Recently, we have encountered statements made by officials of the city of Ostrava and the Mariánské Hory and Hulváky (MHaH) district that are untrue and manipulative in nature. These statements, which are probably intended to turn the general public against us, the residents of Bedřiška, cause us anger, frustration, and sadness, because it is important to us that our communication and cooperation are based on decency and mutual respect. All of these claims can be easily refuted using publicly available information and common sense. Let's take a look at five such claims:
1. Apparently, we only pay 5-10% of the market rent.
This is stated by Mr. Vojtěch Bednařík in a discussion under an article about Bedřiška on SeznamZpravy.cz. Based on the name and access to "insider" information, we assume that this is Mgr. Vojtěch Bednařík, head of the legal department at MHaH. We assume that he used the Czech Ministry of Finance's price map of market rent for MHaH in his calculations: 206CZK/m2. According to his statement, the municipal rent in MHaH is 130CZK/m2. People in Bedřiška pay basic rent ranging from 48CZK to 80CZK/m2 (the amount of rent in individual apartments can be verified upon request by means of registration sheets). After conversion, Bedřiška pays rent amounting to 37-61.5% of usual rent, which is normally paid by tenants in municipal housing in MHaH. In addition to this rent, we also pay monthly payments for the rental of a boiler, stove, water heater, and rent for the land. So, from which rent did Mr. Bednařík calculate that 5-10%: the market rent from MHaH, the municipal rent in MHaH, or the average rent for the whole of Ostrava? Either way, the math is relentless, and in no case does it come out to 5-10%. Moreover, as an expert, Mr. Bednařík should know that there is also Government Regulation No. 453/2013 Coll., which sets out the details and procedure for determining the comparable rent customary in a given location. This regulation takes into account the condition of the property, the location of the apartment, accessibility, civic amenities in the area, and many other indicators. In light of these indicators, the current rent is more than reasonable.
2. Apparently, we do not want to pay higher rent.
We certainly do not reject a significantly higher base rent. However, on one condition that is the renovation of our houses so that we have a similar quality of living as tenants in other parts of the district. This claim can be substantiated by the conclusions of the participatory activities of September 24, 2024, in which the residents of Bedřiška unanimously stated that they are prepared to pay increased rent of approximately 140–160CZK/m2 after the revitalization of the houses (p. 12, point 5).
3. Apparently, the sewerage and water supply systems in Bedřiška are in a dire state.
In this context, it is interesting to note the documentation for the building permit for a new community center (actually an Orthodox prayer hall) that was to be built in Bedřiška and is being processed by the Building Authority in Ostrava-Vítkovice under file number VITK/16947/24/SŘDaOP/Ba. According to page 7/11 of the case file, this Orthodox prayer hall for 140 people was to be connected to the existing infrastructure. So is our infrastructure bad or not?
4. Apparently, we funding of 12 million per person.
When investments in Bedřiška are discussed publicly, two figures are mentioned: revitalization costs of 500-700 million CZK and 50 residents currently living in Bedřiška. This gives us 12 million in costs per resident. We are left wondering how stupid it is to combine these two figures. The amount of 500-700 million CZK corresponds to the amount of the original city project (Revitalization of the Bedřiška Colony from 2021), increased by inflation. However, it is no longer mentioned that this revitalization included not only the reconstruction of existing houses and the preservation of the current community, but also the construction of new houses: after revitalization, 350–540 residents were to live in Bedřiška. This brings us to an average of 1.3 million in revitalization costs per resident—roughly 9 times less than stated. Could it be that city officials were unaware of this?
5. Apparently, the Bedřiška working group is a joint forum for discussion.
In connection with the working group, in which, according to the city, we are jointly discussing the fate of Bedřiška, there is often talk of Bedřiška representatives. However, while the plural is used, there are nine representatives of the city and the district in the working group and only one representative of the residents of Bedřiška! Changing the composition of this working group is the second of our five demands to the city dated May 14 (see our demands). The current composition of the working group is coercive and makes joint negotiations completely impossible, not only because of the unbalanced 9:1 ratio.
It is difficult for us to express politely how much anger, frustration, and sadness these statements cause us. We want public representatives to treat us fairly and for our mutual relations to be based on decency and mutual respect. We therefore call on the city to respond to these five statements and either prove us right or, using public resources—as we do—demonstrate where we are wrong.