Portal de Alhama de Murcia
www.portaldealhama.com
[Rating Regular full in December 2011.
Municipal Socialist Group]
The last plenary session, held on December 29, 2011 will go down in history of our City, not the issues, without condoning them, of course, but for being the first plenary session held in the month of December, in full Christmas time, to overcome Alhama 20,000.
The agenda consisted of numerous points that deserve analysis by the vagaries and lack of discretion in some cases showed gobierno.Al team as in the previous full, we once again forfeit a record in Here, on the Regulatory Municipal Public Roads, from the socialist municipal group believe that this is not an application of the rule, but a political decision, only final approval of this ordinance would have been enough, without being required to declare their expiration thus the only thing that does is delay your trade Councilman resolución.El presented the Ordinance Regulating the Occupation of Roads and Public Spaces with terraces.
This Ordinance would establish a set of conditions that must meet these spaces, some of which do not share, and we are particularly striking and unwise as: A period of 6 months to adapt to the Ordinance or withdrawal of terraces located on sidewalks less than 3 meters, when in our town there are few sidewalks that exceed these dimensions, as well as includes not advertising signs are allowed on the furniture and awnings or umbrellas establishments located in the town, as stated our spokesperson Swords Pepe "does not seem anything lucky to confine this aspect to the whole town," the most logical, if anything, would apply only to the historic town estética.Consideramos that this ordinance will require numerous modifications and rich because it damages are asegurados.Otro of the points discussed was the initial approval of the Organic Regulations of the City Council of Alhama de Murcia, this Regulation replaces the previous three types of changes: those that are deleted, which are maintained and that are introduced, these being the latest, the cause of our disagreement.
Unilaterally this government team made a number of changes since our group do not share, as is, without doubt, the neighbor's ombudsperson, this figure is more focused on spending these days, with a corporation made up of 21 aldermen and 12 of them of the government team is more than sufficient to meet the needs of our vecinos.Entre authoritarian decisions set forth in this Regulation, worthy of note, is to limit the time allotted to each municipal group which may not exceed 10 minutes, as we argued our spokesperson socialist "is restricting the fundamental right of freedom of communication and expression," saying Huertas Diego Councilman will serve to energize the audience and encourage the dissemination of the session meeting in the media after this clarification further demonstrated Swords Pepe disagreed, stating that this is not a television product, a strike is something much more serious.
It also states that the motions filed by any municipal group will be part of the agenda of the next plenary session only if presented in the 1st half of each month, a decision that we do not share because it only has to decide whether to include or not to do we need so much time in advance.
Like in terms of ample opportunity for questions to the audience in the House, those wishing to speak must request in writing to the Mayor, also within the 1 st fortnight of each month, justifying the particular topic to the intervention, we that this aspect does not promote or favor any citizen participation in both "hailed" the government team, so they themselves break these details contradicen.Todos consensus among us, a socialist municipal group, and the government team as are not taken into account any of our views about it and of course because we have been given no participation, this regulation is presented to us, this is what it is, we like it or not, including things that create differences and do not give in a document consensuado.El mayor, Sebastian Moreno, exposed us to the Status of Citizen Participation, in which we find the odd premise of discussing necessary, as did the Socialist councilor, Diego Conesa, which he said "we understand that this statute is the tree on which must leave the branches that govern the participation, this should have filed before the Ombudsman's Statute Neighbor, but with other forms and other funds "because," what rights granted under this Statute now citizens can exercise and not before, "we think none.
From the socialist municipal group hope this is not a mere copy of regulations from other municipalities and has a positive purpose but do not see reflejada.Confiamos on citizen participation, but in these Bylaws do not really see if there will be reflected ways to promote this participation, so our obligation, as the opposition, is to improve the position in what we see does not give the most accurate response to the needs that are demanded.
And above all we are convinced that all that is contained in the whole network, is the creation of one more, for someone determined to choose only the government team, which is one more expense to our City, and as already mentioned above the figure of defender of vecino.Un issue has aroused great controversy in our town, has been the location of the new IES Valle de Leiva, the subject of this agreement fully and transfer of municipal plot for the construction of the Institute and that as reflected verbatim in the PROVIDENCE MAYOR "the new administration considers that the location selected above was not adequate and suitable believes his move to New Espuña".
We find a mismatch between what it preaches the government team and the practice, since several months ago, our Mayor stated that the grounds had not been accepted PRAICO by the CCAA for formal defects, defects that could have corrected, even we already corrected, and now say, as they themselves have shown that this change has been a mere caprice of them, that in no case socialista.Ahora share from the group itself, we must not forget the firm commitment part of the CCAA that they echo, as the proposed new school for the first half of 2012 and the laying of the foundation stone for the second half.
We understand that the decision is legitimately taken, so we have to fight everyone, not to lose the opportunity to educate students who have Alhama 's public facilities dignas.IU-GREEN full motion carried on the amendment of the Budget the CCAA for the year 2012, territorial cohesion.
This motion was supported by our socialist municipal group, we agree with the spirit of the motion, asking what is reasonable to allocate the money that belongs to the alhameños, as according to weight it has in Alhama Murcia, we left injured on the distribution of the budget territorialized.
As expected the PP and voted against the CCD, probably due to party discipline, as it is clear that we left alhameños injured and still did not support peregrinas.Para excuses based on end, in the order of requests and questions were numerous by IU-GREEN, however, our group, in protest, it made none, we are waiting for answers to those made in previous Plenary, some waiting nearly three months.
By extension this time in full, the Mayor decided not to answer any questions in this plenary session, and to be transmitted by escrito.En short, all the points covered many aspects discordant created, asking each of our interventions a number of insights that were not taken into account, making it impossible to reach a consensus as to pretend to be.
Source: PSOE Alhama de Murcia
Privacy policy
- Legal notice
- Cookies