Elections for the councillors of MO Drenova – why the elections should be held ...
As we already informed you in mid-April, the term of this VMO ends – the elections will take place in mid-May. Although I personally, as well as all the councillors of the MO Drones, am dissatisfied with the powers and room for manoeuvre of the council in the field of decision-making on important issues - it is nevertheless an important institution of any democratic system. In this or similar forms, local committees exist in all advanced democracies and represent the first point of contact of citizens with the institutions of the state.
Although these elections are often not given enough importance, they are objectively the only possibility for citizens to directly influence the political and development processes in the environment in which they live and work – unlike "big politics" in a parliament or government where citizens can only passively observe what is happening, hoping that reason will prevail and that decisions will be made for the benefit of all citizens.
This choice defines whether the elected council will be able to cope with all the "challenges" in the MO area and in communication with the competent city services. Despite occasional oscillations in mutual relations and communication, it should be noted that the local self-government in the City of Rijeka is undoubtedly the most developed in our country and that it is worth advocating for its further improvement. I am sure that by the time we join the EU, we will have an organization and processes that will be compatible with any more advanced state of the Union.
I personally expect the new legislature to continue with the initiated projects in the area of MC Drenovo, and to maintain and further improve the established standards of work of MC and successful cooperation with responsible persons and departments of the City of Rijeka
Therefore, dear Drenovčanka and Drenovčani, I invite you to participate as much as possible in the upcoming elections for local self-government and give your vote to people of trust who you believe will best represent your interests and expectations.
Detailed planning plan (DPU) for incentive housing (POS) construction on Donja Drenova
At its 44th session, VMO Drenova discussed the entire situation regarding POS apartments in Drenova, especially in the light of the latest decision of the DPU, which is completely unacceptable to the council. VMO absolutely supports the POS program and looks forward to solving the housing problems of our citizens. We also believe that there are enough attractive locations on Drenova for this type of construction. But unfortunately, a great idea turned into its opposite in the case of POS Drenova.
Let's recall the facts:
Location
1. The VMO and citizens have been dissatisfied with the location of the POS apartments from the outset, which has been communicated on several occasions – culminating in a choir of citizens:
a. The selection of the site was not transparent and MO was not consulted, the selection criteria were not clear at all. The alternative locations that we subsequently proposed were not even considered. There is a constant policy of the "perfect act", which culminated in the mistrust of citizens for the purpose of local self-government.
b. Why the site is not optimal, we have already commented on several occasions with arguments, but the biggest problems are inadequate transport connections, problems with the sewage system, the destruction of pine forests, the destruction of the natural habitat (‘bare’ – which also has a small water source), inadequate terrain full of sinkholes and cavities, large altitude differences, etc.
c. It is especially unacceptable to constantly insist on the dimensions of the plan and not to look at the wider picture and context of the DPU for POS with Donja Drenova. This DPU is not in the middle of a wasteland, but it connects and leans on existing space and infrastructure – so if these "compounds" are not adequate, there can be no DPU either. And all accumulated problems are planned to be solved at some future time – as such an obligation cannot of course be part of the POS DPU.
b. Why the site is not optimal, we have already commented on several occasions with arguments, but the biggest problems are inadequate transport connections, problems with the sewage system, the destruction of pine forests, the destruction of the natural habitat (‘bare’ – which also has a small water source), inadequate terrain full of sinkholes and cavities, large altitude differences, etc.
c. It is especially unacceptable to constantly insist on the dimensions of the plan and not to look at the wider picture and context of the DPU for POS with Donja Drenova. This DPU is not in the middle of a wasteland, but it connects and leans on existing space and infrastructure – so if these "compounds" are not adequate, there can be no DPU either. And all accumulated problems are planned to be solved at some future time – as such an obligation cannot of course be part of the POS DPU.
Conceptual design
2. Nevertheless, a competition was launched for a conceptual design that yielded an attractive concept, but it was immediately clear that such a project could hardly withstand POS criteria (construction costs), which subsequently turned out to be the case. The VMO ‘accepted’ the proposed solution because it ensured maximum conservation of the greenery and offered an adequate number of parking spaces in the garages (which is why the greenery is preserved).
3. However, when the construction of the DPU started, it was "confirmed" that the planned buildings were too expensive (cannot have garages ?!) and the project was modified in such a way that the garages were abolished and additional outdoor parking lots were created on the plot. It should not be said that this completely changes the basic concept and the reason why the said conceptual solution won the main prize. In addition, such a solution makes it impossible to fulfill other main preconditions (preservation of greenery and natural habitat), which completely distances the entire project from the original idea.
4. Furthermore, given the size of the plot even if it is completely concreted, it is not possible to provide a sufficient number of parking spaces. The argument that ‘there are a lot of free parking spaces nearby’ is frivolous and shows no concern for the inhabitants of Drenova. I would like to remind you that Drenova has a chronic lack of parking spaces due to the lack of vision of designers from the 80s, so the entire buildings were built and not a single parking space was provided. It is incomprehensible to the Council that projects made in 2010 do not anticipate the future at least a little and provide a little more room for manoeuvre for future generations.
Huge excavations
5. It is also incomprehensible that, according to the new project, huge excavations are planned to make parking lots (height difference 7-8 meters) and the demolition of the existing retaining wall, which cost hundreds of thousands of kuna. Due to the differences in height and construction methods, we received a comment that it is impossible to preserve anything in the area because ‘the whole hill needs to be leveled’. The only solution is to plant greenery after the completion of construction. And it's really a poor substitute for the dense pine forest that grows there now.
6. And now, at the end of the conversation with all the participants who are operationally working on this project, everyone is dissatisfied – MO because everything goes against our proposals, the designer because the idea has changed, the maker of the DPU because he cannot plan the space correctly and is forced to make numerous compromises that are not "future proof", the investor because everything is too expensive and does not fit into the POS dimensions, etc., etc. So why do we do this ? Why don't we look at these alternative locations?
7. We have also received an answer – the funds have been approved and it is now impossible to change anything because there is a risk that we "lose" them!
Conclusion
In line with the previous VMO, Drenova has issued a negative opinion and cannot support neither the DPU nor the POS on Donja Drenova in this form.
Although our decision of course has no weight and cannot stop the "engaged machinery", we hope that it will at least affect the awareness of those responsible that it cannot and must not be done in this way and that much greater communication with the local community is needed at all stages of projects of importance to these environments.
English