equilibrium wrote:Can't read German.....so according to the OP, this "apartment" in Fischergasses 18 has been rented since May 2011.
Therefore the apartment being a "flat/residential property" is being used as a religious facility.....clearly wrong function.....yet it has been in full operation since May 2011 and had no issues ever since.....until this appears on the papers dated 8 November 2012.
Need the right property with the right facility/function is required.....Surely it must be cheaper to seek out alternative accommodation elsewhere.
I think you misunderstand something here. The apartment is cheap, because it is just an apartment...
being used as a religious facility.....clearly wrong function.....
What's wrong with that?
yet it has been in full operation since May 2011 and had no issues ever since.....until this appears on the papers dated 8 November 2012.
If you find something suspicious here,
, then be more clear about what it is.
The apartment being used for religious purposes it falls under some law for religious facilities which demands a parking lot to be available. In this case there is no parking lot, there is no parking lot possible, so instead the construction department charges a one-time penalty fee of 9000 euros.
Until recently no one was aware of that. Now the construction department noticed it and demanded the fee.
But yet equally strong, one can offer 9,000 euros in lieu.....what does that really mean?, does that mean the money is used to build a new car parking space or if the money is paid, does that mean a parking space is no longer required even there is space to build one?
And who says it is going to cost 9,000 euros.....based on whos quotations?.....
The penalty fee goes to the construction department (or some other divison of the bureaucracy) as far as I understand. No parking lot is built as there is no space for that. As I said, bureaucracy can be rather silly. But hey, somehow they have to earn money, too. No?
From a legal perspective you are certainly right in that
This is clearly a landlord issue at first
, but the landlord was not aware of this law either. He just rented out the apartment as an apartment. So understandably he does not want to pay the fee for the use "as a religious facility" and would rather terminate the rent contract.
So it seems only proper that the supporters of the monastery step in to pay for it.