‘Were we too reasonable?’ How a group of residents tried to break through the polarisation surrounding the arrival of an asylum seekers’ centre

In The Hague, plans for a large reception centre for asylum seekers caused a divide. A group of supporters decided to engage in dialogue with local residents.

For almost two years, the residents’ group ‘Welkom Nieuwe Buren’ tried to hold open discussions about the planned opening of an asylum seekers’ centre on Sportlaan in The Hague. The aim was to allay opposition to the centre’s establishment. It was to no avail. On 17 July 2026, Hart voor Den Haag, the VVD, DENK and the CDA – the parties that together form The Hague’s new municipal executive – announced that the planned reception centre would not go ahead.
At Café de Freule, a short distance from Sportlaan, Peter van der Woude, Astrid Plugge and Bert de Vries explain how their small WhatsApp group grew into a residents’ initiative involving hundreds of local residents. They also look back on two turbulent years in which the plans for a refugee centre deeply divided the neighbourhood.

Tense relations

This story begins in July 2024. The local council announced that the former Haga Hospital on Sportlaan, which had been in use as a hospital until 2021, was to be temporarily converted to accommodate around 750 residents. These included students, young people starting out in life, young people leaving the youth care system at the age of eighteen, people and families who had become homeless, recognised asylum seekers and refugees. The largest group was to consist of around 440 asylum seekers: almost six in ten residents.
The shelter was intended to operate for a period of five to seven years. According to the plans, the various target groups would be kept separate, with their own sections of the building, entrances and areas of responsibility. Residents would not be able to enter each other’s sections without good reason.

The announcement immediately caused a stir. Local residents felt taken by surprise and felt that the council had provided too little information. During a meeting, it became clear just how tense relations were. Opponents had collected signatures and warned of safety concerns, nuisance, pressure on local facilities and the scale of the project.
On the other hand, there were residents who believed that The Hague should take responsibility for providing accommodation for refugees. They saw the vacant building as an opportunity to organise accommodation in an affluent neighbourhood, whilst it would be years before housing construction could begin on this site.

A different sound from the neighbourhood

During an information session, Astrid Plugge got talking to local residents who wanted to set up a WhatsApp group. Not because they thought the concerns in the neighbourhood were nonsense, but because they didn’t identify with the harsh tone of the opposition. Plugge, who runs a childminding agency and has worked in childcare for many years, heard people talking about ‘fortune-seekers’. That struck a chord with her. She felt that one group of opponents was increasingly shaping the image of the entire neighbourhood.
Bert de Vries recognised this. On Hoplr, a social network for local residents, he saw posts and newsletters from opponents appearing. ‘They acted as if the whole neighbourhood felt this way,’ he said. He himself was in favour of taking in refugees. De Vries has a background in education, policy and supervision and has worked for, amongst others, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Education Inspectorate.
Peter van der Woude previously worked at the Netherlands Enterprise Agency. ‘After I retired, I had more time to get more actively involved in the neighbourhood.’

The WhatsApp group grew into a network of around 240 people. Within that network, a core group of around ten people emerged to organise communication and activities. ‘Welcome New Neighbours’ consisted of supporters, well-wishers and neutral local residents. The group wanted to prepare the neighbourhood, facilitate contact and connect people who were willing to help.

There was no fixed division of responsibilities. Plugge helped manage the website and maintained contacts in the neighbourhood. Van der Woude held discussions with residents and other stakeholders. De Vries helped draft press releases and web content on shelter and safety.
Through the website and a WhatsApp group, the group shared information, collected questions and discussed ideas for, amongst other things, neighbourhood get-togethers, visits to other asylum seeker centres and language buddies for future residents. When discussions in the app became heated, those involved tried to steer the conversation back to practical questions: what do we know, what can we do, and how can residents keep the dialogue going with one another?
The group wanted to show that the loudest voices of opposition did not automatically speak on behalf of the whole neighbourhood. At the same time, Welkom Nieuwe Buren emphasised that it, too, did not speak on behalf of the whole neighbourhood. According to De Vries, it was not clear exactly how large the groups of supporters, opponents and neutrals were.

Facts alone proved not to be enough

De Vries posted information on the website about people’s experiences, frequently asked questions and facts regarding safety and the reception centre. The aim was for this information to provide arguments to those who were in favour of the reception centre. However, the organisers gradually realised that facts alone were not enough to dispel people’s mistrust.
‘The frustrating thing is that facts no longer matter,’ says Plugge. Van der Woude sees it the same way: in his view, facts don’t get through when people are highly emotional.

That is why ‘Welcome New Neighbours’ also turned to face-to-face conversations. Plugge highlighted the conversation method deep canvassing: don’t start by trying to persuade, but ask probing questions about the values and experiences underlying someone’s fear or resistance. De Vries talks about conversations he had with two people who’d had negative experiences with refugees. Such conversations didn’t resolve all the disagreements, but they did help to foster greater understanding.

The aim was not to turn every opponent into a supporter. Sometimes the group regarded it as a success simply if someone was less vehemently opposed to the reception centre or felt that their concerns were being listened to more carefully.

Violent opponents

For Plugge, the debate became a personal matter. She was a Volt candidate in the local council elections and spoke out publicly about Sportlaan. She subsequently received death threats and threats of sexual violence online. At work, she received messages stating that people knew where she lived. She did not know whether this was actually the case. According to her, the local council took the situation seriously, and discussions with the local police officer brought her some peace of mind.

Just how high emotions had run was also evident on Saturday 21 February 2026, during a demonstration against the planned reception centre on Sportlaan. The mayor designated the area around Sportlaan as a security risk zone, and the police took action to maintain public order. Eight people were arrested on charges including disturbing public order, assault and insulting behaviour. A police officer was injured after being struck on the back of the head with an object.

Plugge believes it is important to continue to distinguish between the violent opponents and residents who were genuinely afraid, felt their voices were not being heard, or had had bad experiences with reception centres or nuisance in their neighbourhood. According to her, most of the concerned residents did not belong to the more extreme groups. It was precisely with these hesitant or concerned residents that Welkom Nieuwe Buren wanted to keep the dialogue going.

In the discussions about Sportlaan, frequent reference was made to Stek Oost, a reception centre in Amsterdam where students lived alongside asylum seekers and where many residents felt unsafe following several serious incidents. Opponents of the accommodation on Sportlaan used Stek Oost as a warning of what could go wrong. Supporters felt that Sportlaan could not be directly compared with Stek Oost. However, they believed that the experiences in Amsterdam offered lessons for the new site. For ‘Welkom Nieuwe Buren’, Stek Oost was not a reason to reject the plan, but it did highlight the importance of support, safety and clear responsibilities.

A deadlock

Meanwhile, the opening of the Sportlaan seemed to be getting no closer. The venue was due to open in the second quarter of 2026, but the refurbishment could not begin until all the planning permissions had been finalised. Van der Woude described the situation as ‘up in the air’: a deadlock which, in his view, lasted at least a year.

What happened next depended on the formation of a new coalition and the agreements the parties would reach amongst themselves. During that period, The Hague faced the challenge of providing accommodation for a total of 2,260 asylum seekers in 2025 and 2026. The approximately 440 planned places on Sportlaan accounted for almost a fifth of that total.
Churches in The Hague expressed their support for providing accommodation at this site. In a joint letter, they called on The Hague to take responsibility and pointed out that the city was falling behind on its targets. For Welkom Nieuwe Buren, the prolonged uncertainty made it difficult to draw up concrete plans. The group organised meetings between various groups of future residents and shared information, but remained dependent on the council for answers to key questions regarding security, planning permission and the future of the site.

The organisers felt that the council should learn lessons from the way the plan was communicated. According to Plugge, too little account was taken of the anger and fear in the neighbourhood. Van der Woude believes that a safety plan running to dozens of pages is not enough if residents do not feel their voices are being heard. ‘The plan does nothing to address people’s concerns,’ he says.

The new council has scrapped the plans

On 17 July 2026, the council announced that the planned accommodation on Sportlaan would not go ahead. Hart voor Den Haag, VVD, DENK and CDA had agreed on this when the new executive was formed. Instead of the temporary housing and reception centre, the site is to be used to accelerate the development of, amongst other things, housing for the elderly.
Although the title of the council’s announcement stated that the reception centre was ‘unlikely to go ahead’, the text itself stated that the planned reception centre had been cancelled. De Vries emphasises that further discussions with the COA and other parties involved are still to take place. According to Welkom Nieuwe Buren, this does not yet represent a definitive end to the matter.

It is still unclear what impact the agreement will have on The Hague’s accommodation challenge. De Vries says he has no idea of any specific alternative locations. ‘Nobody knows. Perhaps behind the scenes, but so far we’ve only heard unrealistic proposals.’

Disappointment and an open ending

‘Welcome New Neighbours’ is disappointed and bewildered by the way things have turned out. De Vries describes the original plan as reasonable and well-considered. In his view, it was set aside on the basis of a misperception. But despite the disappointment, he believes the group has achieved something. ‘We have managed to change the council and the city council’s perception of our neighbourhoods: it’s not just fierce opponents who live here, but also many people who view the plans positively.’

A joint review is due to take place in early September. It is not yet clear what lessons the group as a whole will draw from the past period. De Vries personally wonders whether ‘Welcome New Neighbours’ should have approached the press more often or communicated more forcefully. ‘Were we too reasonable?’ At the same time, the group was afraid that adopting a harsher tone might itself contribute to polarisation. He also wonders whether the outcome could still have been prevented after Hart voor Den Haag took the helm and, in his view, DENK and the CDA were no longer open to dialogue.

The group has yet to discuss the future of ‘Welkom Nieuwe Buren’ as well. Opinions within the network differ on the possibility of extending the initiative to other neighbourhoods in The Hague. According to De Vries, some are strongly in favour of this. A few of those involved are already volunteering at other asylum-seekers’ centres, for example on Calandstraat.

And so, for the time being, the story of Sportlaan ends with the same uncertainty that the residents’ group has had to contend with for so long. The parties forming the new government have agreed that the reception centre will not go ahead, but discussions with the organisations involved are yet to take place. For Welkom Nieuwe Buren, one question remains central following the events of recent years: how do you communicate more effectively without becoming part of the very polarisation you are trying to overcome?

This story is part of our feature: The Counter-Movement