Interview with Belit Onay
Hannover's Financial Crisis
Hannover's €2 billion debt crisis forces cuts to culture and youth services
Mr. Onay, the city of Hannover is saddled with around €2 billion in debt. How serious are your financial concerns?
The situation is already dire. While business tax revenues—which collapsed entirely during the coronavirus pandemic—are thankfully rising again to a solid level, we're seeing that the funding for services we're legally required to provide simply no longer adds up. That funding should be coming from the state and federal governments.
Impact on the City
What can Hannover no longer afford as a result?
We were forced to submit a so-called budget consolidation plan with cost-cutting proposals to the state of Lower Saxony—and the only place we can cut is in what are called "voluntary services." The term sounds a bit euphemistic, but these are the very services that make a city worth living in: culture, sports, youth programs. We're still trying to offset some of this through process optimizations—for example, we're transforming a library into a community center and bringing in the Workers' Welfare Association (AWO) as an additional partner. That reduces costs slightly without harming the actual offerings. But we can't keep twisting ourselves into knots. At some point, there's nothing left to squeeze.
Criticism of the Proposals
Yet you take issue with the fact that the federal government, state authorities, and municipal associations compiled a list of services that cities and towns may no longer have to provide in the future? The list, which was made public last week, runs over 100 pages and outlines billions in potential savings.
I fundamentally disagree with how this list was drawn up and with the impression it creates—that the municipal associations, particularly the German Association of Cities, endorse it. This needs to be addressed within the association's executive board, of which I am also a member. I have no idea what mandate my colleagues had to agree on any of this.
Substantive Criticism
I only saw the list in this form after it was leaked. It's a mystery to me how such a draft could have been developed without any feedback from the association itself. I also can't imagine the executive board fully supports this process.
Further Criticism and Demands
We're talking about tasks that were decided by the states and the federal government—tasks we have to implement on the ground. We've said we agree with them in principle and even need them, but the funding was never properly considered, and that's what we need to discuss. The federal government's response—simply slashing everything—might solve the financial problem, but it deepens my municipal ones: What good is a balanced budget if I no longer have a functioning city that guarantees social participation? We're talking about money, but really, this is about people.
The Cuts List
In mid-April, the Paritätische Gesamtverband (the umbrella organization of German welfare associations) leaked a list of proposed cuts compiled by a working group of federal, state, and municipal representatives under the leadership of the Chancellery. The working paper contains 70 cost-cutting measures totaling at least €8.6 billion. The actual savings would be significantly higher, as nearly two-thirds of the proposals lack specific financial figures. The draft list primarily targets services for people with disabilities, children, and young people. When publishing the document, the Paritätische described it as "drastic cuts to the social welfare state."
Most Severe Proposals
Support for the inclusion of people with disabilities is a critical issue. Inclusion isn't a luxury—it's a human right we must uphold. It would be equally absurd to suspend the legal right to full-day childcare for children and parents. The way this is being handled is completely irresponsible: Hannover and many other municipalities have spent years preparing for this legal entitlement, investing heavily to build the necessary infrastructure.
Solutions
Are there ways to improve the revenue side?
Not something I can discuss publicly right now. An idea that's floated in the open doesn't last long.
Expenditure Side
You can always streamline things, but that would require different proposals. Take bureaucracy, for example—it's absolutely out of control because we have to negotiate with federal and state authorities over every single penny we spend. That ties up staff and drains resources. Of course, we could look at how to deliver services more efficiently on the ground—tailored to local conditions, more digital, more modern. But this paper isn't about improving efficiency; it's about scrapping these services altogether. In the end, that will do more harm to cities than provide any real relief.
