As a private citizen, why should I be interested in this political merger?

Will the population be consulted better, listened to more, be richer, be happier... after a merger, even though they were not consulted BEFOREHAND?

NO to a merger that the Authorities would like to impose

Everyone, cast your vote on September 27th

Some excerpts from the various commissions charged with studying the difference between collaboration and merger:
(The texts are images taken from the original reports)

Groupe II - General statement

3. General statement

Our group is also charged with delivering a general opinion. The following recommendation emerges from everyone's personal perceptions since the analysis of other areas conducted in the other working groups haven’t been shared with us.

In general, we regret the absence of a major political project undertaken collaboratively by the communes. While some specific projects such as l'Espace Régional des Pléiades (ERP) demonstrate the ability to successfully eng
age in a common commitment, they are insufficient to support a political project of a pure and simple merger of the two communes. We find it difficult to understand the project's supporting elements.

Group III – Current & Proposed Tax Rates (St Légier residents will be queuing up at the checkout!)



Blonay's tax rate methodology correctly takes into account the impact of high consumption on infrastructure and the environment by taxing large consumers more heavily.

Working group’s recommendation: Adopt the Blonay pricing principle, which is deemed more appropriate as it increases in accordance with the consumption rate. A minor adaptation: the tariff levels should be in accordance with the cost of network maintenance. Retain a specific tariff for farmers.

Working Group III’s opinion:
The working group doesn’t find any significant interest in the merger, although it is not opposed to it. It recommends continuing the close collaboration between the two communes, as is currently the case.

Group IV – Concerning the future Commune (n.b. there is no longer any question of reducing down to 5 communes)

One can reasonably imagine (this is only a hypothesis) that the number of members would increase to 7 for a 1st legislature, then could go down to 5 from a 2nd legislature, thus saving money (there are currently 10 between the two communes). The subsequent result would likely be an increase in the rates (and therefore individual costs) of those elected as municipal councillors and trustees.

Group V - Recommends collaboration rather than a merger

Indeed, in terms of mobility, a close collaboration would already allow us to:

  • show the population that the authorities' thinking is 'at the right level'...
  • plan a number of measures jointly at the level of the two communes
  • carry more weight in certain combined or cantonal decisions
  • prioritise actions appropriately

For all the above reasons, but also due to the merger project’s lack of transparency with, in particular, the absence of a budget or even a quantified assessment of the costs of such an undertaking; a lack of transparency regarding the additional costs that would be generated by an increase in population (social bill); a distinct lack of reasons why the two communes should be merged into a single one; and the impossibility of the authorities to demonstrate any benefits of a merger.

This is why Croflette and Coeurbêche recommend that you vote NO to the merger on May 17

Contact us

Upcoming public events

Adversarial debate:
Probably in August

Municipal votes: September 27th 2020

IBAN: CH36 0076 7000 H548 6903 9 Support us:

Banque Cantonale Vaudoise
IBAN: CH36 0076 7000 H548 6903 9

Thank you