- January 27, 2009 at 12:41 pm #54686
In a recent press interview, Ángel Núñez, coordinator of Andalucia’s environmental public prosecutors, gave an insight into how the environmental authorities would like to approach the widespread problem of illegally-built homes in Andalucia. Here is a translation of the Q&A he did with the Spanish daily ‘Publico’.
- January 27, 2009 at 12:53 pm #89680
Very interesting. Particularly:
Q: You have said that one can’t demolish 30,000 homes, but you can demolish some. Are you thinking about Marbella, for example?
A: One has to distinguish between administrative demolitions, and criminal judgements. Regarding the latter there is no room for discussion, just carry them out. The question being discussed here is the administrative ones.
‘Criminal judgements’ are still outstanding on some developers who were charged with bribary in the Malaya Case nearly 3 years ago. These developers have also been allowed to postpone individual litigation cases which are clearly related to said matter.
And during these last 3 years, these developers have rushed to completion of said properties, crammed many in with friends & relatives believing demolition would not then be possible. Where is the punishment/fine for this, as it is illegal to live in a property without the LFO ❓ What a well-manipulated mess ❗
- January 29, 2009 at 11:20 am #89729
There were a couple of well publisised demolitions last year.
Are they continuing? I’ve not heard much since.
- January 29, 2009 at 11:40 am #89730
The demolitions in Marbella haven’t happened…the developers have been given extended timescale 🙄 (there are only two planned anyway)
Only the unfortunate priors have lost their home.
- January 29, 2009 at 12:26 pm #89732
amazing isn’t it. You would think that if the Spanish authorities had any intention of showing a fair hand, and making Spain look like a reasonable place to buy property or conduct business, they would have apologised long before now to the priors, and done the decent thing by compensating in full for such an error of judgement.
The fact they haven’t just points to the obvious conclusion.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.