The Fiducia Association will again request a halt to the demolitions in the Ostrava colony Bedřiška

Ostrava – The Fiducia Association will once again demand at the March meeting of the Ostrava City Council that the district halt irreversible actions in the former mining colony Bedřiška in the municipal district of Mariánské Hory and Hulváky. Last year, five uninhabited buildings were demolished there. Ilona Rozehnalová from Fiducia, who initiated the event, told journalists after today’s planning workshop, where experts and politicians discussed the situation in the area. However, residents' spokesperson Eva Lehotská does not believe that today’s discussion will fundamentally change the situation in the colony. She sees a chance for possible salvation in the upcoming municipal elections and a potential change in district and city leadership.

Bedřiška has long been a contentious issue in the city. The district office does not want to take care of the houses in the settlement. According to them, they are beyond their lifespan, and the costs of repairs are high. The district wants to evict tenants and leave the area as a strategic land reserve. They are offering residents alternative accommodation. Residents state that the Finnish houses in the settlement are not in such poor condition. Opponents of the demolition also argue that the colony is an example of unique community work, where a socially weak area has been transformed into a functional neighborhood and serves as an example of harmonious coexistence between the Roma community and the majority society.

According to Rozehnalová, today's discussion showed that the materials available for further decision-making are insufficient to assess the state of the infrastructure in the colony. "It would be good to refine those materials so that it is possible to confirm or refute whether the housing there is inappropriate. The options are demolition, status quo (maintaining the current state), and theoretically development. The fundamental conflict that has been here is whether that infrastructure is sufficient for the status quo or insufficient, and in what condition it is," Rozehnalová said. She believes that the city should have sufficient materials available to clearly understand how much demolition and any potential development project would cost compared to the cost of maintaining the current housing.

Rozehnalová also thinks that the city's working group dealing with the situation in Bedřiška needs adjusting. The city has faced long-term criticism for the unbalanced composition of the working group, which does not function well. "For example, the Agency for Social Inclusion is missing, which today expressed interest in returning there," Rozehnalová noted.

She added that she wants to resubmit a resolution proposal to the councilors in March, in which the city will ask the district to halt all irreversible actions, namely the stoppage of demolitions and the eviction of residents. She also wants to request an expansion of the working group and the creation of necessary materials for further decision-making. The Fiducia Association unsuccessfully requested a temporary suspension of irreversible actions in January. However, Rozehnalová reminded that councilors agreed at least that the district would take the outputs of the planning workshop into account in its further decision-making. She hopes that the councilors will be willing to respect today's conclusions.

Lehotská welcomed today's planning workshop but does not believe in fundamental changes in the city's and district's stance. "I think there was a clear and evident unwillingness to solve anything today. The only thing that can influence this are future elections. We wanted irreversible actions to at least not be carried out until the elections, but the answer was, as always, evasive," she stated.

Last year, the district had five houses demolished in Bedřiška. Their demolition was authorized by the Vítkovice building authority. The Ostrava City Hall, which Lehotská turned to with a proposal, decided that the demolition was authorized in violation of legal regulations and based on insufficient materials from the district. The district defends itself by saying that it did not act unlawfully, but based on a valid decision from the building authority.