"... I prefer instead to continue a debate on the issues, proposing what, in my humble view, solutions can be (...) As regards the town planning, and because of the state of severe crisis facing the local construction industry, to share the action taken by the administration outgoing order Latimer to provide a PUG, we be approved, pending adoption of that document, estate plan involving areas such as completion of "windmills," Biondo, Scaramouche, and so Salento ... "
E 'With these words, January 23, 2010 (then just over a year ago), then the candidate Gabriel Argentieri proposed to implement the estate plan that , he said, would have boosted the construction sector and the local economy (who should have doubts about the veracity of my quote has to do is click here : Will be able to view the blog Argentieri and specifically the post where the same places these reflections to the public).
What emerges from reading these lines is clear, Argentieri judged positive subdivision plans.
However, what is unclear is the reason why the same Argentieri, today, think differently, reaching almost to demonize any subdivision, planned also in one of those areas of completion that he himself indicated. Because now he changed his mind?
Councillor Argentieri in the recent past has already proven to be unable to take clear positions. I remember, for example, that the City Council in November 2010 just Argentieri was the author of a long speech in which he said supports the establishment of the special (as it was considered a feasible project for the protection of the underprivileged classes), claiming that it would abstained from the vote because she wanted a greater involvement of his party in the drafting of the project, in short, his was a "positive abstention": not only shared the project, but rather wanted to help make it better. However, a few days later, the same Argentieri was a signatory to a motion that sought to annul the about the special resolution (and therefore also the cancellation of that his positive abstention mentioned earlier), or even to take - the next city council - a position completely opposed to the one it had just 20 days before (for my checking these statements, I invite you to listen to the recording of local councils in question on the site in the World Idea Radio, the TV section Idea - Latimer TV).
I personally believe that having an open mind that allows you to change part of its thought may be a quality.
But I also think that although only a fool never change your mind, change too often those who do not prove to be a genius.
Now - should be brought to the next city council estate plan - I expect that the director Argentieri vote in favor, if it takes us to be consistent with what the facts prove to be his thoughts and ideas. Otherwise end up with the highlight once again, a confusion that absolutely can not and must belong to a counselor so supported
Let me conclude with a reflection. Being part of a party, or a group council, involves having to give up their ideas? Forces may have to stop believing their own thoughts, to respond positively to those cool textures of the party, who may not even share in their underwear?
The answers to these questions are undoubtedly dangerous; and it is because of these responses that many, too many people are losing confidence in the parties.
Personally I hope in the birth of a new policy, which starts from the bottom and work to ensure that frees us from the logical party that now no longer represent anyone ... and that have little logic.
a confidante, is also why, when someone asks me "what party you represent?" I am proud to say "no. I try in my small way, to represent the common people ..."
Daniel
0 comments:
Post a Comment