Campus Baggerweier – The future cannot be postponed

Fernand WEIMERSKIRCH Bech-Kleinmacher Schengen

When a community is shaped over decades, it is rarely the small decisions that make the difference. It is the decisions that cannot be reversed because they are set in stone, concrete – and ultimately in the reality of life for future generations.

The municipal council of Schengen faced just such a decision on 27 January 2026: the vote on the projet définitif détaillé of the Campus Baggerweier megaproject.

And with it, the municipality itself faces a fundamental question: Do we want to shape the future – or do we want to manage it?

More than just a construction project

You can look at the Baggerweier campus from a technical perspective: as a central school, fire station and sports hall. As a plan, a construction site, a financial item.

But if you leave it at that, you are only seeing the surface.

In fact, it is about three pillars that form the core of municipal responsibility:

• Education – as the basis for equal opportunities and future viability

• Safety – as a duty and promise to the population,

• Community – as the lifeline of a community, supported by clubs and volunteers.

  
  

This is particularly crucial in a merged parish. Merged municipalities need more than just administrative structures. They need visible locations that create identity, shorten distances and bring people together. A campus can do just that: not as a symbol, but as a functioning infrastructure in everyday life.

The debate was tough – and it was necessary

No one should deny that the past few years have been marked by intense discussions. At the municipal council table as well as outside it, in conversations, in committed circles, at regulars' tables, in families.

Not only were arguments exchanged, but concerns were also raised: concerns about financing, scale, environmental impact, mobility and transparency. Some citizens would undoubtedly have liked to see earlier, broader and more consistent participation.

These objections deserve respect.

But a community cannot exhaust itself in endless discussion. At some point, debate ceases to be about clarification and becomes about delay. And delay is also a decision – just one whose costs are rarely openly quantified.

The courage to make decisions is not recklessness – it is a political duty

There are moments when local politics must be more than just critical observation. It must be able to take responsibility – even under imperfect conditions.

For it is an illusion to believe that large infrastructure projects will ever fully meet all expectations. Those who wait until a project is beyond reproach are ultimately choosing not perfection, but stagnation.

And stagnation is not a neutral state for a community. Stagnation means:

• necessary infrastructure becoming obsolete,

• that opportunities remain unexploited,

• that problems are postponed until the future – at greater cost.

  
  

The Baggerweier campus is therefore not a question of comfort. It is a question of long-term capacity to act.

122 million euros – an argument against the project?

The planned investment volume of at least €122 million is a fact that cannot be relativised. Such a sum is an enormous challenge for any municipality. And it would be negligent not to consider this amount with the utmost caution.

Of course, the following applies:Large projects involve large risks.

• Costs rise,

• Schedules shift,

• Resources are tied up,

• other projects have to wait.

  
  

But this does not necessarily mean no. It means something else: a commitment to control.

Because when a municipality decides to implement such a project, it must also ensure that it is managed politically and financially – consistently, transparently and in a structured manner.

Approval is not a blank cheque

A yes to the campus must never be understood as a free pass. Rather, it must be seen as a mandate

• to the council of aldermen to manage the project in a resilient manner,

• to the local council to resolutely exercise its supervisory function,

• all parties involved to provide transparent information and act in a solution-oriented manner.

  
  

This also includes a new culture in the monitoring of the project: regular reporting, public overview of progress, clearly identifiable responsibilities.

A permanent agenda item such as "Focus on the Baggerweier Campus" would therefore not be a minor matter, but an instrument of modern democratic control – and a signal to the population that this project is not being "waved through" but is being managed responsibly.

Opposition does not mean reflex – it means responsibility.

The vote on 27 January was not just a vote on a project. It also serves as a barometer of political maturity.

Opposition is not limited to expressing doubts. Doubts are important, but they must lead to a position.

A fundamental rejection of this project is only credible if there is a viable alternative model: with proposed solutions, financing, alternative locations, timelines and feasibility. Without this alternative, rejection is not creation, but refusal.

And abstention? When it comes to a decision of this magnitude, abstention is not neutrality. It is a delegation of responsibility.

The campus will shape budget policy

Even those who are only looking at today's vote need to think ahead. In the coming years, the Baggerweier campus will influence the budget like no other project.

This means that this vote will have political consequences – on budget debates, on the setting of priorities and on the credibility of political actors.

That is precisely why clarity is needed. And that is precisely why we need an approach that puts the common good above short-term tactical advantages.

If you want a future, you have to decide in favour of it

The Baggerweier campus is large, expensive, complex – and vulnerable. But it also represents a rare opportunity: the opportunity to strengthen the municipality of Schengen in the long term, to reorganise infrastructure, to give children and families a future, to provide emergency services with the necessary resources, and to give clubs the space they need.

This project can be criticised. In fact, it must be critically monitored.

But anyone who puts the common good first will find it difficult to come to any other conclusion after weighing up the pros and cons:

To vote against it on principle would be to shy away from the future.

And the future cannot be postponed!