He talks about the construction of Lake Neusiedl in a long report Austrian standard. The government planned a total of 7.9 billion HUF to develop the second largest lake in Hungary in 2016, then this amount was first raised to 23.2 billion HUF in 2019, and finally to 32 billion HUF. Transparent for two years Presented in a long articleWhat is this investment.
There are plans to build an environmental center, sports center, marina, 100-bed hotel, guesthouses, campground, restaurant, new beach and harbor to attract more tourists here, and a parking lot for 880 places will be built, written after that.
Locals told The Transparent that the investment started in the first place, because Rachel of Urban has been sailing in Fertőrákos for a few years and he loved the place. The Hungarian Tourism Agency (MTÜ) was responsible for the project, in which the daughter of the Prime Minister was also interested. MTÜ was the owner of a company called Sopron-Fertő Turistikai Fejlesztő Nonprofit Zrt. Béla Kárpáti of Fertőszentmiklós, which coordinates specific actions and is headed by a local KDNP politician.
Today’s benchmark article also precedes that the government has stopped the project once in the past year, at a time when thirty NGOs from twenty countries wrote a joint letter of protest to UNESCO to protect Lake Neusiedl, the third largest stagnant water in Central Europe. The mission was subsequently withdrawn from the Hungarian Tourism Agency Ltd., Chief of the Prime Minister’s Office, Antal Rogan, and handed over to Minister Jirjeli Gulyas.
Finally, in October 2020, we did not care about the resistance of the population, or even the encroachment measures that were initiated in the meantime, reducing the funds allocated from 32 billion HUF to 9 billion Ft, but construction began.At the moment, a huge port with 813 dhows and 500 boats will be built with this money. The contractor became the one the locals expected for only two years: Mészáros és Mészáros Kft. It is not clear whether the hotel and related facilities have been permanently abandoned, but the standard is based on the assumption that it is not.
The article shows a drone video made by a mysterious man about what the protected area now looks like. The Austrian newspaper also notes that it is forbidden to make unauthorized registrations of drones in Hungary, so we do not know the name of the owner of the video, who only wrote in his letter that he spent the summer of his childhood on the shore of the lake in Vertracus. He is now “ruining his childhood dream”. The air view shows tools and reeds.
According to environmental expert Zoltan Kuhn, who spoke to the newspaper, the planned economic use far exceeds what can be allowed in the national park.
“They could upgrade the beach and port, but a hotel, tennis court, sports center, and 880-car parking lot could not be built in the national park. The reeds that are part of the ecosystem would be cut off over a large area, and if the project is completed, the number of cars coming to Here it will triple at least.
Due to the investment, the pile homes on the lake will also be demolished. They are in a very special situation. Before the regime change, they were built as public resorts, then the homes themselves became privately owned, privately by Austrian individuals, while the area they stand on (roughly the surface of the lake) is still state-owned.
in December I showedThey have ordered its demolition under the pretext of fire protection and building regulations, in addition to the costs of the owners. According to an article in an Austrian newspaper, most of them have already been demolished. By the end of April, they should all be gone. Through the investor, several owners have received a quote from a Hungarian company. This was around one hundred thousand euros (36 million HUF at today’s exchange rate), while they managed to acquire a demolition contractor themselves from 30 thousand euros. They say they bowed before ordering the demolitions because they wanted to provide lengthy and costly court cases with the Hungarian authorities.
The article concludes with a speech by Andrea Gyurica, one of the homeowners. His family decided not to demolish the building.
“We simply knew that at the time. The owners of the state could not do what they wanted with the citizens.”