comments

Advert

Advert – scroll down

Displaying the 5 latest comments.

Submitted
first-name
support
concern
top-concern
message
2026-07-28 12:55:40 +02:00
L
No I do not
Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals
2026-07-27 07:45:18 +02:00
Olipio
No I do not
All of the above
Loss of Public Asset
2026-07-25 20:55:16 +02:00
Alan
No I do not
All of the above
Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals
2026-07-23 17:02:54 +02:00
Ursula
No I do not
All of the above
Loss of Public Asset
The mental well being of só many people will be negatively affected if the City goes ahead with this rotten plan.
2026-07-23 14:11:17 +02:00
Michael
No I do not
All of the above
Procedural Unfairness & Retroactive Approvals
The City is behaving like a dictator

The City maintains that the redevelopment process is entirely “procedurally sound” following the adoption of Council Resolution C39/05/26 on 27 May 2026. Proponents argue that the draft concept represents a vital step toward spatial justice, turning an exclusive recreational area into a vibrant, high-density precinct with 8,600 homes (minimum 30% social housing). They assert that technical studies, transit coordination, and environmental impact assessments will be dealt with thoroughly in the subsequent legislative phases after the land disposal principle is approved.

Opponents argue that the City is executing an administrative “bait-and-switch.” Asking the public to approve an irreversible public asset disposal while keeping essential technical studies (valuations, sewer metrics, and TIAs) hidden behind PAIA walls violates the basic tenets of fair administrative action under PAJA. Furthermore, the revelation that PRASA has zero alignment with the City’s transit claims proves that the project’s planning is prematurely optimised. The community insists that the public participation process must be halted and restarted only when all baseline evidence is public and the legal authorisations are genuinely transparent.