OPEN LETTER FROM JOHN CAMACHO, EQUIPMENT AND EDITOR OF THE COMMISSION PGOU TOWN OF THE CITY OF ZURGENA. He, they feel cheated; THEM, FOR NOW, DO NOT RESPOND. Your vote CDL OPEN LETTER TO THE CITIZENS OF ZURGENA, THE NEXT PARTY CANDIDATES ALAS MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND THE CITY OF ZURGENA IN RELACIÓNCON THE GENERAL PLAN OF URBAN PLANNING (Plan) RECIENTEMENTEAPROBADO FULL CITY COUNCIL FOR .
============================================= =========
Again, the City of Zurgena, try PGOUsin approval only basic and fundamental changes regarding the ysancionado presented over 800 complaints and allegations of interesadosen 2006.
We all agree that it is necessary to design Modern unurbanismo regarding the expansion and development of all elMunicipio. The first reaction I had when I had access to losplanos frustration is approved by the urban future that awaits aZurgena.
In my opinion, both the team of government and the drafting team, individually, are subjecting citizens to a escandalosaestafa Zurgena, knowing beforehand that the General Urban Plan tampocova succeed, as I will demonstrate below , and resumidamentebaso on:
- not fulfilled the Law of Urban Planning of Andalusia (LOUA) into force only when interested, therefore AdministraciónAutonómica not going to give the V º B º
- No account is taken of the Delimitation of Urban Land (DSU) that exist at this time, so that the regional administration tampocova to give the V º B º
- There is no rational criterion to determine if a field is SueloUrbano Consolidated (SUC), Urban Land Unconsolidated (SUNCO), Soil UrbanizableSectorizado (SUE-S), developable land Sectorizado No (SUE-NS), SueloIndustrial, undeveloped land, scenic floors, etc. .. .; itplayed this criterion is quite interested, thus perjuiciopara citizens and landowners affected, so these people sincontar the General Plan will not succeed
- Initial approval of the General Plan has been made in the electoral aDate with clear, with a corresponding loselectores deception (I stress that knowing that this time will not succeed)
- And everyone can be imagined and, to a PlanGeneral not free, but is paid (and well) by taxpayers deZurgena. By the way, I take this section to ask if you have what it takes hechopúblico charged and / or have yet to collect the latter redactorpor team and the previous three.
Well, as you have to start somewhere will do it for the town of La Alfoquia Nucleodanza.
With this is the 4 th time you try to "put goal" and approve the General Plan inthe past 20 years, since the current editor is appointed desde1.991 Team with a clear trend from the beginning to harm some and benefit others why I do not know, but you can imagine.
Actually, it is understandable that both the current City Hall as Writer elEquipo PGOU, one from a political vision and interested, conintención clear and obvious to harm some and benefit aOther shamelessly, and that a Drafting Team, which is supposed the delUrbanismo field technique and the Law, to pay claims of residents in the periodof exposure public has been rejected 3 times, with elagravante in those three times have not deigned to respond or to a claim solareclamación or neighbors.
The 4 th attempt going the same way as other illegal yun is a true reflection of the 3 previous General Plan. Since 2006, I think it habidotiempo to rectify and make things better and not wait for a periodoelectoral becoming victims of Regional Administration.
My approach I've always made based on característicasurbanas that has the core of the Alfoquia, consistent with law and in urban reality that is accredited for 40 years, from años70 so far, and that among other are:
1) Existenderechos land bound with Urban Land classified as Urban Land Delimitaciónde on its perimeter (DSU) from the 70's, with normativaslegales at that time that there was not even Andalusia.
2) Zurgena Losnúcleos of town and The Alfoquia are approved at the same time and in the courtyard plenary session following the guidelines in the process administrativode the former Provincial Delegation MOPU, which is urban lascompetencias who was in the 70's, when it approved the dosDSU.
3) Desdeesta publication of the Urban Land Demarcation in the BOE, all solaresde the two villages, Zurgena and The Alfoquia, Ayuntamientola paid to the urban tax or IBI, being since then a regular Municipal elPresupuesto income.
4) portanto, if the City is charging VAT at the sites of the DSU incluidosdentro La Alfoquia and the City does not license solar inthis work have all the urban services in accordance with art. 45 Deley 7/2.002, how is that has licensed all across town in rural land deltérmino? The answer is simple:
- there is a clear bias in not recognizing ellímite City urban land, thus the council recognized that Lamarche is on urban land and what is not to arbitrarily approve licenciasde
5) Losservicios supply and sewerage yAlfoquía Zurgena nuclei are transferred to the public company GALAS, received dealcantarillado networks for the two treatment plants, then the yconstruyó eliminated a common, that is what exists today. Specifically, the residual sludge Deagu Alfoquia was built in 1976.
6) Losnúcleos of different neighborhoods that provides our municipal tienensus urban characteristics, but different from the large towns or large urban depoblación they need from servicioscorrespondientes.
7) Elprocedimiento that was used for the preparation of the draft General Plan, essegún 7/2.002 Law inappropriate, since it involves the development ycalificación for our municipality, but obligatoriade involving the interested parties, with which at no time has been counted.
Therefore, the City has acted yautoritaria tax, typical of any dictatorship that price, that is, full ignorandopor the opinion of the people.
8) Esincuestionable that Zurgena and The Alfoquia have their DSU, sedemuestra circumstance in their own Agencies and in the development and models become past 40 years.
9) LaCorporación of 1,987, at the request of the State Administration approved elprecio/m2. of the plots of the two villages, according to categoríay location of the streets to the rateable value.
10) The new PGOU rustic aprobadorecalifica of urban land without corresponding services.
11) himself harecalificado Urban General Plan to be developed. It is with shame and duty court.
12) Most delcapítulo part of the municipal budget revenue comes from the two DSU, queincluyen solar.
13) reconocerestos Instead of grandfathering in some lots that are refusing to leave deobras, reclassified in the Consolidated Urban rustic, because it seems that esmas profitable and explode back is guaranteed, and at the Urban Land , alkyd also called liver spots, then gave itself planning permission to grandesurbanizaciones anywhere.
was and is funny when they taught the plane of the General Plan lospropios council saying: "If your land is within the spot is Urban Land can build and if valid, but if outside the field spot is rustic and not sepuede build. "
And ... who says what is urban or rural land? Than what was estimated asked surprised, "for us, that's why we are the City Council. Desdeentonces made me resolve not to preach more in the desert with this equipode planning and sticking to the allegations or claims in writing, the criteria quecon stakeholders is to waste time defending hacerlescualquier constructive suggestion.
14) dondepodían The fact is that the licensing of works, as in the Alfoquia, the refused, but Silas granted in the countryside and rural land. This is often called lacultura the pitch, which mixed with corruption, cronyism and preferential treatment, it smells so bad that Marbella can be "volcanic chump change" compared to Zurgena.
15) ( Regarding estepunto have to know if it's illegal to say it is an abuse . If eslegal believe that this section on ) Other abusoadministrativo unfairly and local, is the advance payment planning permission that sesolicita. Why the City charges an upfront license without Habers approved?, It must explain the Mayor or the Secretary of laCorporación.
16) I've always manifestadoque The first thing to consider when making the General Plan, escontar with solar making up the core DSU Alfoquia as the SUC, respecting what has been paid to the City as solar Whatis about 40 years and what is planned in Transitional Provision of Act 1 7/2.002, ydesde that perimeter, extending all you want, what is needed or chelates Act permits, but, of course, always with the participation of stakeholders and elconsentimiento.
17) can not mix Implementation Unit ina a plot that is solar with a plot that esrústica. No tax may be impaired by such blatant and authoritarian Aunos neighboring lot owners, who have been paying 40 years as such, so brazenly and ybeneficiar favorable treatment to other owners colindantescon rustic plots that have never paid taxes and who lack appropriate services models.
18) encuenta Another aspect to the General Plan, under the Act is to provide parks, gardens, parks, open spaces and public .... Apart from transfers to the City 10% dela surface for municipal facilities, where are these yexigencias mandatory assignments in the developments that have licensed the entire municipality works? That 10% of transfer ofall parcels to the City built on the site of the pool where is it? "Why have you allowed in this area of \u200b\u200bthe pool width of 6 and 7metros streets?, that's a bungling aberrant.
citizens should know that these fields are the future of the people, and that such assignments are used to provide the new serviciospúblicos municipality, of which everyone will be able to use.
The current government should explain to the people, rather than continually blaming Deech the Andalusian of all evil, what hasucedido with such assignments, where they have lost, when and at what cost yquienes.
19) Why hanconstruido 100% of some plots, while these public spaces or EL10% of transfer to the City?, Where is the 10% that Ayuntamientotiene have expanded across the ground that the General Plan provides ? In any case, economic profit, where is it?. We hope losresponsables response.
20) lavez is unfortunate and embarrassing that a team that wrote the General Plan, has spent 20 years without provisional suaprobación, but as it is easy to suppose, the explanation and hedado at first: new General Plan = New Fees.
insist
the initial request: I would like to know what side quécuesta and what is due to the writing team of 4 OrdenaciónUrbana General Plans, but none of them has passed or will pass the AprobaciónInicial.
would also like to be published officially by elAyuntamiento or if the writing team to draft General Plan and previous reciénaprobado have followed the relevant Sector Reports dela Junta de Andalucía. Otherwise I think they should have dimisionespolíticas and refund of fees if they had taken into account.
Finally, citizens of Zurgena, parties laspróximas Municipal Elections candidates, City Council insist that the future of unMunicipio also happens to have a General Plan, but unfortunately Zurgenano going to be in the coming years. You can not go out with loscriterios set out above, so make no mistake, do not be fooled, do not deceive us further.
are not taking advantage of these moments of inactivity in laconstrucción to take forward a development plan to ensure that cuandopase this crisis and recover the economy can grow and prosper, as surely loharán other surrounding villages.
scholars say that is correct, but when encountered 4 times inthe same stone, one of two:
; 1.-You do not have the intellectual capacity to be able to dodge and stumble 5, 6 and the times that allow you to trip
, 2.-The stone has been made intentionally to stumble (but the funny thing esque in this case can only put who will tropizar)
; (Cadacual draw your own conclusions)
This writing is not my intention to make policy, apart melo no one has asked, but it is my opinion and I think it is quite justified.
also believe it is my responsibility as the mayor who approved lasúltimas provisions on the subject, and unless someone shows locontrario are still in force. So I speak knowingly.
I am therefore available to any political formation quetenga interest in learning more facts about Zurgena Urbanism, with YOUR EXCLUSIVE to provide my perspective both as deciudadano former mayor of this town, and go to where do lalegalidad needed to defend well as common sense.
In conclusion, I reaffirm the safety of dichoanteriormente: we are being cheated by the City and the equiporedactor, unless one can refute the arguments I have used.
persist in the General Plan or other the same way the courts have quedecidir, who should be asked to refine lasresponsabilidades by bleeding time, money and future of our people.
Pending detailed response to each and every one of the puntosexpuestos.
Sincerely,
Signed: Juan Camacho Dominguez
Ex-Mayor of PD
Zurgena
propose public unacto Planning Commission, the Drafting Team of the General Plan, and interested or affected contodos what I said here.
