top of page
Understanding the Politics of Stadsbloks Meinerswijk
by Zach Koung
In March our class had the opportunity to travel to the Netherlands. More specifically, we were able to take a tour of Stadsbloks Meinerswijk, which is near the larger city of Arnhem. For some context, here is a map with Meinerswijk centered. We also had the opportunity to speak with Anne-Marie Pronk from the Klimaatzusters as well as folks from the developer team while in the Netherlands.
^map is from https://mapcarta.com/W651009443/Map
Historical Context
Historically speaking this land is a nature reserve, there is no major development on the land. The story really begins in 2009. The city had commissioned several citizen-driven meetings that allowed the citizens of Arnhem to discuss what they wanted to exist on the land. Per a news report from one of the major publications in the Netherlands, the takeaway was clear: citizens were not anti-development, but they insisted that the development be working with nature and for the public good.
A shift occurred around 2012 when the developer Phanos, who was working with the city went bankrupt and a newer developer, Kondor Wessels, then buys the land sometime after, for low cost. With the city's support, Wessels then creates a plan for housing, as this would also build revenue for the city. It’s important to still consider that just a few years ago, when the city supported the community-centered talks, over four of them, the people were in support of public-oriented natural development.
Many in Arnhem, and especially pro-environmental activists came together and pushed for the city to at least have a referendum on whether or not the developer should be able to go ahead with the building of homes.
The Battle of the Ballot Box
After the city agreed to a referendum, the campaigns both for and against the development came forward. In a follow up conversation after the trip, we had the opportunity to sit down with Anne-Marie and another individual who used to work for the marketing and advertising firm that ended up being employed by the developers, and in retrospect came to regret their role in the campaign. For full transparency we also reached out to the developers to have another meeting with them, but ultimately they did not respond to our request.
Confident that they would have the same support from the public as they did in 2009 and with less resources, their campaign was relatively bootstrapped. They did as best they could to campaign against the development. They claimed to us in a meeting that there was relatively frequent polling being done by the local newspaper, but we have not been able to verify those claims. Within weeks of the final vote, Kondor Wessels campaign had begun; however, this campaign was far greater resourced. According to the climate activists, the developers had spent 300,000 euros on the campaign (we were not able to verify this claim).
The Deception
A key thing to understand is that the referendum was phrased in such a way that voting NO meant voting against the development, and voting YES meant to support the development’s construction. This meant that the developers needed to convince people to vote YES.
Just weeks before the final vote the misleading publicity campaign had begun. Advertising, which appears to be riffing off of the A pro-water and pro-nature party’s slogan, “Ja, natuurlijk.” This roughly translates into “yes, naturally!” In the images below you can see the party, Water Natuurlijk use the messaging, for example, see the gray box in the bottom right corner.
Now take a look at one of the marketing materials that the developers employed. Roughly this translates to “I want a bite to eat on city blocks, I vote yes.” and in the bottom portion it repeats the phrase, “Ja, natuurlijk!” or in english, “Yes, Naturally!” It’s clear how this misleading wording could have misled voters. Voters may have thought that voting yes was voting for the project referenced back in 2009, that was building public-oriented development!
Furthermore, note how there is no houses or housing development in these photos. Let’s take a look at some of the other photos that the developers employed.
Now take a look at one of the marketing materials that the developers employed. Roughly this translates to “I want a bite to eat on city blocks, I vote yes.” and in the bottom portion it repeats the phrase, “Ja, natuurlijk!” or in english, “Yes, Naturally!” It’s clear how this misleading wording could have misled voters. Voters may have thought that voting yes was voting for the project referenced back in 2009, that was building public-oriented development!
Furthermore, note how there is no houses or housing development in these photos. Let’s take a look at some of the other photos that the developers employed.
We didn’t see any houses here, did you?
Lastly, let's take a loot at one of the major campaign videos that was released from the nature activists:
One of the clearest takeaways from this video is that regular citizens, outside of their typical day jobs, were trying to stand against a very powerful and well funded developer.
Alongside this, the nature activists also claim the following, which we were not able to verify independently:
-
The lack of the number of houses and building heights around the referendum,
-
The role of the municipality, which seemed like a kind of marketing agency of the project developer with guided tours by civil servants on their Saturdays off work,
-
The lack of independent information,
-
How KWP claimed all the URLs and made the SEO experts work overtime, and pretended to be an independent third party on its websites,
-
How ambassadors were recruited in the city with the help of the Issuemakers. How influentials could be seen on posters unsolicited (Esther Horchner illustrator of Het Paradijs with her greyhound, for example)
-
The impeccable felling of trees
-
The co-developer of the plan (Frank Donders) who became a member of GroenLinks the day before the vote within GroenLinks in order to vote on the number of homes that GroenLinks found acceptable as supportive,
-
No openness was given about KWP's business model, so that there was never a comparison with the alternative plan https://www.stadsbloks-meinerswijk.org/plan/,
-
How everything you brought into the debate was reframed in the FAQ page of KWP's stadblokmeinerswijk.nl
Conclusion and the Courts
In 2009, the city of Arnhem held several citizen-driven meetings to discuss the development of the land, and the citizens were not against development but wanted it to be nature-friendly and for public use. However, in 2012, the original developer went bankrupt, and Kondor Wessels bought the land for a low price and planned to build housing with the city's support.
Environmental activists and citizens pushed for a referendum to stop the development. Confident that they would have the same support from the public as they did in 2009 and with fewer resources, the activists' campaign was relatively bootstrapped, while the developers' campaign used advertising that did not show the houses or the actual development, and may have misled voters with clever wording. This advertising appeared to be riffing off of a pro-water and pro-nature party’s slogan, “Ja, Natuurlijk” (Yes, naturally!). The campaign was designed to convince people to vote YES, which meant to support the development's construction, not voting YES to nature.
While the developers ended up winning the referendum to clear the way to develop, the issue was taken before the courts. Recently, the highest court in the Netherlands ruled in favor of the development, paving the final clearance for it to occur. The controversy surrounding the Stadsblokken Meinerswijk development highlights the importance of transparent and honest communication during public referendums as it is essential to ensure that voters are well-informed and that they understand the implications of their vote.
News Sources
​
https://www.stadsblokken-meinerswijk.org/referendum/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/arnhemse-soap-om-paradijs-aan-de-rijn~bf383ed1/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/bouwen-dat-bepaalt-de-burger~b6149393/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/de-arnhemmers-participeren-te-enthousiast~b53a6960/
bottom of page