Cabrera land grab could be annulled

Mayor Morales’s controversial change of Cabrera’s ruling committee structure could be over-turned in this Mondays plenary meeting after the PP tabled a motion to annul his decree. And Morales has tabled a motion to annul the 1993 Cabrera decision on voting rights of residents to try to balance things out.

First things first:

Morales had unilaterally decided -against the wishes of his fellow councillors, an apparent majority of owners up there and the recommendations of his civil servants – to take over the running of Cabrera. A full overview of how this land grab worked is in this article of mine. In the process, he has called down the wrath of the public prosecutor into the alleged illegal homes up there and ensured that residents will have to pay thousands for basic services. He’s also plunged Turre council into a multi-million euro sink hole it can ill afford (because it’s bankrupt and can’t even legally hire one member of staff to oversee this new project).

Now the PP has tabled a motion for the council to annul his decision. The motion is a diplomatic and well thought out one that says, in summary, that since Morales’s decision goes against the opinions of his civil servants it is not realistic and bad for the town as a whole. It looks likely to receive cross party support.

(There is still no word from the central government on whether it will allow Turre to embark down this road, so it could all be a moot point anyway if Madrid says niet.)

Can this actually annul Morales’s attempt to install a dictatorship of the proletariat (as this system has been described)? Good question.

Nobody seems to be 100 % sure but the general consensus is that since the decree is still in administrative approval phase, yes it may be that it can be annulled. Once the administrative approval phase has ended then the ultimate decision becomes final, but it hasn’t reached that phase yet.

Even if the councillors vote against this measure only to discover that it can’t be annulled – it could still affect the Madrid decision.

As for the 1993 decree, this involves the original decision on how to setup the system of voting rights and payment responsibilities in the original Junta de Compensación in Cabrera. Morales’s original plan – which he never submitted to vote, he cancelled the vote in favour of unilaterally sweeping away the whole current system in favour of a new one – was to overturn this 1993 decision and install a new system of governance for the old way of running Cabrera. I don’t understand why he’s suddenly resurrected this supposedly moot question (because he’s abolishing this committee) and nor does anyone else I’ve spoken to. Opinions range from it being a move to cover his back legally for some reason to him still trying to establish a change up there if the first PP motion passes.

He’s now finally tabled the decision for plenary approval and councillors will vote on Monday. Again, no suggestion on what would replace this 1993 decision if it is overturned. Councillors look set to keep the status quo, but we’ll know for sure on Monday.

(Later: The Cabrera Residents Association says that: The 1993 agreement would be replaced with the current Statutes that are already in place. Billing would fall into line with current urbanisation laws as quoted in Ley de Ordinacion Urbanisticas de Andalucia (LOUA- refer to para 113.1&2). More explanation from them at the bottom of this page).

It should be an interesting Monday…. There are already Facebook calls for people to show up at the meeting to support one side or the other.

In my personal opinion*:

Morales is currently a government of one, sitting isolated in his ivory tower. Completely out of touch with reality and refusing to discuss anything with his supposed PSOE allies, he has returned to his communist IU roots and openly talks of his desires to install communist IU ideals into his village, instead of dealing with urgent matters such as the budget crisis or crumbling infrastructure. He has decided to split from the only other councillor (the non communist citizen councillor Maria Luisa) on his party ticket in a classic paranoid move of firing your friends. And he is now being guided only by the same small cliche of communists -most of them related to him- that have always controlled the IU party and who attempted to impose a coup on Somos Turre.

He has lost control of the council but continues to sign into law controversial decrees based upon his own whims that nobody supports and will take every opportunity to sink.

He appears to be scrabbling around for a legacy but has managed to make such a mess of things that an enormous lengthy legal confusion for residents and council alone will be what he is remembered for, long after his name has faded from memory.

He came into the council as a bright star promising to guide us into a better future. Now, as his light is slowly extinguished by the cold waters of realpolitik, we see that the brightness was simply caused by him burning up as he abruptly entered the atmosphere of reality, rather than the cold space of abstract political philosophy.

Facebooktwittermail

4 thoughts on “Cabrera land grab could be annulled

  1. Dear David
    As a very long term resident of Turre having lived in Cortijo Grande before
    it crumbled and now in Cabrera I would like to applaud your so well written
    and informative articles on your pages.
    They clearly explain the details of how Almeria and Turre is governed or
    rather un-governed and are so helpful in unravelling the complexities of our
    local small village politics.
    I personally have been acting as a volunteer Junta delegado for the past 4
    years trying to maintain our so well maintained environment against a small group who believed that they can live there practically for free. It was
    this group that effectively brought Morales into the Cabrera village
    politics.
    As a member of the Junta I would dearly like to copy and distribute your
    latest article to all Cabrera owners on how the Morales Cabrera decree could be annulled. Not everyone is on facebook or into blogs and I think that your article explains the current situation so well and would help to calm the fears and extreme worries of the majority of Cabrera owners.
    It may even make the small Cabrera group that voted Morales into power
    realise that if you dance with the Devil you should beware of what you
    unleash.
    Please let me know if it would be OK to cut and paste the article and send
    it out to the 200 home owners in Cabrera.

    best regards and keep up the good work

  2. Thanks for your feedback, CRA.
    If there are any substantial inaccuracies in the article do let me know and I’ll publish a correction. The comment re there is nothing to replace the 1993 agreement is not mine, but a comment made by the one of the ruling councillors at the time it was originally mooted way back before Martin decided not to push the matter to a vote.

    I’ve put your explanation into the main body of the article as an addition to my original comment.

    I certainly have not clouded my judgement in the main article but will admit to a little bit of poetic license in the final opinion piece at the bottom 🙂

  3. Both John Bailey and David Jackson have insinuated that they support the majority of owners in Cabrera, however, there is certainly no documented evidence of this. There are infact a very large number of residents in Cabrera that have supported the change of system and have registered their support at the Town Hall. David Jackson refers to the 1993 agreement stating that there is no suggested alternative, however, this is incorrect, the 1993 agreement would be replaced with the current Statutes that are already in place. Billing would fall into line with current urbanisation laws as quoted in Ley de Ordinacion Urbanisticas de Andalucia (LOUA- refer to para 113.1&2). Of course there are many different opinions as to whether the Mayor’s proposals for Cabrera are right or wrong, however, having a vested-interest always negates a biased opinion. John Bailey has quoted that a small group who think they could live in Cabrera “for practically free” have brought Martin Morales into Cabrera politics. Yet in other emails circulated to residents by the Junta de Compensacion, they state that the change of system which the so called “minority support” will cost residents tens of thousands….a slight contradiction in terms!
    We would like to refer to David Jackson’s point on illegal homes in Cabrera. Why are the properties illegal? As quoted by the main developer at the recent Cabrera AGM, all properties in Cabrera have been built with ALL the required documentation. The only document missing for the majority of properties, is the Certificate of First Occupation, which is due to the lack of infrastructure in the village, and according to the 1993 agreement is the sole responsibility of the developers!
    Finally, regarding the plenary which has created these discussions, the PP party will propose a vote to ASK the Consejo Consultivo Andalucia to consider making the Mayor’s change of system null and void, and the Mayor will propose a vote to ASK the Consejo Consultivo Andalucia to null and void the 1993 agreement. Neither item is being voted at the plenary to be revoked.

  4. Please note that I have decided to edit this comment and remove a paragraph which suggested that certain parties had vested interests which were clouding their views.
    The reason for this is two-fold:
    – the first is that a complaint made to me (not by any involved party but a third person) who suggested that the comments were bringing outside disputes into this page which do not belong here, and which only serve to inflame the discussion by introducing a personal aspect.
    – the second is that I do not know that this comment is by the Cabrera resident’s association (CRA). It is an anonymous post on the website, and I do not want to allow contentious views to be aired in the name of an organisation who may or may not be behind them.
    I have therefore redacted the first paragraph and included the two names of the people being discussed. I have left the rest of the posting “as is” with only minor editing for clarity (insertion of paragraph breaks). I feel this summarises the thrust of the post without allowing any room for personal discussion to be raised.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*