In the case of the rather lucrative grant that the City Hall (amounting to 130,000 euros) and the Urban Community (for 15,000 euros) have awarded, we lack substantial evidence to express an opinion.
Why talk more about methodology than money?
Saying that 145,000 is too much or not enough falls under those subjectivities that anyone can display without any consideration other than their own. The problem is that in this case, we are talking about public subsidies, meaning the citizens’ money, who have the right to know why something is done or not done. And all this in complete transparency! Therefore, the City Hall has every right to grant the said subsidy and fully assume the responsibility, just as the opposition has the right to criticize a decision it does not support.
There is also another right that seems absent but that we would simply like to reposition at its true value: the right of citizens to understand.
In this respect, the statement issued by the City Hall is unsatisfactory: “The Unighted evening is an event that has no equivalent in France… Without this commitment, this evening that will attract tens of thousands of people could not have been organized in Nice… Many other major cities were ready to welcome it with enthusiasm.” While it is also rumored that “Nikaia succeeds the Stade de France. Nice steals a march on Paris.” Is this enough to be considered a convincing response in line with these 145,000 euros of subsidy?
The zeitgeist leads us, in political life, towards what Hegel called the “great man,” which would require a much more in-depth analysis of this case, apparently trivial, but which exhibits all the characteristics of a “method.” Method that more simply brings us to the story that is told (true or false?) about the Marquis du Crillon, who used to answer his servant complaining that the Marquis was always right: “Because I am me, and you are a p…”.
