Recently, in the Parliament of the Canary Islands, a non-legal proposition was approved where the Popular Party and the Canarian Coalition asked the central government to suspend the executive actions against the buildings ...
Recently, in the Parliament of the Canary Islands, a non-legal proposition was approved where the Popular Party and the Canarian Coalition asked the central government to suspend the executive actions against illegal buildings on the Canary coasts. Take that, the parliament asking that the law not be fulfilled!
Every day I am more amazed that someone can still do worse in the Canary Islands in complying with, in this case, non-compliance with the law. The case like the one that concerns and worries me is the shamelessness that the parliamentarians of the PP and CC seem to have when they dare to request non-compliance with the law, when it is assumed, and it is a lot to assume, that these gentlemen have been elected to govern from their armchairs the destinies of these islands faithfully fulfilling the mandate of the law.
It is true that, in general, the proposed laws that come out of the parliaments are useless, for practical purposes, since the first to discard them are the same ones who draft and approve them. But it does represent a political approach by those who carry them out, and in this one, the political groups of the PP and CC are clearly portrayed with what they really think regarding the application of the laws in the Canary Islands: if I don't like something, I don't propose a change in the regulations, with the consequent political cost, no, none of that, I simply ask the government not to apply this or that law, let others do the dirty work.
In the proposition, in this case, indecent, they talk about saving buildings with ethnographic, architectural or socioeconomic values. And it is in this section, the socioeconomic one, where the large hotels built, many of them on the same beaches and with enormous deficits of legality, when not with sentences that declare them totally illegal, come to my mind, which have been generating great fortunes for their owners and great headaches for others. In the case of towns like El Golfo, Los Ancones, Tenesera or the most famous of Cho Vito, the reality is that they should have little interest, both for the economy of the Canary Islands and for the social reality, unless, of course, the vital need that it has for its inhabitants.
It is in this word "socioeconomic" where I estimate that the great deception lies, since hiding as always in the poor, they want to save the rich. I didn't say that they also have the right to save themselves, but of course always going through the hoop of the law.
It is not the same to have built a hut to live in a long time ago and, of course, before the Coasts Law, than a hotel the other day and to get rich.
The repetitive and tiresome story of the high interest that the maintenance of tourist establishments has for our islands, regardless of whether they are within the law or not, has already been heard from the side of political leaders, both right-wing and nationalist.
The same tide is the one that bathes a town of houses as the one that touches shopping centers and hotels on the seafront. The difference is that the poor bathe in one and the rich spend the summer in the other. If what you want is to save the traditional coastal towns, put it clearly and stop with subterfuges: there is not a single coastal nucleus of those called to demolition on the entire coast of the Canary Islands that has any socioeconomic interest that can get us out of the crisis, when the reality is that the only ones that have high economic interest are the urbanizations located on the shore of the tide.
The parliamentarians, in case what they really want is to save the tourist establishments from the pick, what they should have clearly done is a request for a modification of the laws and that from now on everyone builds where they want, with the only excuse that you have money to make it pretty. Even better and more brilliant to ask the Government to disqualify the judges so that they cannot apply the laws in the Canary Islands when it comes to urban planning issues related to their cronies or that may bring them electoral profit.
In this issue, that of the redoubts of houses built in the same tide in what was initially used by sailors to store their fishing harnesses, what the tool rooms in the field, can be very demagogic, but the reality is that today legality prevails above all and above all, for everyone: whether they are fishermen's huts, whether they are five-star hotels; reality also shows that there are fishermen's huts that look like five-star hotels and of course, luxury hotels that look like huts: only the pickaxe, demolition and fine should be applied to the illegal.
