Portal de Archena
www.portaldearchena.com
Councilman Urbanism, Andres Rodriguez, wants to clarify to the public some questions regarding the information released by the PSOE in Murcia, who claimed that the 'Supreme Court had overturned a change in land use made by the PP'.
Among other issues, Alderman said that "the specific amendment No 1 is processed along with four other modifications (MP2, 3, 4 and 5). The motivation that led the City Council was to Archena timely response to the needs that had emerged in the municipality, among others, deserves mention: THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SCHOOL RIO SAFE-operation, provide the details of the school, classrooms, children, etc., the construction of the local museum-to-investment data, food market and in particular which is the subject of the complaint of the PSOE, to solve the serious problem created for municipal coffers, particularly the need to comply with a ruling condemning the current corporation for acts whose responsibility it is precisely the time governing PSOE, this was the CHILD CARE BUILDING MUNICIPAL on private land owned by the family purse. When the corporation changed the "baton" not "warned" to this very serious fact, finding the claim brought the legislature . Who is responsible for taking, without any procedure, some privately owned land? Who is responsible for failing to warn of this fact when the witness is given to the new municipal government? is very shocking that the same party that caused the irregular occupation of private lands terminated after the solution had to undertake. "
Further clarification Councillor responsible for Planning, "The statement only estimated one fifth of the total of the appeal. In particular the creation of land to be offered to the family purse in payment of compensation for the occupation of their properties made at the time the socialist government. Then, by offering this land, they chose to prefer the money and not delivering the plot, so that was used for the sale and paying the money so obtained. "
Andres Rodriguez estimated that "the purpose for the Amendment was" to cover a gaping hole 'created by the socialist party in its own period of government. That was magnified because the land value was not done, by the court, the date occupation but to the date of the statement that was issued years later, when they were no longer in office, the party never informed of this 'hole'. The ruling rejects all other claims (Museum, Market, Market Area Municipal or new College Rio Segura). "
Should be noted, still insists Councilman "when it proceeded with the adoption of the Amendment, had gone to excess statutory deadlines for the Autonomous Community of Murcia opposed or raised any objections. He was already in court, but two years after making the approval and submission to the Community itself when it issued a report, after the legal deadline, and finally was assessed by the court. "
Finally, "the estimation of the Court does not enter the substance, the viability or otherwise of the claims, but remains in a matter of form, structural or otherwise of the change. As the procedures are different," he also says .
Councilman says that "since we have set to work to fix the issue technically and legally, and complete the administrative procedure and the court says."
Source: Ayuntamiento de Archena
Privacy policy
- Legal notice
- Cookies