If people could be defined by how they refer to others, of Juan Francisco Rosa one could say that, just with that, he makes a self-portrait every time he opens his mouth in the Courts. The tone almost always tries to be soft, cordial and even timidly respectful -except when the questions manage to irritate him-, but in reality what he ends up distilling is condescension. He speaks from a pedestal, and the rest is below.
Any of his workers, without exception, are "the boy" or "the girl". And he is never in "small things". For that he has "the boys". If the question is who was doing the paperwork with the City Council -whether to obtain the illegal license for the Stratvs winery or to get them to give him free public land for the Kikoland-, the answer is always "the boys". Which boy? He never remembers. That is another of the things that attract attention: the display of memory he makes to reproduce alleged conversations from two decades ago, and the gaps he has when asked for details about what is truly relevant to clarify his alleged crimes.
For the lawyers of the prosecution or for the prosecutor -because he also had to face a woman in the second trial of Stratvs-, the term he always chooses is another: "miss". And in this case, again, age, condition or rank do not matter. They are "misses" to whom he kindly gives lessons on his particular vision of urban planning. The one who for years taught him another great artist of twisting reality, the lawyer Felipe Fernández Camero.
However, there are exceptions. Then there are "the gentlemen". Or more specifically, “the gentlemen from Las Palmas”, to whom he referred in his last statement last February. "Notaries, lawyers and important people," he said. Those who bought public land from the Costa Papagayo Partial Plan for a ridiculous amount, who then sued the City Council claiming alleged millionaire building rights, and who then ended up selling the land to Rosa, almost for the same ridiculous price they had paid. And of course, he "was forced" to buy it, because it was a "threat" to him, to the City Council and to the rest of the promoters of that partial plan. Yes, then he went on to "demand exactly the same" that those "gentlemen from Las Palmas" demanded, as contradictory as it was with the alleged fears that he says led him to buy that company.
His audacity knows no limits. After spending half an hour defending that he bought that land because he was "very worried" about what the claims of those "gentlemen" could mean for his Princesa Yaiza plot, the lawyer for the prosecution asked him if demanding the same afterwards would not have affected the buildability that was already being executed, and his answer was: "You are confused. What does the Princesa Yaiza plot have to do with that?"
If one were to think badly, one might come to believe that those "gentlemen" were not so unknown to Rosa. Even some, seeing him repeat again and again -without being asked- that he had nothing to do with the initial purchase and that he had not even found out that that land was going up for auction, might remember that old saying of "excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta".
Even the most suspicious (or suspicious, if they are "misses"), could imagine a connivance with the City Council, because if not, they cannot explain how the City Council allowed the Social Security to seize a plot that was actually intended for roads and green areas, and how it allowed that land to end up at auction to end up in the private sale and speculation market.
According to what the Canary Islands Advisory Council later determined and the courts have confirmed, the only option Rosa had with that land was to hand it over to the City Council, as established by law, but what the City Council did was sign an agreement with Rosa ceding the use and, in practice, allowing him to expand the facilities of his hotel, also illegal. When talking about the beginning of that operation, Rosa drew another self-portrait in a single sentence: “I was buying a solution”. That's how he is, he buys solutions.
In any case, the residents of Yaiza were very lucky. Thanks to that altruistic operation, "the children of the municipality" have been "fed" and "cared for" by Juan Francisco Rosa for years in the Kikoland. That was another of the great milestones left by his last statement. On the one hand, he had the courage to state that no entrance fee was charged. On the other hand, he was able to maintain in the same sentence that he made the Kikoland exclusively for the clients of his hotel (the select clients, he failed to say) and that they did not want "people from the street" to enter (put the term you want to imagine what word he was thinking of); and at the same time assure that he built it "for the children of the municipality", as if that were a public service, when the only public thing was the land he was occupying.
The question is: what will the parents who sent their children to activities organized by the City Council in the summer think, and who now see how this businessman claims that it was a kind of charity, as if the children had been able to eat for a few weeks thanks to him. Or those who paid, and "quite expensive" (as dozens of parents pointed out in comments sent in the last week to the Facebook of La Voz), for their children to enter the Kikoland.
That is precisely the problem. The worst thing about listening to a statement from Juan Francisco Rosa, whether in a trial or in the preliminary investigation phase, is that in the end there is doubt as to whether he believes his speech. If he is really convinced that the citizens of this island owe him even the air they breathe.
That he has appropriated public land that belonged to all the residents? That he has speculated for decades based on illegal licenses, with final judgments that confirm it but that are still not being executed? That then he did not even comply with those licenses and built what he thought was appropriate? That he also received European subsidies to carry out illegal constructions? That at the same time he evaded the payment of taxes to the Treasury and did not even pay the taxes that corresponded to the City Council of Yaiza? He did everything for the good of the residents of the island. He gives work (precarious, and if not, let his employees ask, who have had to demonstrate on several occasions to demand the payment of their salaries), generates "wealth" (based on evading taxes and building companies on land that is not his) and builds things "very beautiful" (and completely illegal).
Maybe someone should explain to this poor man that if he complied with his legal obligations -the ones that the rest of the citizens and businessmen must comply with-, the municipality that he has been plundering for decades would have been much better off. That neither Yaiza nor Lanzarote need his charity, and that it would be enough for him to pay what corresponds to him, with him not usurping public land (or private land, which he also did to build Stratvs and did not pay for them until two decades later, when the trial was approaching), and with him not believing that he is above the rest of society, and that for being Juan Francisco Rosa he can do whatever he wants and wherever he wants, because that is very easy to succeed and do business for anyone.
Until now, Justice has not helped to teach him that lesson. There are complainants, prosecutors and judges (and especially female judges) who have tried, and others who continue to try. And he was close to learning it in the Stratvs case, until the Sixth Section of the Provincial Court arrived with its surprising acquittals (it seems that it is a crime to build a wall in La Geria, but not a macro-winery and even a restaurant and a store without any type of license).
But for the moment, pending the appeal filed before the Supreme Court against that ruling, his balance with Justice is 8-0. Zero, the convictions he has; and eight, the politicians and technicians who have been convicted of benefiting him by granting him illegal licenses, including the opening of Stratvs. They are the only ones who have paid the consequences so far. Some, having to leave the City Council of Yaiza, such as Gladys Acuña and José Antonio Rodríguez; and others, paying a higher price, such as José Francisco Reyes, who remains in prison. It would be good to know what word he uses to refer to those people who are serving time for him, because for the moment he has already finished with two mayors, several former councilors and two technicians, including the one who was secretary of Yaiza, while he has been spared in all the cases.
Well, in reality, Juan Francisco Rosa does have a criminal conviction, because three years ago he confessed to a crime of reckless homicide in a work accident caused by a defective crane during the construction of the Princesa Yaiza. The agreement served to reduce the sentence request from 3 years to 3 months in prison, which he never served. The rest, he solved it with money. "Buying solutions". Compensating the children of the deceased worker (although to vary not everything came out of his pocket, because part of the sum was actually paid by the insurers).
That bill of indictment, which was recognized by Rosa and by the other two convicted, stated that "they were aware of the conditions of the execution of the work, without having adopted the security and protection measures necessary to carry it out without risk to the workers". Come on, what is said an exemplary businessman. Or a feudal lord, in the worst sense of the term, who is also convinced that the island owes him gratitude.
Years ago, in a statement in a trial, Rosa boasted that "all of Lanzarote loves him", presuming his generosity and even stating that he donated money "for the subnormalitos". Like that, literally. A decade later, we must recognize that he has polished his language somewhat, but the reality is that he continues to treat us all as "subnormalitos".
