San Giovanni in Marignano 29/07/2009
Document Sub-C2-4 C2-4
The fund was included in the PRG in 1997, and it is useless to say that the large size the sector, compared to traditional branches, immediately aroused a critical and intense debate among citizens marignanesi, the which the administration never put other solutions nor verified with them, any alternatives to fund construction of the C2-4. The fund had to be done and that's that, without analyzing the social impact it could have on existing services.
Because we demand the immediate withdrawal of the resolution of Civil Law 36 of 07/04/2009?
The reasons are based on the simple fact that the implementation of COMPARTONE, is not sustainable, is not sustainable, either in conjunction with the industrial hub, is the lack of system services at San Giovanni in Marignano is (and not a small thing ) the lack of involvement of residents.
prevailing aspiration expressed by the citizens marignanesi is:
protect, enhance our country free from traffic is not sustainable, and to reconsider all the components of settlement (old town, villages, residence, services and production areas) as a city mosaic activity in the countryside according to a system integrated in harmony with the different landscape contexts (river, agricultural plains, hills, river areas) C2-4 certainly is not, nor consistent nor sustainable with this vision of our town.
addition to the non-sustainability is also apparent failure to safeguard public housing, because the reduction and transfer of 4,900 SC sqm of gross building leaving only acts on the affected public and private?
seems strange that these 4,900 square meters can be safely placed under the PSC and the realization of COMPARTONE have to stay out, then I wonder who will carry out the share of public housing in the segment C2-4? Who will carry out 4,900 square meters taken out of the compartment C2-4? With further use of land? With speculation and other new arrangements with the owner of turn?
We assign the absurd sum of € 600,000.00 for the construction of the building to be used at the "youth center" because it is not inconceivable that if the center would cost more the City should include the difference, with the risk among other things, to create off-balance sheet liabilities,
then, for us, spending the youth center in all its phases, with their opinions required to be fully covered the private sector.
Several times in the debate between citizens and politicians showed that Compartone at this point, you absolutely must realize that the principle of "acquired rights" can not be deleted, except with the inevitable consequence of costly damages, we, in this regard , we want to mention a few cases occurring in the neighboring community, there was also the case of the dog track in the area of \u200b\u200bFontanelle Riccione. That too was a vested right, but the Municipality of Riccione he backed down, how can we forget the first subdivision in the sanctioned Master Plan of Verucchio, and then deleted? Individuals made their legitimate complaints, but the judgments were in favor of municipalities. Tiriamoci up their sleeves, making our voices heard to those politicians who still are fascinated by the big powers at the expense of public interests. No doubt, the market is strong, many are the pitfalls of liberalism wild, but all of us together, all together we will prevail, and the lords of the brick will eventually be defeated. Sinistra Critica
San Giovanni in Marignano