For a local authority spatial planning in its broadest sense, is the political commitment to excellence one where differing views cultural and different assumptions for the development of a community come to the surface more clearly. The regional law 12/05, with the introduction of PGT to replace the old instrument (PRG), has done nothing that makes this even more clearly explaining the importance of close links between housing, public services, social system and economic outlook
development etc ... For this reason the agenda item is true, by itself, a discussion that would take the City Council in several sessions. Aware that this is not possible to believe, however, having to explicitly in a clear, at least some of the main considerations that lead us to disagree on what I now proposed.
Our list (CHIAVENNA ALL) is the first group in this room, if only for a matter of generations, the bearer of a clear vision on sustainable development .
The electoral program presented clearly this priority and therefore, consistent with the proposal, we sought to analyze the planning instrument within a framework of values \u200b\u200bwhich takes into account:
1. right of option for future generations ;
2.consapevolezza 's irreversibility of the choices of urban expansion;
3. concept of limit as the limit is inherent in human nature and even more in the environmental systems that surround us;
4.stimolare the building rehabilitation of degraded areas or disposed of in order not to affect also ecologically intact;
5. meet the legitimate needs of private as long as they do not collide with the public interest ;
6.implicazioni social planning with particular reference to the creation / non creation of spaces, public services and the creation of new residential agglomerations;
In Italy we know that the beginnings of urban planning have taken place since the sixties. For millennia before then whoever was the owner of a piece of land " could, on the same, more or less do what he wanted even if this occurred very sparingly. Up to 50 every year our economy was in fact based mainly on agriculture for subsistence and agricultural land was more valuable than what we now call for construction.
The primary interest was therefore aimed at treating the fields, the fields of vineyards and chestnut, while the houses occupied enough space not to consume too much agricultural land.
There was no need for any plan that PGT building growth because, in essence, there was no growth in construction.
Everything is self-regulating within the limits that the agricultural use of land required. The result was a coherent and easily understandable territory, a territory certainly healthy.
This represents our roots, but even more so what is the root of our urban fabric. Since the 60's to date these back to our roots, our fabric has inevitably suffered an override due to phase out agriculture and the need for a planning tool, he began to be felt strongly.
This concept of planning and therefore had a variety of purposes including:
- Prevent the depletion or destruction of public goods and environmental art that even if privately owned
- govern the development of new on the existing order to create the best features of the settlement.
- define a situation of equal rules for all citizens and should be shared
- Do not allow the individual prevail over the interest on the interest of all
planning needs to be managed keeping in mind the interests of individuals as long as this does not collide But with the interest of all .
In other words, the good administrator must seek to meet the interest of the individual, as long as the requests (individual) can be done on a design that looks at shared interests of all.
This, we realize, is the most difficult because it can happen to say the NO.
If that was not the urban growth would not be governed and the quality of life for everyone would suffer. In this regard, it is only necessary to point out that besides the well-known art. 9 of the Constitution legislation also raises the quality of life in connection with environmental quality (ie the Legislative Decree no. 152/05 has as its objective the promotion of quality of human life, to be achieved by maintaining and improving environmental conditions prudent and rational utilization of natural resources ").
If we agree with the above, namely that the environment in which we live in is a public good despite individual land is privately owned, it is logical to conclude that the territory can not be built around either and just because of being the owners, but can be built to the extent that such amendment environmental / landscape / social / etc ... ecosystem. it is useful to all the citizens and would not be harmful to future generations which, remember, we are morally obliged to leave the world in a situation at least no worse (do not say best) of how our ancestors have left us.
For this reason, the first input that a government must provide, to the technicians in charge of preparing the planning instrument, is related to the type of development that we want to give our city.
But perhaps, before, one might question what we mean by development and growth of a community. In this room our parent company has already sounded the right question SE GROW AT ALL COSTS that the "International Commission for the Protection of the Alps (CIPRA) has launched a few months ago. We do not believe that the growth of a country can be measured only with the economic parameters (many manufactured goods, many roads, many houses built ....). The estimate of what is produced does not tell us, as such, what if produce both positive and useful or useless, environmentally incompatible or even harmful. Sometimes
growth, as commonly identified, is the PARADOX OF GROWTH.
Take the example of GDP. If I pass a building heated oil to a heated building with solar GDP will decrease, but I defy anyone to say that there is no growth for the whole community.
When we talk about development of our city so we have to leave the old canons development of growth and begin to look at reality through the eyes of the third millennium!
Given that no one sees industrial developments, I hope that this is a widespread awareness (I'm sure it is at least the wisest members of the majority), we must seek a development linked to the quality of life typical of a beautiful Alpine town which is rich in history Chiavenna . To do what must be sized in the quality and quantity, the action. Leaving aside for the obvious, the practical purposes and objectives of the Plan, which we consider reasonable and correct, I focus, only on some of the things that we would like to change.
Among the eight stated objectives in the plan are those of (Obj. E) "redefine facing towards the river Liro" and (Obj. F) "initiate the recovery of residential areas and nuclei and peripherals fractional. "
The objective is realized in the processing and AT 4.1.Via Raschi F, while the objective in a number of areas of transformation, which differ in importance and impact, including the critical areas there appear to Loreto (AT 1.4 .) Campedello (AT1.7 and 1.8), San Carlo (AT1.6.) and Via Carducci (AT1.2). In exactly the opposite direction seems to us also criticized the removal of shadow scope (AT 1.1)..
Let us now analyze separately the two above-mentioned objectives.
ob. E) " redefine facing towards the river Liro
Via Raschi AT 4.1: The framework
is characterized by an abnormal growth forecast of housing. More generally, beyond the stated objectives is important to specify that the 19 (18?) Setting Transform identified by this plan include new housing for a total of between 250,000 and 315,000 cubic mc. For those who do not say these numbers is very good to clarify that, with this volume, we seek to create housing for a population of about 2000 people (to be precise the estimate is between 1679 and 2107 inhabitants). The only area of \u200b\u200bVia Scrape down a volume of approximately 130,000 cubic meters (over 40% of the increase expected for all Chiavenna) for just over 900 new residents !
If we focus exclusively on new residential homes that we have to add more than 2000 people do not cover the provision of this plan because this figure does not count toward the future restoration of residential buildings now deserted and crumbling (as identified in the annexes on time Plan) or the new volumes of vacant lots where it is already now possible to build. Using an old-fashioned terminology so we can generally say that this PGT, which has a time to remember the 5-year forecast, is designed so that Chiavenna may have an increase of over 30% of population in 5 years!
Anyone at this point will demand that we put us but where they will take more than 2000 people?
Within PLANNING is well known that "demand is the driving force of urban science" and is equally well known "that the answers to this question are not unique" but this is not about to share the answers, something already problem, but to identify a question which, objectively, no one sees!
Where does the need to build housing for over 2000 new residents?
to this question, now that you say boring from the first planning commission, you have not yet responded. To work around our
But the question you have entered, in the latest version of the plan, a table that it is clear that currently in Via Raschi object processing are envisaged and therefore for you already existing 130,000 cubic meters and about 900 inhabitants ! We can not repeat what was said in committee that is to say that this is INCORRECT INTELLECTUAL. The area in question is going into the industrial area, has not and does not provide residents (if not a few units) and a few thousand cubic meters have been built!
In this respect, this is so obvious an attempt to "fake", that you yourself, in another document, what we declared here we are supporting. With attached to the letter of 12 October 2009, her own Mr. Mayor, reiterates the Province of Sondrio to review the data volume growth forecast because of "the values \u200b\u200bof endogenous growth of mc. 40,000 cubic meters and as growth esogenza 20,000 (for a total of 60,000 cubic meters) are not valid. In fact, the PGT in an advanced stage of preparation, indicates values \u200b\u200bsignificantly above ... .... " Even in relation to what we await a response to our questions and we continue the analysis. So if
Chiavenna will, in a period of 5 years from 7300 to nearly 10,000 inhabitants, who believe that these people are?
We seem to be able to exclude that this increase is determined by the demographics. In Italy the population curve indicates that since 1980 (56.5 million) the population has continued to grow rapidly (about 3.5 million more people every 10 years) to settle the first (57 million 1991) and return to grow slowly then (60 million at December 31, 2008). The data of our valley
broadly confirm this trend with the growth of the last 20 years even more attenuated (the phenomenon of migration is still minimal in the valley than in other parts of Italy).
Anyone can see that throughout the eighties Valchiavenna residents are almost the same with fluctuations up and down a few percentage points. Among the last two censuses (1991 and 2001) the total population of Valchiavenna are increased by 1.2%.
Regarding Chiavenna ISTAT data tell us that between the census of 1991 and 30 June 2009 the population dropped by 105 units (corresponding to a decline of '1.4% in 18 years) 1.
Compared to a situation with variations of 1 to 1.5 percentage points in ten to twenty years' PGT responds by providing the new population increase of 30% (just to give you an idea means to assume a growth of population boom for at least 30 years! !) 2. Think of a fluctuation combat that sees changes in the + or - 1% with increases of housing (30% more) opens us frankly out of scale.
A little 'how to use the cannon to swat flies!
As said on the demographic trend of the entire Valchiavenna seems to us, too, can rule out a second hypothesis, namely that this increase in population could result from shifts intravallivi (except to assume that half the inhabitants of the Month, and Prata Camportaccio Piuro decide leave their countries and moved to Campedello, Raschi in St. Charles, etc ....). Nor
believe that, in the vicinity of Chiavenna, factories are being set up, in addition to the premises, require the "import" of thousands of working men and women (we would be pleased, but not part on the list of reasonable possibilities).
aside these assumptions and then in the absence of your risposta3 we can not but think that these volumes are intended for the most part, second homes or homes for vacanze4. In this regard there is a confirmation seemed to catch in the conference when VAS was told that since Chiavenna area streams would need to trap people and try to increase the housing.
Whether the second homes are the ones made in the peripheral area than most other plants, with possible migration of residents to areas outside the center , is an argument that could be discussed at length. As regards the area of \u200b\u200bRaschi Finally, we wish to note that the craft activities, regularly settled in accordance with applicable provisions of urban planning, can not be made to disappear with a flick of the wand. It 'absolutely unlikely that the new housing area will live with the former business and certainly not suited to the residential qualification of the scope.
But we now see the reason why envisaged to bring under the Three Leagues Via a population that, just to give you an idea who to listen to us, will be slightly lower than that of residents throughout the city including Campodolcino fractions (1100 residents). The motivation
expressly stated, is that with the charges urbanization ( 1,800,000 Euro) to acquire "the areas to receive training and Liro River Park, in particular, those needed for public use of the park and its infrastructure."
In other words we are saying that transform landscapes and especially the area south of socially via Three Leagues to buy, adjacent to the new road 6 meters that build them, some grass (which is bound irreversibly because of the danger hydrogeological established) and put tables and chairs?
Come on let's be serious .... This motivation as well as clearly appears a little incongruous' frivolous.
During the discussion we had with the Mayor (which we also appreciated the informal ways by which we could directly compare our prospects in the area), I seemed to grasp the need to hack some abuses in the present 'area of \u200b\u200bJava. We repeat, we with the Mayor and support him if he wants to pursue a meritorious battle of reorganization and elimination of illegal few artifacts, but we are not to paint the area to the south via the three leagues AS FAR WEST AS O PERIPHERY Sudamericana.
is not so and the building of dozens of apartment buildings will not bring any environmental benefit to the area that will indeed LOCKING compromised, only to cash (one time) burden of 1.8 million Euro!
irreversibly because I said, if what you desire will come true in the coming years will see a transformation also social in that area.
For decades and until a few years ago via three alloys was the southern edge of our city. If we take the Regional Technical Map still in force, which photographs the situation at the time of the early eighties, we note that south of Via three leagues there are a dozen buildings and some agricultural equipment. Since then have followed a series of short-sighted decisions that have partially affected the area. This will
DEED FINAL!
Stop now before giving way to a real suburb (so far no services) of over 1000 inhabitants. (It should be considered that the prediction of settlements ranging from 750 to 930 new residents of this PGT plus the existing residents in the south of Via Three Leagues).
ob. F) " start the recovery of the residential areas of the nuclei and peripherals, and fractional .
to start the recovery of the nuclei fractional Plan provides a series of actions that result in many areas of Transformation. Some of these may be a completion of what exists and what appear to be integrated with this, others, and is the exemplary case Loreto, appear to impart significant environmental damage without responding to any public utility purpose.
Loreto AT 1.4:
For this area (Loreto AT 1.4.) It seems to me that the urban planner has tried, however awkwardly, to disguise the public purposes that have very little. At first we were considering a plan that, by providing about 7000 cubic meters of new housing in the north east of the church, justified these volumes with the aim of progetto5 to "identify areas to be allocated to the installation of works hydrogeological defense. "
books that you would say later, would be borne by the private sector.
If only for personal curiosity I have tried to view the geological map attached to the Plan. It was evident from that chart, with striking clarity, as the geologist in charge of the ordinary, had not identified any need for defense hydrogeological for areas where the scope of transformation Loreto AT 1.4. I stubbornly put the question to the planning commission and I could see it in the next session, that nothing changes in land use and massing, but had reached an exchange objective to be pursued.
As if to say that the objective of the plan, interchangeable without limitation, did not result in any way the scope of transformation that it remained the same .
As I said in the second session I could see that the target audience was integrated with the sudden need to " make a public car park on the access road to be allocated to residents of Loreto."
But what residents would now be required, those already there are fifty or one that will come with the approval of the new framework in place that parking will be ahead of the village and currently does not arise where the most homes?
Not only that but in that session, reiterating concerns about barriers hydrogeological that were still proudly displayed in the objectives to be pursued, I learned that the term hydrogeological had been a typo, but in reality the barriers of which we spoke to were green, the hedges in other words!
I do not go over what happened but I think exemplifies, more than a thousand words, the absolute inconsistency, for some areas of transformation, between stated goals and objectives.
The example of this, like that of St. Charles or Campedello, now everyone can see where chestnut trees, vineyards and meadows, is crisp, clear evidence for other inconsistencies.
Among those interested in the environment, but now even among who has a minimum of cultural interests, is known to recent research at the Politecnico di Milano which verified that, from 1999 to 2007, only in the Lombardy Region has an average of 10 per day (about 15 soccer fields for those not familiar with numbers) of agricultural land or natural, has been transformed into urbanized areas. I am sure that given the extraordinary negativity of that hit at least those among you (the majority), he cares about preserving the environment and, usually, talking about restructuring, re-use, habitat protection, etc. ... But I am less certain that this figure has been carefully considered having regard to what we are discussing today.
area to the meadows and chestnut San Carlo Where you provide a framework for transformation called AT 1.6. The situation is on the edge of paradox. From the data available in UT that nobody, nobody goes, of the owners of those areas has never asked , neither during the preliminary observations in this PGT nor in connection with the collection of suggestions made in previous years by other administrations, the change of destination use of their land. We are therefore of the first unilateral decision (or at least so it appears from official documents that we could see) of the majority to transform chestnut woods and in fields and on building access road.
Way to shadow AT 1.1:
exact opposite, and then let me a bit 'paradoxical situation that tonight we are proposing for the area located near the Gateway to shadow (AT 1.1).
Since the draft plan we have submitted the first planning committee (August 2009) the field of HV 1.1. ( also asked by several people) it seemed agreeable and dimensioned in a perspective of fair balance between private interests (the building) and collective interests ( the construction of a new road access useful, not to say ESSENTIAL, for the entire area ).
that a new access to replace the existing plug dangerous, I think it is common belief is essential.
The increase in traffic over the last decades on the SS Spluga, made it necessary to rethink the roads by which many of our fellow citizens reach their homes (and I'm talking about existing homes and not live to forecast).
We expected that the timing, dictated by you, would enable us to reach this council to express our opinion but just a few days ago (March 2), we have convened for a planning commission issued, as it were to rectify the situation, compared to what had already been established in the final SEA.
Incidentally, and without a spirit of controversy but I think that everybody knows how the committees consigliari can exert maximum benefits for the entire community if they met "in order to make a decision" and not "to explain a decision already signed and registered "as was the case for SEA. In this respect, then I'd like to know if the Mayor agrees with that from Farovini last council, that "the commission distract from what could be the administrative line."
As I said on the concluding document of the SEA, signed by the Mayor, says "As a result of the evaluations revealed during the SEA process relative to the area of \u200b\u200bHV 1.1 .- Way to shadow and on the implementation of the road linking the new area with the SS 36 is considered to propose to the City Council the excerpt of the same area during the adoption PGT "
the last time you then you have proposed, but would rather press, to remove an AT on which no one had anything to say (neither we nor the speakers to the VAS).
MA 'S WHY THIS? The official reason was that the road as well as yourself laid WAS TOO COURT (15%).
Exploring a bit 'the argument we learned that, on this basis, not only intends to cancel the planned AT 1.1. but let us know that, being out of date (October 2009), the PL adjacent'd also removed from the mapping of this plan.
And little matter that on such land, the subject of PL, some of our fellow citizens were (rightly saw that it was an expected MAP) without expectations, and certainly not a minor thing, they had paid thousands of euro of ICI for a decade . Now you who are planning to build even where (officially) no one will asked (see exactly what we said on the scope AT 1.6.) And think of a building expansion as it "really important.", Delete a ' area where, for 10 years, had created expectations!
Incidentally, I found that on this there is already required (so to speak) "renewal" of such a provision reflecting the will of the completion of the PL started.
I have no experience of urban but the cancellation of a PL, partially done, I think, if not a "unique", an exception .
Not only that, but deleting the AT 1.1. erase the possibility of one of the few "project objectives" sense is actually connected to TA.
Unfortunately, and I say this without irony, deleting the AT 1.1. not erase the problem of roads that will remain difficult and dangerous for tens of families already living in that area!
At this point I do not go well but it is clear that delays (qs. plan was discussed months ago) or any errors (to take as good as that on the way) can not be made payable to the public and above all they can to delay the implementation of a Traffic NECESSARY. To argue that individuals should be REQUIRED to offer you a road to the process area is to abdicate the role of public administration.
Via Carducci AT 1.2: (for the intended area of \u200b\u200bthe former sports field ): This area, given the important consequences it will have on quality of life in a densely populated area like the one that goes from the Marconi Via Garibaldi area schools (and subsequently passed by Carducci, Via Volta, Via Fermi, Via Cerletti, Via Buzzetti, Via Violina) has drawn our attention.
Today the land surrounding the former sports field (about 4000 square meters) are bound to standard with a view to use them for a large park created twenty years ago. Needless to dwell on the important and positive impact that would have a choice of this type (it would be possible to expand the playing area for children, make a pitch for boys basketball, create new green spaces and areas meeting etc ....). Most
Pozzoli left us a legacy of a proposal where PGT was removed that possibility by introducing a framework for transformation (AT 1.2). Edificatoria with a forecast of more than 6000 cubic meters of residential housing (both to be clear enough to host, as expected PGT, 38 to 46 new residents). Public purpose of this provision, as you have submitted to us in the first meeting of the planning commission, was " the identification of new north-south pedestrian connections along Via Carducci." Post
the obvious absurdity of this "objective" (increase pedestrian traffic adjacent to a park with pedestrian traffic!) have agreed with our proposal (and what we give and we are pleased about) the objective that there could only be to increase the public spaces of runs .
the new version of TMP, the one under discussion here today, you have therefore introduced this objective while leaving unchanged all other parameters (the 6000 cubic meters of new housing) with the obvious result that a significant expansion of the park will remain little more than one category spirit.
Given the new building expansion will have chiestodi esteem how many square meters, the new area to the standard expected (1500 sqm) will be allocated to expand the park. Since the committee have received nothing short of evasive answers try to reason with the taking-based national planning law (Law 1150/42 as amended by Law "Tognoli" No. 122/89) and Article 41 e-reads: "In new buildings and also in areas including the construction themselves, must be reserved for parking spaces by not less than one square meter for every ten cubic meters of construction."
This would mean that in order to respect the law, will be used only for parking from 570 to 680 square meters of total 1500 sqm. But it's over. Obviously, the parking and the new machines will have to come home so we recommend that a road network within this area to standard. Overall, given the standard required by law, you today asking us to approve a plan that can reasonably predict the expansion of the existing runs of no more than 600-700 m and then about a tenth of the existing provision against expansion , now in force, of about 4000 square meters (nearly a doubling of the existing).
WHAT WE OFFER: To make the citizens of Chiavenna can take advantage of that opportunity you have to do is renew the existing constraint (but do not introduce a new confirmed what was already before you, other mayors have done) and a fair return deal with the owners areas. Even here, however, we have identified some 'hesitation. Planning commission
In fact, we came across nell'anomala interpretation that this majority, the truth is in perfect continuity with the Administration Pozzoli, makes the concept of repetition of TIES. In summary, the position RENEWAL CHIAVENNA is that the constraints public can not be repeated (as stated in the commission) or at least be compensated with figures suggests there will be stratospheric. NOT 'SO.
The legislature has indeed introduced the concept of just compensation (art. 39 DPR 327/01) in case of recurrence of constraint (a thing, absolutely just and acceptable given that the public interest can not be attached to a single owner ) but has also clarified that the bonds can be repeated with only two conditions:
1) lack of suitable areas of the same area for public use;
2) continuing compliance to the public of the original destination, the requirements of communities that require the construction work and the prevalence of those on the interest of the private owner of the property.
Given that these two conditions are absolutely subsisting as regards the extension of the Parco di San Fedele is to investigate the quantification of the compensation (for the precise art. 39 of Presidential Decree 327 says "in case of recurrence of binding preordained expropriation is due to the owner a salary commensurate to the damage actually produced. ")
Here the case becomes more blurred between those who speak of a parameterised compensation to the interest rate of compensation for expropriation (a few cents years or tens of cents per square meter), of whom 50% of emergency employment, etc. ... (what is clear for the settlement of compensation is that there is related to the loss of value of the property as intended, then do not talk about figures stratospheric). Even your administration has failed to refute, in the Commission, these interpretations.
In addition to what must be said that the legislature established the concept of compensation (to protect private) but also has made available a set of administration tools, including non-financial, with which compensate the private sector.
It 's only necessary to point out that the committee mentioned the housing credit but you can also think of other compensatory systems .
The administration is then placed in the conditions to treat, can and must do so to protect the public while maintaining, of course, the landlord's interest in the area.
What amazes is your absolute unwillingness' to assess a fair compensation to preserve a public value (in the case today a significant expansion of the park) and take refuge behind the lack of liquidity, however, that disappear when you have to serve the charges relating to the implementation of the plan home!
We are different from these things and also you can see the differences. We, as already done with the house plan, we seek to maximize the interest of the owners with the community because we believe that good governance is only possible to balance the different interests you back, so please allow me a bit 'primordial assigned an absolute value to the property at the expense of the public utility! Some doubts arise
we finally on the floor of the Rules. In particular, we noted that, as discussed in committee, you go today to approve a document which sees lots of urbanistically defined as "vacant lots with the possibility of building" in areas on which your own geologist prohibits new construction related to hazard the "fall and / or rolling boulders. The justification
basically be summed up in 'the meantime we expect the building but it will not implement until the works will not be approved by the Region (DA 28/10 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION "the individual has a request for a new building for so-called" vacant lots ". The project must include the establishment of adequate protection and must be approved by the Region. Only after the completion of the works of defense, the State authorizes amendment of the bond and then the building can be made" is frankly baffling. With this assumption can not understand why not put nell'edificabilità any other area prone to landslides !
Even worse, if possible, is what you expect in some areas of Via Carducci, Bette, Maloja Avenue, etc. ... where the owner will decide that if the defense works hydrogeological will increase by 20% the residential area and then, of course, the presence of people. The reasoning is controversial because:
1) I do barriers or protection works only if there is a danger otherwise is useless.
2) Since I found that there is a danger, build barriers to secure what is already there under and not to increase the risk residential doors where there is no current (I WANT AN ARGUMENT Common sense as well as scientific CORRECT).
Note the well-known fact that correlation.
RISK = HAZARD 'x VULNERABILITY' x VALUE
where
DANGER ', ie likelihood of a certain instability (eg rock falls) will remain unchanged by not acting on the cause of initiation
Conversely vary, albeit contrary, Vulnerability and Value
VULNERABILITY ', ie the ability to resist the phenomenon of such a building to withstand the impact of a boulder rolling down the slope, decline slightly for the laying of defensive works of the item value in terms of human lives, valor Artistic well ... so that in this case will increase significantly going to increase the anthropogenic load on the area.
Based on this report and note that you provided leads to the conclusion that where the implementation of barriers will increase the value (building dilapidated and uninhabited step in building larger and inhabited) it is clear that, as barriers can be built, I can not get any reduction in the risk that, conversely, may even increase!
I am going to conclude by saying that the substance of this document, which you now propose to act, there is much more to say but I also made on account of a method to you later. Already the previous administration had initiated consultations with groups and steakholder mode (stakeholders) and the SEA process had been initiated, in addition to the session for the guests, also held a conference to the public on a Saturday morning here at the hall nearby. You have scheduled the closing session of the SEA process on a Friday morning at 10.00. All regular, no one discusses it, but at least singular choice if you really wanted to encourage public participation. Although not been invited I could attend a session that, in 75 minutes, stated as fact, after hearing the speeches of the defendants (if we exclude building firms and persons affected by the proposed change of use of their land would say less than ten people) and closed the SEA procedure. Let me but when you choose days and times like this (Friday morning at 10.00 again) sounds a bit 'hypocritical to call for "wanting to hear the public ... .."
We ask you to stop and review sharing with us some of these choice criteria are valid not only for the areas we have mentioned but for the entire system of the plan, which serve to distinguish the areas in which to provide housing (obviously tailored to the needs and not in terms SMOD).
We must say, being sure to have demonstrated not only tonight, that we are not to make us improperly impute, as someone has already tried to do, the clothes of those who want to freeze the area. We realize that our reality is a construction-related crafts of the engines of our economy, but we believe that this craft should be supported and directed wisely. We encourage renovation and reuse, building improvements, etc. .... without altering our surroundings or enjoy the latest flat green areas of our municipality. As he wisely said
Scaramellini Guido, President of the Center for Historical Studies Valchiavenna in the final conference of the SEA "Chiavenna has reached its optimum size. Not preoccuopiamoci to enlarge the numbers but rather to enhance it. "
We propose therefore to share the following priorities / concepts:
1) identify areas that are already built (eg what you have done on Via Mario del Grosso Bazzi or in the Meadow) and subject to possible change. Put on these areas in terms of achieving the private housing, however, asking a share in the same form of public benefits for society as a whole (eg roads, parks, walk along Mera, parking areas, standards, monetization, etc. ...) in relation to the enormous value determined by the change of use.
2) to identify areas of micro completion systems in place within the city CONSOLIDATED trying to rectify the citizens owners (like you did on Via Quadrio, or shadow on an area called San Carlo but as it certainly can be done on other areas if required) provided that such instances do not conflict with the logic of collective and public utilities (reduction of green space usable or potentially usable, excessive increase in carrying capacity of areas etc ....).
3) encourage the private sector so as to make maximum use of existing residential building stock (see census can use). This rule is also dictated by the Province PTCP.
4) Direct the planning documents to the minimization of land use with particular attention to areas accessible. This objective is also dictated by the Regional Government Law, Land Article 8 where it says "in the definition of targets, the plan takes into account ... .. minimization of consumption soil consistent with the optimal use of land resources "and is repeated at the PTCP of the Province of Sondrio. Policy
save this plant in your plan, but of course exclude the cases investigated we believe that characteristic in the negative.
