FlorAalsmeer Argument – Annual Reports 2024, BuRap & Policy Statement 2026

Chair,

Today we're discussing the 2024 annual accounts and the 2026 policy framework. These are documents filled with bold words, long sentences, and a wealth of ambition. But behind all those policy rules and graphs lies one simple question: has the life of our residents truly improved? Because that's what it's all about. Not about ticking boxes on paper, but about trust in government. Not about budget results, but about security of existence, housing, healthcare, and safety for people here in Aalsmeer and Kudelstaart.

In a sense, this is a moment of balance, but also of truth. What has this council achieved in recent years? What are the lessons learned? And above all: what will Aalsmeer look like under this administration?

As the opposition party, we're going to be honest about this today. Because while the council congratulates itself on a "healthy financial position" and "ambitious plans," we see a different picture in practice. A picture of good intentions without any guarantees. Of money flowing, but no one knows if it's being used properly. Of goals on paper without any monitoring of their effectiveness.

We see a council that describes its work in terms of commitment and intentions – but not in results. We read that "goals have largely been achieved," but nowhere is it explained how, for whom, or with what measurable results. As a council, we should be able to base our decisions on facts and impact. But when we ask about impact measurement, the answers remain vague. This is not only frustrating, but it also demonstrates administrative immaturity.

When a municipality spends millions on youth care, the Social Support Act (Wmo), and participation, you need to know: is it working? Where is the money going? Is it helping? That's not mistrust; it's healthy democratic oversight. What we're doing now is spending public money and hoping for the best. The executive board sets goals—but doesn't measure their achievement anywhere. Policy without impact measurement is policy blindness.

Madam/Mr. Chair, this can and must be done differently. We endorse the auditor's advice and the audit committee's recommendations. Therefore, we propose today that we systematically document and actively inform the council on a regular basis how we measure and whether the policy is working. Not just good intentions, but hard data. As far as we're concerned, this should be done with clear performance indicators for each program:

- Social Domain:

Percentage of young people receiving youth care: is this decreasing thanks to prevention?

- Costs per client: do they remain below the regional average?

- Wmo waiting times: will they be shorter?

- Living:

- How many homes have actually been built, and is the distribution correct: 35% social housing, 30% middle housing, 35% expensive?

How many elderly people from Aalsmeer and Kudelstaart have moved on as a result, and how many first-time buyers have been able to buy or rent a home?

- Public Space:

- Is the green maintenance at the agreed level?

- Are residents more satisfied with their neighborhood?

- Sustainability:

What is the ecological impact? The Energy Master Plan doesn't include an ecological impact analysis, no attention to biodiversity, and no clear cost estimate for residents. It offers benefits for businesses but leaves residents out in the cold.

- Finances:

The year ends with a positive result – but that's mainly due to incidental windfalls from the central government. Structurally, the picture will decline after 2027. Costs will rise. Taxes will have to increase. There is still no conclusive strategy for structural deficits. How resilient will we be if the incidental windfalls dry up?

Without measurable results, everything remains just a story. By embedding this in the 2026 program budget, we're not just managing on paper, but also in practice.

Our clear proposal is: measure what you say you do or have done.

And then there's the housing market. There are over 14,000 people looking for a home, but the homes being built are too expensive and are disappearing to people from outside the city. First-time buyers and seniors remain on waiting lists, an average of 13 years. This is building for the market, not for our residents.

Let me give you one poignant example. Last year, FlorAalsmeer submitted a proposal document focusing on retirement homes for the elderly and apartments for young people. A concrete plan, in line with the housing vision, with broad support and clearly identified locations.

The alderman made promises. But discussions with landowners were never held. In fact, the initiative was systematically blocked by the coalition. And why? Because they argued for the preservation of the horticultural concentration area and the Greenport status. None of that would have been possible. But now it turns out that a residence for migrant workers is permitted in the Uithoorn part of that very area. So apparently, it is possible after all.

You see: when it comes to decent housing for local residents, everything suddenly becomes impossible. But when it's politically expedient, the objections disappear. This also applies to disappearing historical heritage, which has to make way for apartments that only serve the market. FlorAalsmeer calls this a double standard.

Madam/Mr. Chair, we're seeing the same pattern in the Kudelstaart regional vision, where solar parks and wind turbines are on the table. The coalition claims to be against it, but voted in favor of the plans. And when you then ask, "Can we as a municipality stop this?" the alderman says, "The province decides; there's nothing we can do about it."

But last week, in the Hornmeer umbrella zoning issue, we suddenly saw the opposite: this council is attempting to circumvent provincial policy by artificially splitting a zoning plan. Not for everyone, but for one party. With a weak legal basis and an exception that creates legal inequality.

That's a double standard. Provincial rules apply when convenient—and are stretched when they fit better. This doesn't create trust, but arbitrariness.

Madam/Mr. President, equality before the law is a foundation of good governance. But this council treats it lightly. Take the example of a sports club that received funding through a roundabout route – from the representation budget. No application, no equal treatment, no transparency. Other clubs? They're rejected. That's arbitrariness. And if you allow arbitrariness, you not only lose control, but also trust.

For this reason, in response to the answers to our questions, we have a number of additional and specific questions for the council regarding the so-called subsidy for a sports club in Aalsmeer:

First of all: The council calls this a subsidy, but the response reveals that the money was booked through the representation budget and that it involves shirt sponsorship.

Question: Does the board understand that legally, this is a sponsorship contribution rather than a formal subsidy? And why is the term "subsidy" used?

Secondly: The General Subsidy Regulation sets clear requirements for the provision of subsidies: an application, an assessment, a decision, and substantiation.

Question: Can the council confirm that these steps were not or only partially followed in this case?

Third, sponsorship involves something in return.

Question: Has a written agreement been made regarding the visibility of sponsorship on shirts, and can the council inspect that agreement?

Fourthly: The answer does not make clear how this construction relates to precedent setting.

Question: What frameworks will the board set to prevent sports clubs from applying for a 'subsidy' through the representation budget?

Finally, the board writes that it will 'reflect on the working method followed where applicable'.

Question: When will this reflection actually take place and will the council gain insight into it?

Transparency and due diligence aren't just paper principles, but the foundation of our budgetary law. Using a representation budget for a subsidy—or rather, sponsorship—requires much stricter guidelines. Therefore, FlorAalsmeer is asking the municipal executive to clarify this matter.

Mr President, finally;
We realize that more policy areas were covered in the past council year than we can address in this presentation. Topics such as education, culture, transport, and the economy also deserve attention. But our contribution focuses on the areas where FlorAalsmeer believes the difference is made – or where it's lacking: housing, healthcare, sustainability, legal equality, and administrative transparency. These are the areas where the choices are made that shape the daily lives of our residents. And that's how we assess these annual reports and policy framework.

This council demands trust for the future. But trust isn't earned with just fine words. Trust is earned through actions, clear figures, and by honoring agreements. FlorAalsmeer chooses results-oriented policies, housing for its own residents, meaningful participation, and sustainability with ecology. With clear benchmarks, openness, and respect for everyone. Because that's what Aalsmeer and Kudelstaart deserve.

Thank you.