Was sollen die bestimmenden Prämissen sein, welche Entwicklungsachsen? Welche Auswirkungen hat die demografische Entwicklung usw.

Für DIE LINKE ist die umfassende Beteiligung der Stadtbevölkerung unverzichtbar. Ausserdem können wir viel von anderen Städten lernen und der Erfahrungsaustausch ist wichtig.
In der ehemaligen Liebfrauenkirche in der Innenstadt läuft derzeit eine Ausstellung, verbunden mit Informations- und Diskussionsveranstaltungen. Am 17.4. um 19.00 findet in der Mercatorhalle im CityPalais eine Großveranstaltung statt zum Thema "Zukunft findet statt - Stadtentwicklung in Duisburg". Sie ist bereits jetzt ausgebucht. Das folgende Interview, das Hermann Dierkes, Vorsitzender der Ratsfraktion DIE LINKE, letztes Jahr dem niederländischen Journalisten Marnix Brugmann von der dort sehr erfolgreichen Sozialistischen Partei gegeben hat und das in eine Studie der Universität Delft eingeht, behandelt viele Aspekte des Themas. Derzeit steht das Interview nur in englischer Sprache zur Verfügung. 

Hermann Dierkes, deputy leader DIE LINKE.Offene Liste Duisburg
was interviewed by the journalist Marnix Bruggeman, SP Amsterdam, in September 2007

The Interview will be integrated into a research work on urban development
at the Technical University of Delft (NL)

Hermann Dierkes (58) lives in Duisburg since 1979. He is a former steelworker and for nearly 30 years worked as a foreman in the port- and railway-section (EH GmbH) of ThyssenKrupp Steel Duisburg. He retired in summer 2007. Dierkes always has been active on the political left. For 20 years, he was member of the EH GmbH works council and leader of the IG Metall unit, "being the first on that level not sitting in the SPD." In 1999 Dierkes was elected into the city council, when the PDS.Offene Liste made its first appearance with three seats. In the 2004 local elections the PDS.Offene Liste rose to four seats (on a total of 74). Due to the successful fusion process between the PDS and the left-wing WASG the united party is called DIE LINKE (The Left). Dierkes is spokesman of the left city councilors.

General structure policy

"Over some decades, the city of  Duisburg – once called “Stadt Montan” due to its role as an important steel and coal mining center went more and more into a mess. Alreday up to the end of the 80s, in Duisburg we lost 100.000 jobs mainly in steel consequent on industrial shutdowns and rationalization processes. The composition of the workforce changed as well. For unqualified workers the situation became very hard. Rationalization took a heavy toll. In the late 70's the ThyssenKrupp (then Thyssen Stahl) railway-section, were I worked, had 3.400 workers, now 1.200, with the same annual transportation tonnage of 70 million. At that time we still had  16 signal boxes, since the nineties, we have only one computerized central and the rationalization is still going on. The unloading of barges with iron-ore from Brazil or Australia via Rotterdam takes only a percentage of the time needed once before, as well as the loading of ships with steel plates, coils. All the engines (locomotives) are computerized etc."

"The structural changes and the introduction of more effcient new techniques in the steel branch causing the massive decline of jobs in the mining and steel industry of the Ruhr-region met no good and no quick answer by politics. What contributed to the growing problems was that the large steel producers Thyssen, Hoesch, Krupp and Mannesmann for decades consciously conducted a blockade policy against the recruiting of other industries and alternative jobs. They feared new industries would forestall their staff due to the hard and dirty working conditions, certainly when no shift work was needed. Bochum in the 60's got a large Opel plant. Dortmund, parallel to the Hoesch decline, managed to recruit jobs in the service sector, mainly insurance companies. In Duisburg that never happened for a very long time. But the decive factor of course was the dogma: We live in a market economy. Only the market con solve the problems etc. The gigantic job losses would have been even bigger without the successful strikes for the introduction of the 35-hour work week, longer holidays and additional free-shifts for shift-workers. This started with the famous 44-day-long strike in the steel branch in 77/78. The shortening of the workweek put a certain brake on job-losses, but the restructuration process in steel went on.

In December 1987 we received word, that the Krupp-management had decided to close down the big steel mill in Duisburg-Rheinhausen (on the west bank of the Rhine, immediately opposite to the city center) with the remaining 5.300 jobs (in reality 3 times more, as always in heavy industry). The battle of Rheinhausen caused a wave of solidarity, culminating in a sort of regional general strike on december 10th in 1987.  The fight resulted not in a smashing victory for the workers, but was successful in various aspects. A reduced steel mill remained until 1993. Not one single steel-worker went to the dole. Thousands got “Ersatz-jobs” in the steel branch or in the regional chemical industry and a good social plan was signed. A further result was 0,5 billion euros of national and sub-national grants for new investments in Duisburg. After the closing of the Krupp steel mill and many quarrels about the price for the previous Krupp industrial area in Rheinhausen, it was completely demolished and transformed into a vast semi-public logistic centre (Logport) with many new, but foremost badly paid jobs.

Mega-projects

"In the late eighties and even more in the nineties we had a real fever on the regional and local level to set up socalled lighthouse projects, whatever it may cost. In the neighbouring city of Oberhausen the former Thyssenplant was replaced by a large shopping mall with leisure facilities named CentrO. If I remember well, the area was bought from Thyssen by public funds for roughly 40 Euro per m². The demolition of buildings, concrete and iron and the measures to be taken against the toxic remains of a hundred year long steel production reclaimed public money of roughly 180 Euro per m². From the mid-nineties on, the Duisburg city administration (traditionally led by the SPD) was eager to get something similar in the shape of “Multi Casa”. With 150.000 m² sales area, it should even be bigger as CentrO. We opposed these plans for various reasons. It was out of question, that Duisburg should do something against the constant drain of money spent someware else in the region. But what and how? Our main argument was: The Multi Casa complex – to be constructed on a former goods depot area on the periphery of the inner town – would definitively destroy the remaining economic life in the traditional city center. The Green Party was in opposition to the project as well, less vehemently however. We campaigned for a well thought-out plan of revitalising the city center. But the overwelming council-majority showed dollar-marks in their eyes. Even coaches with Dutch clients would come massively to buy in the shopping mall. It should be a repetition of what had happened with the CentrO. But spending-capacity in this region simply is not big enough for two – or even more - of such centers. Many more cities in our region had plans like that. You can only transfer spending-capacity from one place to another. The controversy lasted 6 years in which the leading SPD was unable either to get in through or to change its position. In the end the SPD was isolated, many shop-keepers in the town center and the commercial institutions got angry, the commercial decline went on, each and every investment stopped, while the realisation of the “lighthouse project” Multi Casa was suspended in the air. Controversial public debates about some more costly and very badly handling of further light-house projects like a new philharmonic and congress center in the inner city (Urbanum), the drawn-out debate about a fourth (public) casino in North-Rhine-Westfalia to be build in Duisburg or the public losses for the closing of the Musical Les Misérables – which failed after a short period of success - contributed to a massive downturn for the social-democrats. After the big electoral blow against the SPD in 2004 – after 53 years they were ousted from the local government and they lost even the lord mayor to a CDU-candidate – the situation drastically changed. Opinions in the council began to change, also in the CDU. Finally CDU, Green Party and we got a majority for the burial of the Multi Casa project. Revitalizing projects in the inner city instead came to the fore, such as the new congress and philharmonic center (including the controversial casino), the shopping center Forum with 60.000 m² sales area (now under construction and to be opened in autumn 2008), a new building which should host the central library, the local adult education centre (Volkshochschule) and the antifascist museum of the Nazi-times in Duisburg. Most recently the famous London architects Foster and partners presented a masterplan for the inner city (less cars, more green, more water (...).
I cannot prove, but the reason for the SPD being so engaged with the Multi Casa-project, might probably have been the close ties between the former SPD-secretary of state (...) in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Jörg Bickenbach, now a representative of the real estate developer ECE, that sought to get the Multi Casa development after companies like Trizec had withdrawn. I do not know, but there was rumors that the SPD even received donations for its services (Parteispenden).” (...)

IBA Emscher Park

"IBA had a lot of positive aspects. Old derelict industrial districts have been recycled very useful for tourism, leisure, culture and museums. Those premises however were seriously polluted. The late owners got away easily from it. 430.000 m2 for example had in Duisburg been sold by Thyssen for roughly 0,5 Euro (at that time the symbolic 1 Deutsche Mark) to the NRW-government, and that was it. With that the industry has been able to abdicate it's responsibility for the soil pollution, for the demolition of buildings and machinery no longer needed. That was criticized at that time yet. Okay, in Duisburg, the above mentioned former Thyssen-area was transformed into a now very popular leisure park (Landschaftspark Nord) with various event- and music halls, summer-cinema inside a former blast-furnace, diving in a former gas-store and resorts for endangered plants and insects.

 
In the inner city, a section of the Duisburg port facilities with its huge former grain storage buildings – the Innenhafen – was during the nineties transformed into a popular scenery with restaurants, museums as well as private and public adminstration buildings. To be true: The Innenhafen is one of the few well-done Megaprojects of the then socialdemocratic era.

One more example: In december last year, the city council decided unanimously to buy a heavily polluted industrial terrain of a former recycling factory for toxic dusts from the steel industry in the suburb Duisburg-Wanheim. The last owner, a US-group, had lost its interest to run it and let it go bancrupt. As there was no alternative, we had to accept that 55 Mio. Euro had to be paid to the officil receiver from public funds (Land, EU-Ziel2). If the public administration and regional government would have denied the deal, it would have notwithstanding been responsible for costly measures to clear the area and avoid a dangerous toxication of the Rhine. Another striking example, how “modern” capitalism is functioning, how profits are privatised and losses are socialised. The area will now be transformed into Logport II, an extension of the Rheinhausen-based Loport I”.

Housing stock

“Traditionally, Duisburg has a large poor housing stock. There were lots of company-owned houses, but also many houses of private owners. Little investment was made, maintenance was poor, pollution from the neighbouring steel industry heavy. The Thyssen company yet has built many new workers-homes in the 60's en 70's in the more periferic regions. Because of the bad quality and surroundings unoccupancy came about in the traditional dwelling areas. People moved away. Specially due to my job as works councilor I know a lot of those houses from the inside. Landlords said to themselves: let the homes be ruined by neglect, put in migrant workers. That was accepted for long, until more and more people began to criticize. These dwelling areas today are the strongholds of the migrant population, which many of their members want to improve or leave ."

“Duisburg should have started much earlier with a thoroughgoing urban regeneration. We for example have instruments to start with like a council owned housing corporation, GEBAG (Duisburger Gemeinnützige Baugesellschaft AG), possessing 15.000 rental houses. Amongst those are many old miners homes, to whom the corporation does nothing. Rather they want to sell them. But there are many elderly people or widows in, who can not or do not want to buy. At the same time GEBAG has built luxury apartments in the inner city as well."

"As early as in the 70's, occupants' and tenants' associations came into existence. In the Rheinpreußensiedlung in Homberg-Hochheide, a miners' homes complex, built by mining contractor Haniel, they succeeded in the preservation of the houses with renovation. Eisenheim in Oberhausen is another example. In the northern part of Duisburg, in Neumühl, we have a GEBAG building complex of small nice old miners homes with gardens, that got no more investments at all. This has been privatized meanwhile, and refurbished. In Beeckerwerth, a former miners building complex from the twenties has most recently been brought under listed building conservation." (...)

"Thyssen and Krupp - after the merger of the two groups in the mid-90's - possessed overall 40.000 dwellings in the whole Ruhr-district. Since the eighties they sold many of them to their workers and in recent years most of the remaining stock to American speculators. The same holds true for the old railmen settlements in southern Duisburg. Now the CDU-FDP government of NRW ist about to sell a big housing company of the Land with 100.000 rental homes to investment funds. We took part in the massive protests against it.”

"The development and future of the housing stock is massively influenced by the loss of citizens in old industrial towns like Duisburg. This holds true for the whole region.  The decrease of manpower in the big industries, the lack of new jobs, pollution-problems, crises in the economic conjuncture and so on have contributed to a considerable decrease of our population. Duisburg alone went down from more than 600.000 inhabitants in the sixties to roughly 490.000 nowadays. At the moment, we only have 146.000 normal jobs (sozialversicherungspflichtige Vollzeitjobs). This number corresponds to cities with 300.000 inhabitants. The tendency is still falling and no turn-around in sight. By the way: Meanwhile one fifth of the local population is made up of migrants or people with roots in migrant families.

People who could afford it, have moved to places outside Duisburg. This, by the way, resulted in a huge increase of commuter traffic with related environmental and congestion problems. Due to the prevailing tax-system, cities like Duisburg have lost a horrible share of tax-income, while costs to uphold the infrastructure remained. The city could have stemmed this process. But not on its own, also with the support of the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Bund and the EU. Nowadays Duisburg tries to allure and hold young families, with new housing schemes. Therefore we have supported Foster's Masterplan for the Inner City: more greens, more waters, canals, reduction of the traffic area. We additionally emphasize a social program. And we want additional masterplans for the suburbs (i.e. for the 7 Stadtbezirke) in line with our programmatic position to introduce a more balanced relationship between the center and the periphery. You don't improve a city by mere money earning and spending in the city alone.” (...)

"In our view GEBAG should start building cheap, but good homes according to ecological standards. Few has been decided on this, until now. The danger is, that CDU and Greens will privatise it. This was suggested by consultants, they had hired last year in order to “create ideas for reducing the tremendous local deficit” of more than 3 billion Euro. In May, against the resistance of a front of trade unionists, patient groups and parts of the political scenery including DIE LINKE, they already sold 49 % of the big communal hospital to the private hospital chain Sana. At the other hand there are plans for privatizing several council corporations, the public buildings or engage in public private partnership projects to renovate schools. We fight those plans, in a very good cooperation with the concerned trade unions like Ver.di. Public goods and services are essential for a good municipality and for democracy as well. Privatisation and PPP is in the long run no solution, but creates even bigger problems."

“Okay, in our opinion, it would be very useful to make the housing problems and the fight against privatisation of public goods a main issue in the next local elections in 2009 and in our election campaign for the Landtag in 2010. Besides, we want a more reflective junction between the inner city and the surrounding districts, who also need regeneration. The peripheral districts have been neglected completely by the traditional mainstream politics. Meanwhile the CDU and the Green Party have understood slightly better. However, not everything they bring forward is worth an uncritical support. In Marxloh and Bruckhausen (Duisburg-North) they want a greenery scheme that runs into 70 million euro. Marxloh an Bruckhausen have a huge level of unoccupancy, mainly houses in a bad condition, very close to the steel industry. Unoccupancy there amounts 30 to 40 percent. The ThyssenKrupp houses in that area were not involved in the sell-out to the American speculators. They are intended to be demolished."

"In Marxloh, Bruckhausen and a small part of Beeck homes straight right to the industrial premises should be demolished, so that there comes about an open belt between industry and housing estates. This should also improve the social climate. One should know that in the northern region of Duisburg since the eighties, a fairly strong citizens movement against industrial pollution (mainly dust, noise and many toxic emissions like cadmium, lead, PAK ) is active. It succeeded to prevent the construction of a big incineration plant for toxic waste after a year-long struggle in 1994, pushed through additional environmental protection systems in the steel industry, enforced a special clean air plan and so on.  A considerable and influential part of DIE LINKE Duisburg comes from that movement. Against this plan of a “Northern green belt” DIE LINKE supports a strong local citizens movement with the following arguments: We don’t want that several hundred houses are demolished and 1.000 persons transferred. Instead we want a thoroughgoing sanitation of the blast furnaces, steel works, cokery and iron-ore stocks, as the prevent pollution. ThyssenKrupp should not be allowed to proceed like before. Instead we want to take part in a process of carefully planned restructering of our municipal areas. The concept for a “perforated city” we do support: bad buildings down, more greenery, but also clean air. We want to involve experts, and see how those questions are tackled in other cities and countries. Then still the particulate matter will remain. But on this ThyssenKrupp refuses to cooperate and the Black-and-Green city administration (Grüne and CDU) tries to prevent any conflict with the steel bosses. Genuinely poor houses may vanish. But other houses could obtain a listed building status, and be renovated. The houses ain't poor all the lot. There have been many demonstrations for better involvement for the occupants' associations in the plan modeling process. In August 07, it had become clear, that the original plans of the city administration could not be pushed through. Various expert opinions (Fachgutachten) on the environmental effects, the juridical questions and infrastructural questions (städtebauliches Gutachten) were like nails in the green belt project. Their conclusion: Dust from smokestacks, blast furnaces and steelworks will not be stopped by a green belt. The city administration had to retreat and promissed to think over the whole project. I think, they will come out with a plan on a much smaller scale. In any case, we want, that the ThyssenKrupp company has to pay the bulk of the 70 Million Euros. The company is the main culprit for the misery and intends to get the main benefit. ” (...)

Coalition of town hall and contractors

"Traditionally the steel industry had lobbyists in any political party. The SPD councilors were especially influenced by this industrial lobby. For a very long time each and every ecological, social or infrastructural demand was rejected or watered down with the ritual saying: “Don’t endanger the jobs”. In reality, their politics of course did not save jobs. They performed thereby a conservative policy, that did not answer the crisis. We call it industrial opportunism. Due to the bad general development of the SPD and its acceptance of neoliberal concepts in all spheres of politics, the local SPD is also far from being a strategic partner for us. As You know, the nationwide upsurge of DIE LINKE is the progressive answer of the deep going crisis of the SPD."

Democracy and the officialdom influence

"On the whole process the officialdom holds a strong influence. We want, that the elected bodies (Stadtrat, Bezirksvertretung) have more rights. Up to know its nearly impossible for an individual member of the city council, to have a look into the files of the administration. Its not possible for smaller factions too. Due to the existing law (Gemeindeordnung NRW) you first have to be entitled by a majority of the elected body. In practice, this excludes the free right of information for city councilors. We want that all our inhabitants, not only the citizens, but tens of thousands of migrants without substantial civil rights too, can participate in real democracy. As the neoliberal parties are against more democracy, its very difficult to more forward. In Duisburg, we at least have been partially successful. Before the annual city budget is voted in the city council, administrative representatives and the lord mayor himself give a report about the draft budget and the intended investions on the borough level. This information process is about to be improved in the near future.

We want that all the inhabitants (independent from their legal status) are not only informed about budget planning but have a say concerning the priorities of the city budget, at least the investment projects. This means a participative budget. In German: Beteiligungs- oder Bürgerhaushalt due to the many cities and different forms in the world like in Brazil, France or New Zealand. This type of enlarged democracy could be introduced on the local level without previously changing laws. Furthermore we want to strengthen the seven borough councils' competencies. For this they have to be better equipped financially. Besides, we want to equalize the term for senior officers and councilors. Senior officers are now elected by the council for eight years, the council only for five. This of course is only possible if the laws on the regional state-level are changed.