Mr President and Mr. components of the Office
through this document - which right now we ask for a formal allegation to the minutes of today's meeting - we want to mark a clear break with a way to administer public that we do not like and with whom we do not want be confused.
We wonder and ask you, in fact, because we have convened here today, even as a matter of urgency, to discuss the restoration project of the Bishop's Castle, where, as we have already learned in the session of March 13 on the same object, it has already been finally approved by the governing body, has obtained the opinion of the Superintendent and, in fact, plenty has already passed the evaluation stage and is likely to be already implemented (by the way, Mr. councilor, is it true that the work had already begun or is going to be every other day?).
is' yes true that the opinion of the Office of the Plan is not binding. But - how to teach the theoretical administrative law and, before that, the virtuous practice of good government - "not binding" does not mean "useless", "superfluous" means, rather, that the decision-making body, not only is required to take, but also that where it intends to depart, is required to give appropriate reasons.
seems to us, however, that we have been called here only so you can say, after the fact, that it was a project shared with the community, civil society, one that is so convenient when you want to evoke good impression. It 'clear, however, that we do not pay this, we can not pay, that is, to be The patch to a project that was born and raised in all the municipal offices and that they only came out ready-made.
We want, in other words, that if we are asked an opinion of it, albeit very modest and do not agree with, remain a trace. We want not to do what has already happened before, or that the meetings of this office does not even draw up the minutes and that, when it - on our formal request - were drafted, they will not be given in the note of our views . Just go to read, for example, the minutes of the meeting of 29 February, to observe that the whole discussion around the one intervention project brought to the attention of the Office before the date of the administrative executive - that, namely, the rearrangement of Piazza Regina Margherita - has been synthesized in a row and a half and no reference to content.
So, in conclusion, to give meaning to our presence here today, we just ask you some questions on which you would have - and we believe you should experience - the duty to answer, obviously not to us but to the entire community.
1. It 'should invest money of the municipality, and then we the citizens, on an asset which is owned by the Episcopal Curia?
2. Contract which binds the municipality to the Curia, how long and what are the main contents?
3. If you really wanted to put his hand to the Castle, would not have been more appropriate to consolidate the many parties unsafe?
4. Finally, in the aesthetic merit - so to speak - of the intervention, but is it really necessary - as shown by the technical report of the project - that the court should have a floor similar to that of other castles and should not retain, however, that his peculiarities, with the only run of minimal intervention, and much less expensive, are necessary to remove architectural barriers?
await. If you allow us, not confident.
0 comments:
Post a Comment