After careful consideration, the Cantonal Council and the Government Council have spoken out against the proposal. Based on existing and functioning regulations, they warn of the disproportionately high costs and the far-reaching encroachments on private property if the initiative is actually implemented.

That is why we are highlighting the key points of the initiative for you here, summarising the arguments of the proponents and opponents in a nutshell and presenting you with a well-founded perspective on this proposal, enriched by property professionals, to help you make your own personal decision.

The aim of the initiative

The popular initiative provides for two articles to be added to the cantonal constitution. One is intended to keep access to the shores of lakes and rivers free and make it easier to walk along them. In addition, it calls for shoreline paths to generally run along the land and as close to the shore as possible, whereby unspoilt and ecologically valuable shores are to be preserved undiminished and ecologically enhanced. The second new article calls for the construction of a continuous lakeside path by 2050 by the municipalities concerned for the part of Lake Zurich located on cantonal territory. This is to be financed entirely by the canton.

The arguments of the supporters

• The initiative is based on the opinion that there is a fundamental right to this experience of nature and that there is a broad interest in better riverside paths throughout the canton. It is mentioned that access to bodies of water and the possibility of recreation near water areas is enshrined in federal law.
• Implementation would create high-quality local recreational areas, i.e. publicly accessible excursion destinations.
• The ecological enhancement of shoreline areas leads to more habitat for plants and animals and thus contributes to the preservation of biodiversity.
• The whole thing is seen as a long-term investment in the value of public open spaces that will benefit future generations.
• The fact that individual nature conservation organisations support the initiative is interpreted as a signal that it makes sense.

The arguments of the opponents

• Firstly, the need for the initiative is strongly questioned, as access to riverbank areas throughout the canton of Zurich is already well regulated and in many cases secured by existing paths and laws.
• Accordingly, sufficient investment is already being made in lakeside paths.
• Initial estimates for the required lakeshore path on Lake Zurich are between CHF 370 and 650 million, which would be a burden solely on the cantonal coffers and thus on Zurich taxpayers.
• Its realisation would also lead to encroachments on private property, which could lead to legal conflicts in each individual case.
• In addition, it must be strongly questioned whether sensitive and currently intact natural areas would benefit from a continuously accessible riverside path. This is because there are also nature conservation organisations as well as specialists on the opposing side who are critical or even clearly opposed to the project.
• The prioritisation also appears questionable when considering the current social and infrastructural challenges and such a high financial commitment, as these funds could be used to achieve significantly more for the people of the canton in the areas of education, health or public transport.
• The risks of implementation are also pointed out. Specifically, the technical feasibility, the legal consequences and, last but not least, the usual cost overruns for such major projects.
• The sustainability of such an endeavour is also unequivocally questioned by the opponents due to the follow-up costs for maintenance and renewal.

What has happened so far ... Our look back in history

Between the lines of the initiative and, above all, in the emotional voting campaign of its supporters, you can sense how the beautiful villas directly on the lake are being targeted with a certain amount of disfavour. As if their owners had used their financial means to snatch the natural surroundings by the lake from under their greedy nails without wanting to share them.

But the reality is quite different, as history shows. Because 95 per cent of the shore of Lake Zurich was filled in. Orchestrated and directed by the state through the construction of the railway line and the lakeside road. As the lake level fluctuated greatly in the middle of the 19th century, embankments were required far away from the road. The state demanded massive bank stabilisation, which the new owners were forced to do at their expense. At the time, it was mainly commercial enterprises that were interested in these areas, as they needed flat plots of land, were dependent on the availability of water or wanted to transport their materials and finished products by water at favourable rates.

Private individuals created these shore areas and paid for them, i.e. co-financed the lakeside road. These plots remained in private ownership and can still be freely traded. With the upswing and social change, the tradesmen moved away - also thanks to the new road and railway - and left their plots to families who wanted to live here after the Linth correction. And who always built properties with strict conditions regarding the protection of nature. Requirements that have been extended over time and are now at a level that prioritises the well-being of plants and animals. And their implementation by the individual owners - as you can see impressively if you take another lake cruise on a Lake Zurich boat - is outstandingly well done and fully funded by them.

Therefore: nature conservation and riverside paths are a contradiction

It is obvious to everyone that birds and ducks, for example, fare best when as few people as possible intrude into their habitats. These water clearance lines and water clearances for buildings, driveways, roads and paths are well regulated for the protection of nature and animals. Waving through an initiative that allows the construction of paths along rivers on at least one side or this continuous lakeside path is not progress. After all, animals need protected areas for foraging and rearing their offspring - both above and below the surface of the water. Otherwise, we are encouraging ducks and swans to become dependent on humans for food or to leave the region and fly away forever.

A valuable asset: property security

It's quite simple: property in Switzerland is protected and expropriations are only possible if the state can prove a vital interest for the general public. An expropriation for walking, mind you in a canton with thousands of existing walking and hiking trails, including along the water, would significantly lower the barrier for such serious interventions and awaken new desires that could - if you'll pardon the pun - run rampant. Or wouldn't it be nice if we had more cycle and e-bike paths, picnic areas, dog playgrounds...? There are hardly any limits to the imagination for expropriations and so this initiative is about the cause and our principle of the extent to which we want to respect private property.

A Swiss virtue: maintaining proportionality

If the canton of Zurich, with a population of around 1.6 million, wants to spend 460 million francs - the government council's independent estimate at the lower end of the expected costs - on the lakeside path, you have to ask yourself whether there aren't more important things to do with the average of almost three hundred francs per person, from newborns to the elderly, to be able to walk around Lake Zurich.

Of course, at some point, some Zurich residents will travel from Rafz, Hagenbuch, Niederweningen or Fischenthal to take a closer look at the lakeside path that they are helping to finance. But hand on heart: is this money well spent and, above all, in the right place, given that there are already plenty of public places to enjoy the beauty of Lake Zurich and its unspoilt nature?

Our recommendation to all voters

The need to protect nature is not compatible with people's desire for comfort. As property specialists, we recommend rejecting this initiative, which is difficult to implement, expensive, disproportionate and unnecessary from the point of view of nature, by putting a clearly written and intended NO in the ballot box.