They are not many, and since strength also comes from numbers, they don’t weigh heavily in the city’s political debate.
We are talking about the three local socialist elected representatives, Patrick Allemand, Paul Cuturello, and Christine Dorejo (in alphabetical order), who, being largely in the minority in all institutional bodies, do not give up their critical action towards the power represented by Christian Estrosi, Mayor of Nice and President of the Metropolis.
Wasps who, aware that the recipient of their stings has tough skin, do not give up… and that is their primary merit because democracy wouldn’t exist without the confrontation between majority and opposition and the debate between diverse ideas.
In fact, they deserve an award for their faith and tenacity.
In this spirit, this trio gathered in a room a good handful of citizens to engage with them on two topics: fiscal policy and housing policy.
In the first case, we know the narrative: where Christian Estrosi manages, the result is known: debts increase, and so do taxes!
With figures in hand, Patrick Allemand explains it and recalls an old electoral campaign slogan from the 2014 municipal elections: “Estrosi, father of the debt”.
The global analysis is precise, the criticism clear, but in democracy, it is the voters who decide, and the so-called father of the debt is still in place.
In the meantime—it’s true—debts are expected to be nearly 2 billion euros by the end of the year (Nice and Metropolis combined).
The opponent’s analysis is precise, and these figures have been heard several times before.
Investments to improve infrastructure and increase the territory’s attractiveness would be Christian Estrosi’s explanation if questioned about it.
The other angle is also a source of criticism: in a city where 70% of the population is eligible for social housing, the result is dizzying: a little over 12% of social housing when the law requires 20%, with an increase of barely more than 2% in 15 years!
How to explain it? Paul Cuturello rejects the classic thesis of land prices and favors the path of political will. With a tight market, the less affluent population leaves the city for neighboring municipalities where prices are more favorable, and the properties increase in value and are available to a clientele with a greater spending capacity, benefiting the entire real estate sector (landowners, developers, builders, intermediaries).
As stated in the introduction, these criticisms and their explanations are repetitive, but these educational evenings are not useless. They allow citizen-voters to be better informed and to form an opinion on proven and quantified facts.
In conclusion, an educational session that goes in the right direction.
