Ságvári Ágnes (szerk.): Budapest. The History of a Capital (Budapest, 1975)
Documents
His Honour the Chief Burgomaster* declared in his inaugural address that he will always favour any extension of the rights of self-government of the capital. With his well-disposed support we can achieve our aim the more easily, since we are all convinced of the goodwill of the government. This ceremonial event is not an appropriate occasion for the presentation of my detailed proposals for a reform of the Municipality Act. I should like to refer to only a few points in it. What must be done first and foremost is unequivocally to define and assure the sphere of the autonomous jurisdiction of the capital. The municipal franchise must be reformed and extended to the whole resident population of the capital. As long as the delegates of a capital of 800,000 inhabitants are elected by 20,000 to 25,000 electors, and even their will is easily “voted down” by resolutions from a few hundred people, as long as all resolutions and measures passed by the General Assembly are subject to appeal against them to the government, we cannot speak of genuine self-government. Instead of an artificial pseudo-autonomy we must create a system of municipal self-government which is independent, and founded on the strength of the whole body of citizens of the capital. One may hope that the representative organ of the municipality will thus take shape independent of political parties, based on competing municipal party programmes, and will pursue a consistent purposeful municipal policy which will worthily represent and enforce the interests of the masses of the capital in the widest sense, and consequently the interests of the entire body of citizens. If we desire to set the future of the capital steadily on a clear-set course, we must see that the city is provided with all the resources needed to satisfy the cultural, traffic and economic needs of our citizens in the best possible manner. This also applies to the public utility companies. We must also change the development policy of the city. Aware as we were of the difficulties raised by haphazard suburban development, we put an arbitrary stop to it several years ago, but in fact we did not halt the random development but rather arrested the growth of population and development of the suburbs. A flood of suburban development thus deformed, has enveloped the environs of the capital, and this already poses a threat to its social, sanitary and financial interests. We must consequently remove the artificial barriers hindering the development of the suburbs and find ways of developing the city on a systematic basis. In those districts where the land is for the most part in municipal possession, the city may divide it into lots, and is in a position to build cheap and healthy housing. This is an important social duty of the capital. The same factors accentuate and bring to the fore the whole question of the administrative attachment of the villages situated round the capital, and we shall certainly have to consider this question. I shall not go in any detail into the financial situation of the capital and the responsibilities facing us here, because these questions will be on the agenda when the 1907 budget is presented and discussed, on which occasion I shall be in the position to explain my views on the question to the honourable General Assembly in detail. In the present circumstances we are undoubtedly in particular need of a sympathetic attitude on the part of the Govern* The Chief Burgomaster of Budapest was a government official delegated to the city government to exercise supervision in matters defined by law. 96
