Polling places in Mariaberg
Mariaberg has two polling places: the former Sint Gondulphus school (Blauwdorp sub-district) and the Mariaberg community center on Anjelierenstraat. Here are the results from the recent elections.
Mariaberg Community Center
Breakdown (908 valid votes):
PVV: 305
GroenLinks–PvdA: 146
D66: 101
Others: VVD 62, CDA 54, Forum for Democracy 53, SP 36, JA21 26, Party for the Animals 28, Denk 19, SGP 8, BBB 8, ChristenUnie 11, Volt 7, Peace for Animals 7, 50Plus 12, Bij1 2, Pirate Party 1, De Linie 1, Belang van Nederland 1, Libertarian Party 0, FNP 0.
Sint Gondulphus School (Blauwdorp sub-district)
Breakdown (686 valid votes):
PVV: 198
GroenLinks–PvdA: 129
D66: 99
Others: VVD 51, CDA 43, Forum for Democracy 35, SP 20, JA21 22, Party for the Animals 31, Volt 10, BBB 10, 50Plus 14, Denk 9, ChristenUnie 5, Peace for Animals 5, Bij1 2, Pirate Party 2, SGP 0, Belang van Nederland 0, Libertarian Party 0, FNP 0, De Linie 0.
Population (2025)
Mariaberg: total 4,940 residents. Born in the Netherlands: 54.85%. Born elsewhere in Europe: 23.64%. Born outside Europe: 21.52%.
Sint Pieter: total 135 residents. Born in the Netherlands: 76.92%. Born elsewhere in Europe: 19.24%. Born outside Europe: 3.85%.
Sint Pieter voting behavior (2025 national election)
Total ballots cast: 949. Proxy: 110. Voter card: 10. Blank: 1. Invalid: 2. Valid votes: 969.
Breakdown (969 valid votes):
PVV: 36
GroenLinks–PvdA: 252
D66: 253
Others: VVD 174, NSC 2, BBB 2, CDA 129, SP 9, Denl 2, Party for the Animals 21, Forum for Democracy 10, SGP 1, ChristenUnie 4, Volt 20, JA21 40, Peace for Animals 1, Belang van Nederland 2, BIJ1 0, Libertarian Party 0, 50Plus 9, Pirate Party 0, FNP 0, De Linie 0.
The paradox
In Sint Pieter many people vote for GroenLinks–PvdA and D66 — parties that promote inclusion, diversity, and immigration‑friendly policies. In practice, though, that often means “inclusion — just not here.” Their neighborhood stays mostly homogeneous, spacious, and protected against social housing. They support inclusion in general, but not in their own street.
Read De Limburger: “Grote verschillen in Maastricht: Sint‑Pieter kent vrijwel geen sociale huurwoningen, Pottenberg liefst 85 procent: ‘Wonen in witte wijk is privilege’.” That piece shows how stark the neighborhood differences are. Another De Limburger article, “‘Luxe woonwijk’ Maastricht in verzet tegen goedkope appartementen,” shows how affluent neighborhoods push back against affordable housing plans. Those local choices pile pressure onto neighborhoods like Mariaberg: higher density, fewer housing options, greater vulnerability.
This is not an accident; it’s a pattern. City‑wide voting may show support for migration and diversity, but local housing choices and neighborhood politics keep those ideals out of many people’s own streets. It’s easy to voice progressive values at a lobbying table; it’s much harder to back them when a zoning change or affordable housing project affects your backyard.
A simple rule of consistency
If you publicly call for inclusion, help make it happen in your own neighborhood. Not symbolically — not by pointing to a single “diverse professional” who happens to live nearby — but structurally: social housing, small‑scale affordable units, and policies that actively break up segregation. But the better neighborhoods in Maastricht resist that. See the De Limburger article about opposition to cheap apartments.
Studies and patterns
Many studies and local analyses show a pattern: residents of wealthier, predominantly white neighborhoods tend to vote for parties or politicians who are generally pro‑migration and pro‑inclusion, yet locally oppose affordable housing or shelter facilities in their own neighborhoods — the NIMBY effect.
That opposition often results in affordable housing, social rental units, and shelters becoming concentrated in less affluent neighborhoods, causing those areas to house a disproportionately large share of migrants and lower‑income groups.
Mechanisms: greater political influence of affluent residents, active neighborhood protests against development plans, stricter local zoning rules, and longer permitting processes in wealthy areas.
This is evident from numerous case studies (the Netherlands and internationally), news articles, and research on residential segregation and local political participation.
A practical, fair solution
Spread affordable housing so one neighborhood doesn’t bear most of the burden.
Promote mixed housing blocks in wealthy areas during new developments.
Demand political consistency: if you vote for inclusion, support local projects that make diversity real.
Conclusion
Politics without local housing responsibility is just talk. If inclusion is a value, it must show up in bricks and zoning plans — not only in headlines or debates. Mariaberg and Sint Pieter make that clear: people can vote progressive in the abstract and act conservative in practice. That’s not nuance — it’s hypocrisy.
*Sources
https://allecijfers.nl/buurt/mariaberg-maastricht/#:~:text=Er%20zijn%202.835%20adressen%20en,van%20gemiddeld%201%2C6%20personen
https://allecijfers.nl/buurt/sint-pieter-maastricht/#:~:text=Er%20zijn%20103%20adressen%20en,van%20gemiddeld%201%2C9%20personen
Peer-reviewed research — NIMBY, zoning, and segregation
(Discusses how local politics and zoning block affordable housing and sustain segregation.)
Lens, M. C., & Monkkonen, P. (2016). “Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by Income?” Journal of the American Planning Association.
(Shows that stricter local regulations are associated with greater income segregation.)
Books/essays on elitist exclusionary policy and snob zoning'
Kahlenberg, R. D. (2023). Excluded: How Snob Zoning, NIMBYism, and Class Bias Build the Walls We Don’t See.
(Describes how affluent communities use zoning and NIMBYism to maintain exclusion.)
Systematic reviews / policy reports
Schuetz, J., Meltzer, R., & Been, V. (2021). “Hometown Costs: NIMBYism and the Politics of Housing.” Brookings Institution (policy report).
(Analyzes how local opposition blocks projects and contributes to unequal housing distribution.)
Empirical work on political influence and housing policy
Rothwell, J., & Massey, D. S. (2010). “Density Zoning and Class Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” Social Science Research.
(Links local land-use regulation to social segregation.)
Articles and case studies (Netherlands / reporting)
https://www.limburger.nl/regio/maastricht/maastricht/grote-verschillen-in-maastricht-sint-pieter-kent-vrijwel-geen-sociale-huurwoningen-pottenberg-liefst-85-procent-wonen-in-witte-wijk-is-privilege/94341904.html
https://www.limburger.nl/regio/maastricht/luxe-woonwijk-maastricht-in-verzet-tegen-goedkope-appartementen/22297237.html
Practice-oriented analyses / advocacy
https://www.niskanencenter.org/ (search: 'snob zoning Kahlenberg')
