Après l'histoire du bruit nocturne, le candidat à la mairie Matej Vodopivec s'est excité: "C'est un essai de débauche, vous savez que vous vivez à côté d'une voie de circulation principale, les investisseurs vous ont tout simplement trompé!"

A municipal candidate in Maribor has sparked controversy with his sharp response to complaints about nighttime noise from residents living near the main road. Matej Vodopivec, who serves as the chairman of the district of Studenci and is running for mayor, dismissed a letter from a resident detailing ongoing disturbances as “an essay of complaining,” accusing her of failing to recognize the challenges of living near a major highway. The incident highlights growing tensions between local authorities and residents over noise pollution and traffic issues in the area. The letter, published in Slovenske novice, was written by a tenant in a multi-unit building on Studenška Street 107. She described persistent problems including loud music, engine noises, and the sound of modified exhaust systems during late nights and early mornings. She specifically mentioned two BMW vehicles that she claims frequently speed along the street, causing disturbances even in the early hours. Residents have previously raised these concerns with Vodopivec, who has now responded directly to their allegations. In his reply, Vodopivec characterized the anonymous complaint as an attack on him personally and criticized the complainant’s understanding of the law. He emphasized that the district of Studenci is not an enforcement body but rather one that channels citizens' requests to appropriate authorities. He noted that the district has already informed the police department in Maribor and the local police officer, documenting all reports. However, he stressed that the district itself does not take action unless there is a formal complaint from the public. Vodopivec argued that the responsibility for addressing such issues lies with the police, not with the district. He explained that while the district can relay complaints, it does not have the authority to enforce them. He further pointed out that the complainant's approach appears to misunderstand the legal framework governing such matters. “If the anonymous complainant has a different interpretation of the law, let her present it,” he said, adding that the doors of the district remain open to any legitimate concerns. He also criticized the manner in which the issue was presented, suggesting that the complainant had failed to consider the broader context of the area. “You live on a dual-lane road, the fuel station used to be located before the blocks, you knew that you were moving along a dual-lane road, why should I sit here and report this to the police?” he asked, implying that the residents themselves bear some responsibility for choosing their location. Vodopivec acknowledged that the problem exists but framed it as a known issue rather than a new crisis. He admitted witnessing instances of reckless driving on the area’s roads and noted that several accidents have occurred nearby. While agreeing with one of the tenants’ key points, that the noise from fast and loud vehicles is indeed heard far beyond the immediate vicinity, he viewed the situation as a long-standing challenge rather than an urgent emergency. He also highlighted the upcoming expansion of the southern bypass around Maribor, a state-led infrastructure project that will redirect much of the city’s traffic onto the current main road. This development, he warned, could exacerbate existing problems, including increased noise and congestion. “The road is state-owned, not municipal, and the construction of the bypass will lead to more traffic being directed through this area,” he stated, suggesting that the situation may worsen in the coming months. As the debate continues, both sides appear entrenched in their positions. Residents argue that they are being unfairly blamed for living in a high-traffic zone, while Vodopivec maintains that they must take personal responsibility for their choices and that the police, not the district, are the correct authorities to address such complaints. With the state’s infrastructure plans set to intensify traffic flow, the tension between the community and local officials is likely to persist.