Who loves Budapest?
In the past 15 years, the government has carried out developments worth more than 3,000 billion forints.
Numerous investments affecting healthcare, public education, culture, transport, sports, and infrastructure enrich Budapest and support the people living here — and we’re not stopping here.
Similarly ambitious visions are on the agenda for the next 10 years.
The Southern Railway Circle (Déli Körvasút) is under construction, the suburban rail (HÉV) renovation program is launching, and the renewed Citadel will soon be inaugurated.
In contrast, Gergely Karácsony frightens Budapest residents daily with talk of bankruptcy, misleads everyone with a fictitious budget, stands helplessly when it snows, turns a blind eye to homelessness, and to the catastrophic condition of the capital’s roads.
The facts speak for themselves: Fidesz stands on the side of Budapest.
Who truly loves Budapest? Because that’s what we were really talking about.
In my view, the one who constantly cries wolf, misleads Budapest residents, and keeps talking about bankruptcy does not love Budapest. Nor does the one who deceives people with a budget that the Constitutional Court once again says fails to account for a required item, and that the county governor declares unlawful.
I don’t think the one loves Budapest who lets the roads fall apart, who allows people to struggle daily on pothole-filled streets and buses, who doesn’t clear the snow in the capital, who fails to handle the homelessness issue and cowardly backs away from resolving it.
I believe the one who loves Budapest is the one who develops it.
And look at who has developed this city over the past 15 years — it was not the metropolitan municipality. Developments were carried out partly by the districts, thanks to them, and to a very large extent by the government, which has spent 3,000 billion forints in recent years in Budapest.
And many developments are still ongoing, from the Healthy Budapest Program to projects like the Southern Railway Circle, all making everyday life in Budapest more livable and better.
🔴 1️⃣ “Who loves Budapest?” = emotional trap, not a policy debate
Her question is NOT about:
- whether the city’s finances function
- what the capital’s responsibilities are vs. the state’s
- how much money the government has withdrawn
- why there’s no money for daily operations
Instead, she reframes it as a moral category:
“Who loves Budapest?”
👉 If you argue with the government = you don’t love the city.
This is classic moral blackmail.
🔴 2️⃣ Deliberate mixing: state investments ≠ city operation
She’s playing tricks with the 3,000 billion forints.
That number includes:
- national railway developments
- tourism projects
- state prestige investments
- central government projects in Budapest
But this money did not go into the city’s budget.
This is NOT money the mayor can spend.
❌ It does NOT pay for:
- snow removal
- road repairs
- public transport operation (BKV)
- street lighting
- social services
👉 She contrasts development money with operational money as if they were the same thing.
🔴 3️⃣ “Fictional budget” = political label, not a legal fact
She uses Constitutional Court decisions like this:
“The Constitutional Court has declared…”
This is a rhetorical debate-closing tool, not an explanation.
In reality:
The city includes disputed items in the budget
because the government has pushed it into a forced situation through financial withdrawals (local business tax changes, “solidarity contribution,” etc.).
But she frames it as:
👉 not a financial dispute
👉 but “they are lying and scaremongering”
🔴 4️⃣ Urban problems = exclusively the city’s fault
Very important part:
- snow
- potholes
- homelessness
She presents these as if:
- the city had enough money
- the government had not withdrawn resources
- the state had no responsibility in several of these areas
This is the pattern:
1. You bleed the system dry
2. Then blame the operator for the decline
That’s political strategy, not public policy.
🔴 5️⃣ “Those who develop the city are the ones who love it” – the key sentence
This is the biggest distortion.
Development:
- is visible
- can be inaugurated
- can be photographed
Operation:
- waste collection
- road maintenance
- snow removal
- social care
This is not spectacular, but it’s expensive and constant.
👉 The government claims the visible projects
👉 while leaving the burden of everyday operation to the city — with less money.
🧠 In short, what’s happening in this text?
| Real issue | How she frames it |
|---|---|
| financial withdrawals | “Karácsony is scaremongering” |
| budget dispute | “fictional numbers” |
| state investment | “we developed the city” |
| lack of operational funds | “they don’t clear the snow” |
| systemic problem | “they don’t love Budapest” |
This isn’t city policy.
This is an emotional war narrative.
🎯 Short comeback version for comments:
“State prestige investments are not the same as running a city. The 3,000 billion didn’t go into the capital’s budget — you don’t clear snow or fix potholes from that. First you drain the budget, then you blame the consequences on the city. That’s not loving Budapest — that’s political theatre.”