Repeat performance at yesterday’s Metropolitan Council, which didn’t miss its customary test of endurance and… patience! After the budget orientation debate, Christian Estrosi’s (silent) majority approved the 2015 administrative account and, right afterward, the preliminary 2016 budget. The opposition? As an old political hand used to say, they… opposed!
Illustrated with the brilliance we know him for by Philippe Pradal, president of the finance commission, the metropolitan budget sums up Christian Estrosi’s ambitious policy, which aims to combine more investments with less state grants and without increasing local taxes, thanks to controlling operational expenses.
In fact, revenues are increasing nonetheless, thanks to the annual revaluation of bases (+3.5% in taxes and fees, +5% in housing tax), but… it’s the law’s fault.
Because what is progressively increasing is the debt, which is heading towards 1.5 billion euros and nearing the limit threshold of 15 years of debt reduction, considered the red line by the Regional Audit Chamber.
But how could the opposition miss this opportunity to not tell Christian Estrosi a few home truths?
If the metropolitan President claims this budget has “courageous, responsible, and bold directions,” Marie-Christine Arnautu (FN) retorts, “The wall is approaching fast. So you try to delay the deadline by reducing your investment ambitions, except for this famous east-west line where the choice of underground is questionable, besides being overpriced and risky.”
And to add: “The annual debt repayment is 83 million, against a gross saving of only 95 million on a consolidated basis. This is enough to show the dead end you find yourself in with just 12 small million of net savings. I remind you that you are increasing the debt with a new loan euphemistically called a balancing loan of 189 million.”
Naturally, there is what we call good (or virtuous) debt, which, through investment, allows a return that, besides repaying itself, also generates a profit.
In the case of the Metropolis, everything hinges on the significant or excessive expenses generated by the underground line 2 of the tramway: the 3/400 million that keeps coming up.
“Everyone knows that one of the reasons, if not the main one, that led to this excessive debt was your questionable and contested choice to route the tramway underground, which generated significant extra costs. The tunnel works have now started, and the boring machine is in action. The problem is that at the same time it digs the tunnel, unfortunately, it is also digging the debt,” Paul Cuturello (PS) recalled.
Gaël Nofri (DVD)’s position is more nuanced: “You know my position on the East-West Tramway Line: it is vital and necessary, but the tunnel was not wise because it is too costly and does not allow for requalification of urban space. I know your position on the same tunnel concerning the speed of operation and business preservation, we have debated it several times… the majority has decided, the decision is made and the works have started…”
Finally, between the estimated usage revenues and the loan repayments at a very favorable rate (less than 2%) spread over 30 years (allowing for “smooth” repayment), who will be right between the optimists and pessimists?
That is the question the local Hamlets are striving to answer!
A breath of fresh air for metropolitan finances will certainly come from the solidarity of other entities: the Departmental Council will commit 50 million, 14 million of which are included in its budget to be voted on this day.
The Regional Council, under the same Christian Estrosi’s presidency, just voted a Territorial Balance Regional Contract (CRET) for 2016-2018 to co-finance projects that match both regional priorities and those of the territories: the NCA metropolis plans to support 17 projects for almost 50 million (including 25 million in 2016).
The issue is this: as the economy is a social science and not an exact one, everyone can say what they want.
And when talking about very long periods, like in this case, one can appeal to an expression by a famous economist: “in the long term, each can say what they want. Anyway, no one will be there to say whether he was right or not.”
Other less important deliberations were voted on:
the launch of an artistic commissioning program around tramway line 2 to “create a quality urban environment” as was done for line 1: a “beautiful artistic commission” is planned to “accompany this major project.”
3.3 million euros is the budget for this operation: grateful artists will only be able to thank for this munificence. They too will have their share of the pie.
The creation of the Vallon de Roguez activity site on a 3.8-hectare plot, which will allow the creation of a business park for SMEs/SMIs, designed as a landscaped business village. It should host about fifteen companies generating over 150 jobs in nearly 15,000 m2 of premises.
Work will begin in the 2nd quarter of 2017 and be completed in the 3rd quarter of 2018.
Last but not least:, the group Another Future for the Metropolis (left) presented a motion (unanimously voted in the name of intercommunal solidarity) to combat, by all means, the scourge of processionary caterpillars.
And why not take this opportunity to also take a look at some two-legged caterpillars?
