Emmanuelle Gaziello does not mince words: “The key concepts (common thread) of a municipal budget are redistribution and solidarity. While the priorities of our fellow citizens affected by the economic crisis are housing, employment, public services, nurseries, schools, and culture, which are the only assets of the most modest and those who have been impoverished by the crisis, these are the ‘adjustment variables’ of the budget orientations!!!” says the communist representative.
To continue her indictment: “Of course, every year the DOB° report gives different numerical parameters, making any comparison from one year to the next completely impossible, but this one breaks all records of opacity…”
The councilor’s criticisms particularly target the inadequacy of social policy and the lack of housing: “When we see that the evolution of fiscal product (household TH, TF) is constantly increasing: 263 M (which means more than half of the tax revenues in 2013, with +3% compared to 2012, +3% over 2011, +2% over 2010…) due to the reassessment of taxable bases, we cannot accept a reduction of services to citizens,” says Emmanuelle Gaziello.
She concludes with a remark that sounds like an epitaph: “With the UMP in either Peyrat or Estrosi’s version, it’s always urban segregation on the move.”
Social housing is the recurring point in her remarks: “In Nice, thousands of families live in poor conditions, in dilapidation, overcrowding, and insecurity. However, there are 11% of vacant homes against a national average of 7%.
Over the course of budgets, social assets are allowed to deteriorate and not enough is built. This is also worrying because the evolution of the figure questions the ‘reality’ of the political will to provide housing for all in Nice.
Thus, on 1/1/2004, the percentage of social housing in Nice was 10.97%, it rose to 11.43% on 1/1/2007 to barely reach 11.80% three years later.
At this rate (0.87% in 6 years), it will take until around 2050 to reach 20% (the current objective set by the SRU law) and 2070-2090 to reach 25% (the new objective)?!”
Another subject of criticism is the interest payments for debt:
“For 2013, 18.6M, including 2M for ‘financial charges in the grand stadium contract, versus 15,453,861.76 euros in 2012, 14,365,982.47 euros in 2011, and 11,504,076.24 euros in 2010.
See you at today’s Municipal Council for the next steps…
