By Richard Torné
Hundreds of expats in Sierra Cabrera and Cortijo Grande will have to pay for the cost of urbanising their neighbourhoods if a council land-grab plan goes ahead, Costa Almería News can reveal.
The two residential areas are home to some 400 residents. The council says both are currently run by a ‘junta de compensación’, a neighbours’ committee that decides how to divide up the land and develop the zones.
But little has been done since 2007 in the wake of the economic crash, according to the council. The two existing sewage plants serve only part of Sierra Cabrera and many of the streets have no paving or street lighting. In addition, a number of properties have no first occupation licences and are illegal.
This front page story is a bit of a nonsense. Cabrera and Cortijo Grande have very different problems. The story in the paper reads a lot like someone got the two very confused and perhaps didn’t do all their homework, or did they Richard??? Facts perhaps not so important when chasing a headline?
And just so you know, Cortijo Grande have been wanting something like this to happen for over twenty-five years now. It really could mean an end to our problems. So this is not bad news.
Dear Mr Linfield,
I have been away for a couple of weeks and have only just read your comments on our website.
While I understand your concern about the story, there is nothing factually wrong in the article. The problems are clearly outlined from the mayor’s perspective about the lack of infrastructure and first habitation licences to many of the properties – indeed, Cortijo Grande was named by a number of separate sources as having the worst problem in this respect.
I state clearly that the two areas are separate. Those who oppose the mayor’s plans are quoted fairly, including the ruling councillor who said she had deep misgivings about the plan.
It appears you are also upset about the choice of headline (‘land grab’). Aware that this is an emotive choice of words, particularly for British residents, I consulted a well-respected legal source and expert on planning who agreed that it was an accurate term to describe this particular problem before running the story.
I believe it is a fair account of the situation. As I am sure you understand, a reporter is duty-bound to inform readers about what is in the public interest, not when interested parties feel I should release that information.
By all means, if you are keen to talk about the current situation – and are willing to provide documentary evidence to back it up – I’ll be more than happy to discuss this further with you.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Torné
Dear Richard,
Do you have some more specific information on the status of the situation now and the mentioned costs?
Thanks