yesterday, 18:38

Anthony Goldstein (FDP) says it’s not his job as a local councilor to waste taxpayers’ money on unnecessary speculation. In many conversations that he has had in recent weeks, it has come out that almost nobody wants this business. The city needs to spend its money on meaningful things.

—

Yesterday, 6:30 p.m

–

Again and again, the city’s room for maneuver is limited because the ground is missing, says Florian Utz. The situation is not getting any easier. “The city will grow,” he says. The room for maneuver continues to decrease. Governing means looking ahead, says Utz. This is how this directive from the city council could be interpreted. This country will ensure more scope for future generations. “I openly admit that nothing will change by 2037, and in all likelihood not by 2052 either,” says Utz. From then on there would be many options. “A future generation can decide to build cheaper apartments or continue to rent the offices to companies.” The Council must therefore seize this opportunity.

—

Yesterday, 18:28

Përparim Avdili (FDP) says that he cannot agree to “such an absurd high-risk business”. The purchase does not solve any problems and does not create a single new apartment. The city also needs the money for more important things, for school buildings or climate protection.

—

Yesterday, 18:21

At first, Sven Sobernheim asked himself: “Why is a state fund selling the Uetlihof as a whole and not filleting it?” He soon found out the solution. The construction is really tricky. The buildings could never be separated. “This building complex is not an opportunity, just a risk.” Therefore, the GLP reject the construction.

—

Yesterday, 18:21

–

The Uetlihof purchase exceeds the financial dimension of most businesses, says Felix Moser (Greens). The Greens had chosen a long-term perspective to assess the project. “In our decision, we weighed the opportunities and risks against each other.” The risks would lie in usage and finances. Credit Suisse may be in trouble. The fact that the 8,000 jobs there will disappear is hardly a risk in the short term. The question arises: Who would even want to buy this property? “A Chinese investor?” That would cause an outcry, says Moser.

Some members of the Greens will dissent, says Moser. They would give greater weight to climate protection.

—

Yesterday, 6:15 p.m

Markus Haselbach (Die Mitte) finds the template financially attractive. Because the rental income would far exceed the interest that the city had to pay. However, this requires a purchase price that is not too high. “We expect the city council not to overdo it when bidding,” says Haselbach. The group Die Mitte/EPP assesses the risk as bearable.

—

Yesterday, 6:11 p.m

The AL kept a low profile for a long time, now Walter speaks fear. It was not easy for the party. The city council had provided a stringent explanation. It is about land security for a large parcel, it is about securing jobs and thirdly about a new use from 2037. The first point is the central one, says Angst. «We couldn’t build the last schoolhouses on our own soil. The city of Zurich is longing for land,” he says. The city cannot cope with the densification without land. Now the question is: could the purchase solve this problem. Walter Angst says: “No.” And: “Don’t throw sand in people’s eyes.” 1000 apartments can hardly be realistically implemented, if at all 650.

Walter Angst cannot finish his arguments, the five-minute speaking time has expired. Council President Matthias Probst (Greens) ends Angst’s vote. This ends with: “Every million more that we spend on the Uetlihof increases the risk massively.”

—

The city council carried out the dangers of the business well, says Johann Widmer (SVP). Unfortunately, he draws the wrong conclusions from it. It doesn’t take more tax money to create subsidized apartments for the left-wing clientele. Behind it stands a socialist ideology. “But the land should remain in private hands,” says Widmer. For the city, the risk of a purchase is far too great. Real estate companies are better qualified to carry out such transactions.

—

Yesterday, 5:54 p.m

–

For the FDP it is clear: “We are suffering from the rising real estate prices,” says Pfluger. One reason: Institutional investors would pump a lot of money into this real estate market. What the city is doing today is accelerating the spiral in the real estate market. “This investment will be 1 to 1 on the city’s land price,” he says. This is another reason why it would become more expensive for all of us to live in the city in the future.

But there are many more arguments against this purchase. The purchase price would be around CHF 3,000 per resident. «What do we earn from it after deducting the interest? A 50-Nötli », calculates Pfluger. And: “3000 francs owed, 50 francs income.”

In addition: If Credit Suisse were to move out of the Uetlihof in 2037, it would be difficult. Use for the city administration is probably not an option. And if you wanted to build apartments, you would have to write them down drastically.

Pfluger points out: “The cooking area was also expensive, had 30,000 square meters, but only cost 70 million francs.” The city is taking too great a risk in this deal. “It’s a snap action,” says Pfluger. It is not a serious land policy.

—

Yesterday, 5:45 p.m

Lisa Diggelmann (SP) describes the deal as an absolutely unique opportunity to secure land reserves for future generations. 700 to 1000 apartments could be built on the site if this becomes necessary in 30 years. Zurich can afford that, says Diggelmann. The city has reduced its debt by CHF 1.5 billion in recent years. The city could have bought the Uetlihof with this money alone. This shows that the business involves little risk.

—

Yesterday, 5:39 p.m

The municipal council rejects the non-admission motion by a vote of 82 to 29. The substantive discussion of the historic real estate deal can begin.

—