The outcome: Thursday, June 3rd
Act I (Press briefing at 2:30 PM)
“We wish to express our total opposition to this ban,” said Pierre Laurent, president of FNAIM. “We are surprised that the City Hall did not follow up on our request for a meeting and we regret this refusal to hold a consultation with the ‘Responsible’ professionals that we are. Furthermore, it is clear that this measure is totally discriminatory, and therefore contrary to the law, as it only applies to residential buildings, excluding commercial or office spaces. I want to clarify that these signs (60 or 80×80 centimeters) are not advertisements but essential elements in the commercial process of real estate agents and serve the interest of people looking for housing.
Should I mention the giant signs that adorn construction site fences? Or certain private or public advertisements that abound in urban and suburban environments?
To my knowledge, Nice is the only city that has made this decision. Why? We are told it is due to a problem of visual pollution!!! Are we, the real estate agents, responsible for the lack of elegance in our city?
We are prepared to take this matter to court.”
Act II (In the evening)
The Mayor, Christian Estrosi, summons representatives of professional organizations and, after discussion, decides to suspend the municipal decree’s enforcement until September 1st. Apparently, he was not properly informed of the administrative steps taken by his collaborators and municipal services. A mixed study group is formed to make appropriate proposals for a consensual solution that aligns with the interests of the City Hall and real estate professionals.
Commentary:
Anyone who can make sense of this wrongdoing, only to undo and redo!
Wouldn’t it have been better to do it right from the beginning?
Conclusion and Moral:
This episode is reminiscent of the anecdote involving a miller from Potsdam in the 17th century, who defended his right against a wrong done by a local baron in front of the King of Prussia, Frederick II.
The king, unwilling to side with the noble, expressed his desire to resort to justice (law against the king’s will) with the famous phrase: “There will surely be a judge in Berlin.” The story (true?) does not tell us if the miller obtained from the judge the justice that the King did not grant him (a judge against a King?). This metaphor reminds us that the application of the law should always prevail over the exercise of power.
Hence our question: was there governance or, following Roman law, tribunicia potestas?
