José Francisco Reyes, mayor of Yaiza, accompanied by lawyer Felipe Fernández Camero, appeared yesterday at court Number 4 of Arrecife to testify after a complaint from a resident of Uga who accuses him of improperly halting the enclosure works that were being erected on a plot of her property.
After almost three hours in court, the mayor preferred to keep the details of his appearance confidential, however, visibly calm, he told La Voz that he thought his actions in the case had been correct. "I believe I have acted as I had to act and nothing more," Reyes commented. "I can only say that there is a citizen in the town who has felt bothered by the actions of the mayor in this case, and she has brought me to court. The court will see who is right and who is not", he added without saying another word.
The resident of Uga, who denounced the mayor for an alleged crime of malfeasance, disobedience and coercion, assures in the accusatory writing that since June 7, 2005 she has not been able to continue the enclosure works of her 1,894 square meter plot despite having a building permit and a favorable sentence that enables her to do so.
Troubles since 1999
According to the document presented by the complainant to the Civil Guard, the case dates back to November 17, 1999 when the Yaiza City Council granted her the municipal building permit for "plot arrangement", located at 12 Montaña Guardilama Street, to be carried out with a stone wall from the area and one meter high. However, on November 19 of the same year, "the day I withdrew the aforementioned license from the City Council", the project of the new General Urban Planning Plan of Yaiza included a new street along the southern boundary of the property in question.
The resident of Uga filed a complaint with the Local Police of Yaiza, on March 10, 2000, because a neighbor of hers threw to the ground the blocks that she had placed in the northern area of the property and also broke some curbs that had been placed by City Council workers, which marked the future sidewalk.
The complainant says that 10 days later the mayor and other City Council officials appeared on her property to mark with lime a new street along the northern boundary, with an approximate width of 7 meters, "the mayor telling me not to even think about building the wall".
The most curious thing for the resident is that at that time the project of the General Plan of Yaiza did not contemplate said road, "being reflected in the Plan after being personally drawn by the gentlemen of the City Council". On March 28, 2000, the complainant presented a new document stating the facts and warning that the layout of that street was made with the intention of favoring a relative of a councilor of the municipal government group.
Resumption of works and favorable sentence
The complainant continued the enclosure works on June 25, 2002, but the Local Police delivered a resolution ordering the immediate suspension of the action for invading one of the streets projected in the General Plan of Yaiza, urging her to legalize the works. "Which seems surprising since said work was protected by the corresponding license for its realization, without the City Council having declared the expiration of the enabling title". The resident filed an administrative appeal on October 21, 2002 requesting the annulment of the decree by which the works are halted and also requesting that she be allowed to continue with the enclosure of the plot. Thus, the notification of the sentence, dated May 26, 2005, gave an account of the nullity of the appealed decree, which, according to the resident, "empowered me to continue the enclosure works of the plot".
Sealing of the wall
On May 31 of the same year, the works began once again, however, that same day at night the Local Police of Yaiza notified the affected party of a decree issued by the mayor in which she is warned that the resolution that suspended the works "was subject to administrative litigation, whose initial sentence has not become final". Then, the City Council resolves to reiterate the suspension of the works: "proceeding to its sealing in case the interested party does not immediately proceed to suspend the building acts whose order of paralysis is reiterated".
Expiration decree
A day later, on June 1, 2005, another decree from the mayor arrives in the hands of the resident by which he initiates a file for declaration of expiration of the urban planning license with file number 280/99, referring to the license that protected her to carry out the enclosure works of the plot. However, on June 6, the complainant is notified of the provision issued by the Contentious-Administrative Court Number 1, which says: "Being final the sentence issued, proceed to the provisional filing of this appeal, discharging it from the registry book...".
Faced with the provision, which declared the firmness of the sentence, the resident was ready to continue again with the works because, among other things, she explains that she feared that they would declare the expiration of the license from one moment to another.
The Yaiza Police returned the same day in the afternoon to find out why the works were continuing if they had been halted, to which the complainant's sentimental partner replied that there was a final judgment from the Court and that the City Council could not stop them. The next day, June 7, 2005, the Police sealed the works notifying the sealing report.
Since then, the enclosure of the plot is stopped. The complainant says she feels persecuted by the mayor. "All my story is justified documentarily and they will be provided by me as soon as they request it". While the judge calls witnesses and others, the trial, if the case is not closed before, could take six months.
