Act Secolo XIX on levantenws GPS site and the mayor's statements about the depopulation of the drop below the 10,000 inhabitants, and possible action.
is not the fault of the current administration if the population has dropped so much. is guilty of all previous administrations, from 1970 onwards, which saw the birth and growth of the phenomenon of flight of residents - or if you prefer, the explosion of second homes, which is the same as the one drive out the other - and have not implemented any effective policy. And there are no mitigating circumstances. Or they realized what was happening and did not have the ability / desire to correct the problem, and therefore were not suitable to administer the city, or if they are not realized, and therefore were not suitable to administer the city. With a strong aggravating
: is infinitely easier to combat a phenomenon which is just emerging, rather than reversing a trend established . The only
initiatives have been undertaken in accordance with the logic of "tapullo" emergency, but inconsistent response seen from a structural standpoint.
administration's greatest fault is to continue to behave like previous administrations : ideas already seen, very short-term perspective, absolutely no initiative in structural position to counter the problem of depopulation in time.
We see the proposals that seem to emerge from the remnants of statements, and we notice immediately that there is no overall plan, perhaps a strategic medium to long term, in favor of residential : there are only action-fungus.
- Grants (= gift of public money) to restructure and guarantee (= guaranteed with public money) to those who rent . Here the negative considerations abound:
or The road to support the rent has already failed in the past . Forms of support of various kinds have already been tried with only one single result: increasing the flow of money into the pockets of the owners. The depopulation of the Holy continued without even slowing down or
Why should public money pay for the restructuring and to those who earn on rent? ??
or Why should public money to guarantee revenue to the owners? ??
o In general, the previous two objections can be summarized in one: q ualcuno over the years has bought more housing than he needs to live, why public money should facilitate a further gain to these people?
- Building on a Madonnetta , an area with "low intervisibility" (= see you soon and do not ruin the landscape), entrusted to private individuals, to achieve 3,600 square meters of houses, apartments, 50/55 third sold the municipality. For this I have several considerations: In practice
or it is a variant of the same model building special agreement: an individual builds and undertakes to do something in favor of residential. A sort of award given for example in the case Otam, or the sale of part of the accommodation to the municipality in this case. The subsidized housing historically well documented in the administrative attention of PEEP in Santa, and now the street Garibotti "Otam, has already proven to be ineffective as protection of residential : a formula for a very short breath, which slows the flight of residents, and over time creates new second homes (and even now if Madonnetta, as I say below). As the area
or see little, it is always more concrete. In my opinion it is wrong cemented continue anyway, we all too concrete . The fact that they see little that is "swept under the carpet, do not cancel.
or Incredible suppose to do other second homes . If you think a third of new dwellings can be transferred to the municipality, I understand that the other two thirds will be sold on the open market, and second homes. We do not have enough of second homes in Santa? Never comes time to say "enough"?
50/55 or 3,600 square meters for housing are 67 sq m gross for housing, which are already short for an apartment at all, and very few become if we think that also include stairs and balconies. In practice be adapted to the popular young couples who are always mentioning, but should not force them to have children , otherwise the space is not enough anymore.
- Youth Focus couples. Each time an administrator about the flight of residents, seems to be forced to put the phrase "especially young couples" . I'm beginning to think that there are some corporal punishment for those who will not bend to the cliche of "young couples". Objections:
or do not understand why young couples should be protected most of the singles, the elderly, families . In my landing there is an unfurnished apartment for 6 six years, from which he had to leave (in Genoa) a retired couple who lived in Santa, Santa spent, contributed to the life of the country. They were less worthy of protection as the elderly?
o The focus on young couples has a ridiculous implication: you always think solutions to small and temporary accommodation, as if these "young couples" will remain such forever. As soon as the young couple decides to have a child, the solution will be designed inadequate, but perhaps in the minds of our directors, or worse, a family with a 2:00 to 3:00 children is no longer a young couple, and then may well emigrate.
o The focus on young couples, forgetting the possibility of children, confirmation (if ever it were needed) that proposals are made under the criterion of temporality, of tapullo . Depopulation of Santa is a trend, a trend that some for young people to continue in adults (and older) and descending on birth control, and must be addressed as a whole and in its developments over time : tapullare means confined to young couples. As just one example of the consequences of this partial vision: to protect the young couples but never mind families with children, so tomorrow we will have fewer young couples to be protected ...
- Interesting that the mayor quantify the housing needs in 194 apartments . I have no idea where they come from these calculations, but I have at least two objections radical
or How do you give a number for a dry phenomenon (depopulation), which instead is a stream? How do you think that found 194 apartments and left everything else unchanged, the housing needs has been exhausted, and then stop the population decrease? This is an example lens of "temporary" with which you tried so far to solve the problem of depopulation . Or
Since each year we lose between 50 and 100 people (unfortunately the data are polluted by the increase in false-residents, I suspect that the real loss is much higher), that's the need for housing can be quantified in 30 - 50 apartments a year, which means that the famous 194 soon enough for 4-5 years. And then?
In fact, if there is a solution the problem of depopulation - if now is not too late to reverse the trend - this solution does not pass some of the initiatives already tried and failed in the past .
is mathematical: it is not attempting a solution that bankruptcy an infinite number of times, eventually this becomes a successful solution. Ineffective ineffective idea remains an idea how many times you try and whatever the dress under it tries to propose . And this consideration applies always, even in tourism.
Regarding depopulation, if the government (present or future) can not think of anything new that can be also effective, my suggestion is to try, again, to ask for a government grant of ideas, but in a serious and structured, with a site that allows feedback and rebuttals shares, not with an evening at the Central or Open Space.
Maybe it turns out that Santa wants to die and that this trend is good (which I suspect to be a bit 'of time), or perhaps from the proposals of citizens, it turns out the mix of initiatives that can repopulate the country. Who knows?
is not the fault of the current administration if the population has dropped so much. is guilty of all previous administrations, from 1970 onwards, which saw the birth and growth of the phenomenon of flight of residents - or if you prefer, the explosion of second homes, which is the same as the one drive out the other - and have not implemented any effective policy. And there are no mitigating circumstances. Or they realized what was happening and did not have the ability / desire to correct the problem, and therefore were not suitable to administer the city, or if they are not realized, and therefore were not suitable to administer the city. With a strong aggravating
: is infinitely easier to combat a phenomenon which is just emerging, rather than reversing a trend established . The only
initiatives have been undertaken in accordance with the logic of "tapullo" emergency, but inconsistent response seen from a structural standpoint.
administration's greatest fault is to continue to behave like previous administrations : ideas already seen, very short-term perspective, absolutely no initiative in structural position to counter the problem of depopulation in time.
We see the proposals that seem to emerge from the remnants of statements, and we notice immediately that there is no overall plan, perhaps a strategic medium to long term, in favor of residential : there are only action-fungus.
- Grants (= gift of public money) to restructure and guarantee (= guaranteed with public money) to those who rent . Here the negative considerations abound:
or The road to support the rent has already failed in the past . Forms of support of various kinds have already been tried with only one single result: increasing the flow of money into the pockets of the owners. The depopulation of the Holy continued without even slowing down or
Why should public money pay for the restructuring and to those who earn on rent? ??
or Why should public money to guarantee revenue to the owners? ??
o In general, the previous two objections can be summarized in one: q ualcuno over the years has bought more housing than he needs to live, why public money should facilitate a further gain to these people?
- Building on a Madonnetta , an area with "low intervisibility" (= see you soon and do not ruin the landscape), entrusted to private individuals, to achieve 3,600 square meters of houses, apartments, 50/55 third sold the municipality. For this I have several considerations: In practice
or it is a variant of the same model building special agreement: an individual builds and undertakes to do something in favor of residential. A sort of award given for example in the case Otam, or the sale of part of the accommodation to the municipality in this case. The subsidized housing historically well documented in the administrative attention of PEEP in Santa, and now the street Garibotti "Otam, has already proven to be ineffective as protection of residential : a formula for a very short breath, which slows the flight of residents, and over time creates new second homes (and even now if Madonnetta, as I say below). As the area
or see little, it is always more concrete. In my opinion it is wrong cemented continue anyway, we all too concrete . The fact that they see little that is "swept under the carpet, do not cancel.
or Incredible suppose to do other second homes . If you think a third of new dwellings can be transferred to the municipality, I understand that the other two thirds will be sold on the open market, and second homes. We do not have enough of second homes in Santa? Never comes time to say "enough"?
50/55 or 3,600 square meters for housing are 67 sq m gross for housing, which are already short for an apartment at all, and very few become if we think that also include stairs and balconies. In practice be adapted to the popular young couples who are always mentioning, but should not force them to have children , otherwise the space is not enough anymore.
- Youth Focus couples. Each time an administrator about the flight of residents, seems to be forced to put the phrase "especially young couples" . I'm beginning to think that there are some corporal punishment for those who will not bend to the cliche of "young couples". Objections:
or do not understand why young couples should be protected most of the singles, the elderly, families . In my landing there is an unfurnished apartment for 6 six years, from which he had to leave (in Genoa) a retired couple who lived in Santa, Santa spent, contributed to the life of the country. They were less worthy of protection as the elderly?
o The focus on young couples has a ridiculous implication: you always think solutions to small and temporary accommodation, as if these "young couples" will remain such forever. As soon as the young couple decides to have a child, the solution will be designed inadequate, but perhaps in the minds of our directors, or worse, a family with a 2:00 to 3:00 children is no longer a young couple, and then may well emigrate.
o The focus on young couples, forgetting the possibility of children, confirmation (if ever it were needed) that proposals are made under the criterion of temporality, of tapullo . Depopulation of Santa is a trend, a trend that some for young people to continue in adults (and older) and descending on birth control, and must be addressed as a whole and in its developments over time : tapullare means confined to young couples. As just one example of the consequences of this partial vision: to protect the young couples but never mind families with children, so tomorrow we will have fewer young couples to be protected ...
- Interesting that the mayor quantify the housing needs in 194 apartments . I have no idea where they come from these calculations, but I have at least two objections radical
or How do you give a number for a dry phenomenon (depopulation), which instead is a stream? How do you think that found 194 apartments and left everything else unchanged, the housing needs has been exhausted, and then stop the population decrease? This is an example lens of "temporary" with which you tried so far to solve the problem of depopulation . Or
Since each year we lose between 50 and 100 people (unfortunately the data are polluted by the increase in false-residents, I suspect that the real loss is much higher), that's the need for housing can be quantified in 30 - 50 apartments a year, which means that the famous 194 soon enough for 4-5 years. And then?
In fact, if there is a solution the problem of depopulation - if now is not too late to reverse the trend - this solution does not pass some of the initiatives already tried and failed in the past .
is mathematical: it is not attempting a solution that bankruptcy an infinite number of times, eventually this becomes a successful solution. Ineffective ineffective idea remains an idea how many times you try and whatever the dress under it tries to propose . And this consideration applies always, even in tourism.
Regarding depopulation, if the government (present or future) can not think of anything new that can be also effective, my suggestion is to try, again, to ask for a government grant of ideas, but in a serious and structured, with a site that allows feedback and rebuttals shares, not with an evening at the Central or Open Space.
Maybe it turns out that Santa wants to die and that this trend is good (which I suspect to be a bit 'of time), or perhaps from the proposals of citizens, it turns out the mix of initiatives that can repopulate the country. Who knows?
0 comments:
Post a Comment