Portal de Lorca
www.portaldelorca.com
Pedro Sosa and Gloria Mart�n assure that they will fight before the Justice that the tax credits serve to help the neighbors who are struggling to maintain their activity and the jobs they generate, and not those who live off the rents.
"Mateos cannot benefit the wealthy class over workers and the self-employed and do so by violating fundamental rights, the Constitution and the laws," they assured The councilors of Izquierda Unida-Verdes in the Lorca City Council, Pedro Sosa and Gloria Mart�n, have filed a contentious-administrative appeal, for violation of fundamental rights, against the modification of the Regulatory Ordinance of Property Tax Properties with which the municipal government team, supported by VOX, intends to give a 75% discount to the owners of commercial premises, "without establishing any guarantee that this measure will benefit the tenants who carry out their activity in it.
".
The councilors of IU-Verdes maintain that said agreement is "null and void" since during the plenary session, held on December 28, "the councilors were not allowed to vote on the 26 allegations presented by residents of Lorca to the modification of the IBI ordinance ".
"We believe that the members of the maximum representative body of the citizens of Lorca and therefore, the residents have been illegally deprived of their fundamental right to political participation, collected in article 23 of the Spanish Constitution "said Sosa and Mart�n.
And it is that the Mayor, supported by a report of the Secretary General of the Plenary Assembly issued live during the session,prevented the corporations from voting on said allegations for their incorporation or not to the final text of the modification of the tax ordinances.
During the Plenary and the urgent Board of Spokespersons held minutes before this, Sosa and Mart�n repeatedly warned that a separate vote should be taken on these allegations which, if approved, should have been incorporated into the normative text of the ordinances, as established in article 17.3 of the Law Regulating Local Treasuries.
This vote should have taken place despite the objections expressed by the Intervention and the Economic-Budgetary Office in a report that "was not binding" and that expressly set aside,of what is established in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court regarding discounts in the IBI and also "of what has already been applied by municipalities such as Madrid, Zaragoza or Getafe".
However, not only were they not allowed to vote separately on such allegations, but some councilors went so far as to ensure that, if they did, all the ordinances provisionally approved would "decline".
An extreme that was not denied by the Secretary of the Plenary, who did not use the powers conferred on him to "advise the members of the Corporation and guarantee the legal security of the decisions that we must adopt." "Nothing would have declined, the only thing that would have happened if the claims of the neighbors had been voted and approved is that they would have been incorporated into the ordinances," they assured.
For Sosa and Mart�n, starting from a "fallacy", it was possible to induce some councilors to change their criteria, while hours before the plenary session PP, IU-Verdes and VOX agreed to support the allegations presented by the merchants.
The councilors of IU-Verdes have requested the "precautionary suspension" of the application of the new IBI ordinance "due to the damages it would entail for citizens and for the City Council itself." In this sense, they stated that this ordinance is also "manifestly illegal" because it is based on a "declaration of general public interest" that does not correspond to the mayor, but to the Government of Spain, as it happened.
¿½ with earthquakes.
The law says that the town councils may regulate a discount of up to 95% of the full IBI fee in favor of properties in which economic activities are carried out that are declared of special interest or utility.
municipal, but that this declaration "corresponds to the Plenary of the Corporation,upon request of the taxable person ".
Pedro Sosa assured that "we have been forced to resort to contentious-administrative jurisdiction because this mayor is trying to restrict the rights of councilors and citizens and because we are not willing to allow the money of all Lorca to be used for benefit the rentiers and not the workers and the self-employed who really need it and who are suffocated by the Covid-19 crisis ".
"We are going to fight to the last consequences what is fair: that tax credits serve to help neighbors who are struggling to maintain their activity and the jobs they generate, and not those who live off income ".
"We will defend the voice of our neighbors in court as we have done on other occasions,because we are very clear that we owe our acts of councilors to the people, and that our main obligation is to represent and defend their interests, "he said.
"We have had to endure that a municipal government of the PSOE, with the support of the extreme right, continues to squeeze the pocket of the working class while lowering taxes on companies that invoice more than a million euros and forgive them to multinationals that exploit municipal resources, "said Sosa.
"For what we are not going to happen is because they do it trampling our rights of political participation, because this is not the private farmhouse of Mr.
Mateos nor is he above the Constitution and of the laws, "he assured.
Sosa manifested that these are the "most regressive" and "harmful" municipal ordinances for the citizens of the democratic history of Lorca.
"The PSOE should feel ashamed of using power to favor the wealthy class at the expense of the fiscal effort of working families and the poorest sectors of the population," he concluded.
function { ;(, , {});}
Source: IU-verdes Lorca
Privacy policy
- Legal notice
- Cookies