They may seem like opposing opinions. Arguments are refuted and certain premises are questioned, but deep down, the report by professors Luciano Parejo and Tomás Ramón Fernández agree on the essence. The latter, ...
They may seem like opposing opinions. Arguments are refuted and certain premises are questioned, but deep down, the report by professors Luciano Parejo and Tomás Ramón Fernández agree on the essence. The latter, commissioned by the César Manrique Foundation, says it in no uncertain terms. The former, commissioned and assumed by the government group of the Cabildo, highlights it without saying it. And the fact is that no matter how much you want to spin it, the situation of the illegal hotels in Lanzarote is very simple: with the law in hand, none of the establishments with licenses annulled by the Justice could be legalized today.
It would be good to think that this is what the president of the Cabildo, Pedro San Ginés, was referring to when, last Monday, he once again took advantage of the celebration of International Tourism Day to send a brief message on this issue. If in 2010 he stated that public officials should "be proud of our business fabric and not demonize it", this time he announced that in the coming months he hopes to approve the new Island Plan and the Special Territorial Plan for Tourism Planning, "among others", "to put an end to many false debates installed on this island and open a door to hope".
As I said: it would be good to think that once and for all, the "false debate" that the hotels only lacked a piece of paper will be closed. And the lie is so obvious that at this point it is even absurd.
"The actions carried out are simply impossible to legalize; because if not, in another case, the comings and goings that this matter has taken are not understood." That is what Professor Tomás Ramón Fernández maintains in his opinion, and that is precisely where he agrees with Parejo.
Each one presents it in his own way, but the conclusion is the same. Although Luciano Parejo eliminates all harshness in his diagnosis, ultimately he is saying the same thing. And it is that his proposal to suspend the planning in force, that is, the Island Plan and the planning plans of the affected municipalities, and create transitional rules to be able to give legal shelter to the hotels, implies recognizing that they are currently impossible to legalize, and that if they did not have papers (reports of compatibility with the PIOT) it is not due to an oversight, nor because they forgot to ask for them, nor because they understood that they were not necessary. They don't have them because they can't have them. They do not have them because they do not comply with the law in force.
Once this point is clear, the next one is also clear: nobody, not even the most recalcitrant environmentalist on the island, is thinking of tearing down thirty hotels. Suggesting that is creating "false debates". Because just as the urban atrocity that has been committed on the island is evident, at the hands of certain mayors and businessmen (among other "collaborators"), it is also evident that a solution must be found to the problem. But the question is how and in exchange for what, studying in detail the differences and the seriousness of each case. That would be the only debate that should be on the table.
The controversy over which is the safest or most law-abiding formula should be resolved by the jurists, and ultimately the Court, but the rest directly concerns the entire society. Because if what is going to be done is to cover up accomplished facts, either with specific changes in the regulations, with a legislative initiative, with transitional rules or taking advantage of the approval of the new Island Plan and the general plans of Yaiza and Teguise (that is, changing the rules of the game), it will have to be very clear how to compensate society. Otherwise, it would be rewarding the offender and setting a dangerous precedent.
In the current context, the crisis has become a kind of shield for those affected. "How are they going to close my hotel and send my employees to the street?" "How are they going to stop the investment, with all the good that I do for the island?" Without a doubt, a petty way of turning reality around.
The reality is that precisely those businessmen are the ones who have helped the crisis to be felt more strongly in Lanzarote. Those who created a false economy. Those who attracted labor to the island. Those who saturated the market with beds that they cannot now fill. Those who allowed their previous hotels to become old and obsolete while they built new ones. Those who have contributed to the fact that now, as the employers themselves recognize, they are having to offer increasingly lower prices to the client, in order to maintain occupancy. Those who work with much less staff than they would need to offer a quality service, while they continue to tell us the tall tale that they are looking for quality tourists.
They may have come to believe it by repeating it, but they are not the saviors of Lanzarote. What they have done is squeeze the island, thanks to many necessary cooperators. And although some politicians sometimes seem to forget it, we must not lose sight of the fact that this issue is also being investigated in criminal proceedings, and that there are businessmen accused of having paid bribes in exchange for obtaining those illegal licenses.
Therefore, on the administrative level, one thing is that now it is time to "swallow" their accomplished facts, and another is that they can get away with it for free, or too cheap. At a minimum, the compensation would have to be greater than the benefit they have obtained. On the one hand, to compensate society. On the other hand, for simple justice. Among other things, because it would be an affront to many businessmen who, during this time, have complied with the law and have tried to do things right.
Is that what the Cabildo is working on? The steps that are being taken, and of which they have not informed in what has been of legislature, are they really going in that direction? Whatever the answer, it would be important to clarify it as soon as possible, because that is the only way to open "a door to hope". But not for the usual ones, but for the whole of society.
