Debate in the municipality of Ostertotten | Where are the “new forms of housing”?

The Kapp Housing and Service Center will be put up for sale by an estate agent in April. I think this arouses sadness and protest in large parts of the municipality’s population. The question now is whether the ‘train has left’, or whether there is still room for more controlled planning. It is said that the area must be sold with certain guidelines. It remains to be seen what opportunities remain for that, who is given the authority to make the sale and negotiate the leads. It is important that these plans and negotiations now take place with great openness, and that the municipality takes the time to listen and play as a team. This leads me to some thoughts about a paradigm shift in understanding what a municipality should be.

During my time on the Municipal Council, we got to know what in Denmark is called Municipality 3.0, which is often represented and inspired by Skanderborg Municipality. The idea is, in short, that the local population should be involved to a greater extent when management and planning takes place. It is no longer just the municipality’s residents that services are provided, but they must be more strongly involved as participants in the processes. Final decisions must, of course, be made in the elected municipal council, but creativity and planning can be largely left to the locals. It provides increased resources and greater satisfaction.

Our municipality has chosen to use the less technical name “community municipality,” which in itself is fine, but the actual idea is also becoming less clear. It is as if the new municipal thinking is only to inform locals, not attract them. That’s sad, because I think the grassroots commitment to Kapp’s Housing and Service Center is almost perfect for trying this model seriously.

When we plan the health care system nowadays, we often talk about the ‘ladder of care’. By that we mean to say something about the different needs of care. There is broad agreement that the necessary, but also good, future arrangement must be for the people to remain in their homes as long as possible, and that it is the domestic services that must first and foremost be extended. Those who can and want to live in the house are then a step up on the ladder. Those who can no longer manage it, but need round-the-clock care and care, are at another stage.

However, what we’re seeing more and more clearly is that very little falls between these steps. They are not so sick that they have the opportunity to go to a nursing home, but they still struggle with life at home. They increasingly need help, but they can also become lonely and sometimes insecure. This is the step that our municipality should focus on now. This is where our housing and service centers have an opportunity. In the municipal council at the time I was there, it would have been nice that these centers were not “closed” (ie demolished) but rather “converted”.

Today there are a number of examples of interesting living arrangements that can meet some of the above needs. They are largely seen as more collective solutions. They can be smaller houses/apartments that aren’t as expensive, and are located with a nice outdoor area, access to common rooms for those who want to eat together, and space for other activities that can contribute to the community.

I have a feeling that some ideas could be taken into account when planning new forms of living in the Lena, but most of us would probably think it would be a pity not to take advantage of the opportunities that exist in the beautiful region of the Cape. It may be appropriate to remember the recurring objectives in the municipality’s long-term plans (including “Care 2040”) with regard to the social profile in housing construction, and not to lose “municipal control” in this area. In many ways, this has become critical. Many people are selling their homes today so that they can move into safer and simpler apartments. But, as someone said, today you have to sell two houses in order to be able to buy a small apartment. This is not a residential development with a social profile.

As I said, I am very sad, and many people are with me. I am also disappointed that so many good ideas that have been hanging in the administration and the municipal council seem to go to waste. It will be very tame and retarded. I realize I’m not the best at staying in the know, but I know that many people who are better at it than me are also a little surprised. Is the political basis here quite clear? Or is power given too much to potential dealers and acquirers?

What does it mean that Kapp housing and service centers must be sold on the open market with “certain guidelines”? Here we expect more transparency. Perhaps we should meet the strengths of men and women at the next municipal council meeting.