New dog, old tricks

LEVANTE-EMV 17/08/2005

CHARLES SVOBODA Y ENRIQUE CLIMENT - ABUSOS URBANISTICOS NO

The first requirement of the new Valencian law on urban development (LUV) is that it should comply with European legislation protecting fundamental rights, and with regulations arising from treaties to which Spain is signatory, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms together with those referring to public contracting, preserving the environment and countryside, or protecting the right to private property. However, the Valencian Urban Planning Law which will shortly be debated in the "Cortes" shows very little progress in any of these spheres, and appears to be a mere continuation of the LRAU, maintaining similar interests and objectives.

In this respect, although the Conselleria de Territorio y Vivienda (Town and Country Planning Office) talks about "social urban development" in the LUV, the fact is that no social urban development will take place whilst the "agente urbanizador" (urbaniser) remains in the driving seat, with the total blessing of the powers that be in the town hall. The LRAU gave the town halls and urbanisers powers to carry out in tandem all the urbanistic outrages perpetrated since the introduction of the LRAU, and the new law now intends to give more power to the town halls and wider room for manoeuvre to the urbanisers.

The new law does nothing to increase the protection of homeowners' rights. The much vaunted "Homeowners' Charter" makes much of owners' obligations and duties, his only "right" being that of having to pay urbanisation costs. On the other hand, the "agente urbanizador's" rights are recognised and, indeed, defined as prerogatives. The new law follows in the footsteps of the LRAU, and is non-discriminatory, treating Spanish and non Spanish homeowners equally badly.

The preamble justifying the draft LUV lays down "the need to create a more sustainable town environment … giving rise to town planning with the participation of the homeowners". Reference is constantly made to town development, but nowhere is there mention of urban development of sparsely inhabited areas outside town concentrations, or of rustic plots on land classified as "non urbanisable", the development of which presents neither social interest nor public utility. The development of these areas only benefits the big promoter-speculators looking for a market amongst buyers who can afford to buy this type of secondary residence ("luxury homes" in ad-speak). This creates a double social dysfunction: on the one hand it deprives existing small homeowners of their property and makes them pay for unwanted "luxury" urban development and, on the other hand, it creates a so-called "high class" seasonal population, thus widening the social divide.

One of the improvements highlighted in the draft LUV is that the affected homeowner is given more time (extended from 10 days to two months) to opt to pay for development costs in cash or in land. This is not such good news if you consider that the affected owner who wishes to pay in cash is obliged by the new law to put up a bank deposit or obtain a bank guarantee in favour of the urbaniser and, in addition, this must be effected through a registered deed. This obstacle is a strange way of defending the owners' interests, and it is strange to hinder someone who, in the exercise of his rights in a democratic country, decides to pay in legal tender. This is the first time we have seen a law that hinders payment in cash.

Referring to existing homeowners, Mr Blasco says that the new law "will make them pay only those development costs relating to public services that affect them directly". This is hardly worthy of any applause. Why should owners pay for more than they receive? We do not see this as an improvement. It is a fundamental right in accordance with the principles of equality and fairness that all public administrations should apply when dealing with citizens.

Finally, in the face of the more than justified criticism and deep mistrust of the new draft law, it is unacceptable that those in power should be trying to sweep aside all the doubts raised by individual citizens and representative bodies by alleging in the media that those affected are against urban development, or that they do not want to pay the attendant costs, or that they are motivated by personal interest. Such arguments are a manipulative lie and, as such, an insult to every citizen. The social protest which is intensifying throughout the length and breadth of the Valencian Community is no more nor less than a determined fight to defend the fundamental rights of everyone to own property, to enjoy a healthy and sustainable environment with undamaged landscapes, and to benefit from overall conditions that make life worth living.

It is worthwhile reminding Mr Blasco of the promise he made on 15 July 2004 (just over a year ago), that the draft law will not be approved by the Cortes without taking into account the proposals and requests made by Abusos Urbanísticos No. This promise has not been kept, given that in July the PP ordered an "emergency procedure" for approval of the new law. This is yet another example of how the present government of the Generalitat turns its back on the ordinary citizen, whilst doing everything in its power to cater to the needs of groups of urbanisers and developers.