The spokesperson for the municipal group of Coalición Canaria in the Tías City Council, Amado Vizcaíno, has submitted a document this Monday morning formally requesting the review of the plenary agreements related to the Tías Modernization and Improvement Plan (PMM) due to "the possible nullity of the procedure due to the existence of an unresolved conflict of interest".
Vizcaíno warns that "in each and every one of the plenary sessions where the PMM has been debated and voted on, **a person directly linked to the ownership of land affected by the plan has participated**, who has also been granted a new urban planning use of a tourist nature." "The law is very clear: when there is a direct personal interest, the obligation to abstain is not a political option, it is a legal duty. Allowing such participation can contaminate the entire procedure," states the nationalist councilorCoalición Canaria considers it "especially serious that the mayor allowed such participation in the votes, despite knowing the situation, which could constitute a substantial defect in the processing of the plan." Added to this, according to the document submitted, is "the fact that the urban development in question appears to be promoted by the City Council itself and not by the owners, which increases doubts about the legality and the real motivation of the operation."The municipal spokesperson further emphasizes that "one of the justifications used for this action is the supposed need to acquire land for the construction of the future aquatic activities center, when said project has already been put out to tender on land that belongs to the Coastal Authority and has always had that ownership." "That argument doesn't hold up. It's not the real reason, and they know it. That's why we say this action was not necessary for the municipal interest," states Vizcaíno.Another aspect that Coalición Canaria considers "especially worrying" is the **change of use of the affected plot**, from residential to tourist, despite the fact that the current General Plan expressly prohibits such use in that area. "As we have been denouncing from the beginning, this plan smells more of a speculative deal than of a true tourist modernization. Tourist uses are being granted to land where it is prohibited," denounces the councilorVizcaíno recalls that "for over a month his group has asked in plenary session about the ownership of the land and who is actually promoting the development project, without having received any response from the governing group." "That silence only increases suspicions and forces us to speak of alleged nullity. Transparency is conspicuous by its absence," he laments.
For all these reasons, the document requests that the General Secretariat of the City Council and the municipal legal services determine whether there was a legal cause for abstention, whether the affected person could vote or not, and how this circumstance affects the validity of the agreements adopted. "It is a shame that the entire PMM is called into question due to a specific action that, as is evident, did not serve the general interest. But our obligation is to defend legality and the public interest above all else," concludes Vizcaíno.