Since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, Springplank has made every effort, often under great time pressure, to arrange safe and humane shelter for Ukrainian refugees. In doing so, we worked intensively with the municipality and other parties involved. This regularly went beyond what might normally be expected, including outside working hours and without preconditions.

This is why it troubles us that Springplank is being portrayed as an unreliable party in recent newspaper articles and in the current proceedings with the Municipality of Eindhoven, or as if we did not put the interests of Ukrainian refugees first. This is incorrect and does not do justice to the efforts and results we have achieved together. We expressed our concerns about the tendering procedure to the municipality on time and several times. These concerned the diligence of the process and the possible consequences for the target group and the city. It is therefore unfair that these signals are now being portrayed as obstructionism or unwillingness.

The site on Tongelresestraat has been the subject of discussion from the beginning. The municipality knew exactly the history and the position of the property owner. The tension that has now arisen around this property is therefore related to choices and negligence within the process on the municipal side, including the failure to consult directly and constructively with the owner.

That responsibility is now being publicly shifted towards Springplank, we find careless and not helpful for a sustainable cooperation. Especially since we have visibly contributed to the implementation and communication around the shelter at the request of the municipality. Recent events put the relationship with the municipality under considerable pressure. So far, there has been no personal contact to discuss this with us.

The ongoing court case is separate from this communication. We respect the outcome, but have taken this step because we believe the tender process should be assessed carefully and with an eye for social impact, in the interest of the target group and the city.

In conclusion, commitment, flexibility and willingness to assist in crisis situations are not a given. The way Springplank is currently being handled therefore raises serious questions about how cooperation should be shaped in the future.