The discussion on the preventive budget is a significant part of democratic life and provides an opportunity for a major confrontation between the municipal majority and its opposition.
In short, behind the declining and measuring numbers—Pythagoras, the philosopher and mathematician, left us the legacy that “everything is in the number”—lie the vision of the city, its development axes, the choice of actions, and the compromises.
If the outcome is as expected, the majority usually emphasizes the power of “numbers,” and the debate can allow everyone to speak their truths.
Yesterday’s public session followed this tradition: Mayor Philippe Pradal and especially his first deputy, Christian Estrosi, who never fails to hold the “handlebars” as he likes to say, showed confidence and outlined the achievements and ongoing projects.
For the “tandem,” the city’s leap forward since the first term in 2008 up to today—and given the numerous open projects—has an undeniable future perspective: embellishment in the broad sense means greater attractiveness, and a territory’s attractiveness is a lever for its economic development and well-being.
All this with unchanged taxation*, a condition that has been Christian Estrosi’s political slogan since 2009 (for the first year of the term, the addition was steep: +14.7%). This is despite the progressive decrease in state compensation (from 84 to 73 million between 2016 and 2017).
Naturally, in this simplification, there is self-satisfaction on one hand and a hint of propaganda on the other. But otherwise, if we don’t believe in what we’re doing, how can we expect a positive or at least non-negative judgment from others, especially political opponents?
In short, the debate, less venomous than on other occasions due to Christian Estrosi’s less authoritative “management,” leading more to lyricism than invective against opponents, took place within a defined line: the city’s financial situation, more clearly the level of debt, which remains numerically high: 497 million euros, burdening the budget with 16 million euros in interest.
Perfectly manageable for the mayor and his first deputy, who highlighted the loan repayment capacity (47 million euros) without increasing the debt stock.
Too high a stock for the opponents, who denounce the penalization of investment by the reduced self-financing capacity (35.9 million euros).
False, retorts the tandem: our good management, particularly the moderate and controlled operating expenses, does not affect the level of investment, which remains stable (90 million euros).
This exchange of opinions did not result in debaters reaching the same conclusion. Each remained on their positions. Moreover, despite Pythagoras’s teaching, one can make numbers say what they want! So why refrain from it?
By voting against the resolution, the oppositions thus justified:
“A good budget is one that achieves consensus. Unfortunately, the path to consensus does not seem to be yours” (Marc Concas, DvG).
“All this debt for what, not much in the end. Because if at least we were indebting ourselves to create economic development, we could hope to see our coffers fill, but that’s not the case” (Fabrice Decoupigny, EE-LV).
“You have not managed to control our city’s debt,” then “How do you expect us to manage financially in the face of such stinginess?” (Marie-Christine Arnautu, FN).
“The question is to end the forward flight you have embarked on” (Patrick Allemand, PS).
This session also served as the occasion for the traditional “watering” of the associative world: the subsidy envelope was voted almost unanimously, with only voluntary abstention from Marie-Christine Arnautu, who, opposed to certain associations, stated she could not approve sectional rather than individual deliberations.
In summary: 9 million were allocated to 161 sports associations (with an 8% reduction for those over 100,000 euros); 706 thousand euros to 46 in the social/solidarity domain; 2.4 million euros for cultural associations; 351 thousand euros to sports bodies operating in events.
Finally, the issue of social housing allowed for the deliberation of aid for landlords to build 764 housing units, which add to the several hundred already completed in 2016. Moreover, in many neighborhoods of the city—as Madame Estrosi-Sassone, responsible for this area, rightly pointed out—this promotes the beginning of social diversity.
Inevitably—it’s a constant—there was a clash between her and the socialist Paul Cuturello: his comment, traditionally critical of the city’s delays in this area (about 12% of social housing against 20% required by law, then increased to 25%), “the catch-up has come,” triggered a “lively” reaction from the deputy and a verbal “stone-throwing” of poor Cuturello who clearly is not in Madame Estrosi-Sassone’s good graces and in the future, would be well advised to remain silent to avoid being smashed like a tennis ball!
