Here we are after the holidays. We hope that everything went according to your expectations, that the holidays are spent in serenity. Well, these last few days before our Committee have been a little bit (but just a little bit ..) external shaken by controversy, but this has not prevented us to recharge the batteries and be ready to go, if possible, even more motivated than before. On the other hand, we estimated that we would greatly "bothered" and therefore knew in advance that we would be criticized in profusion.
topics that we face are many and varied, the work ahead is challenging and could lead, if not addressed in an organized manner to a dispersal of forces to arrive, finally, to the natural dissolution committee. The best way to tackle a new problem is to do it when the previous one is' fixed.
In the coming days we will present our first petition or that the formation of the Regulations of People's Initiative. This will be the "tool" to interact with in the administration Hall. Got what surely will act to define the topic "South Tangenzialina Rottofreno" as an alternative to the use of Via Guareschi. definitely go back on the subject by asking, in a formal explanation about the state of the art for the famous resolution of the council that would "set aside" what had been agreed between the City of Rottingdean and the ownership of the residential area called "Park Lodge Rio" with the convention planning for the implementation of the Urban Plan Implementation Rottofreno zone 2, which was concluded on December 29, 2007 before the notary Dr. Massimo Toscani. The cancellation of the agreement made in such a place had been announced to the many participants at the beginning of the first meeting of the Committee, dated back to December 4, 2009 by Vice-Mayor John Perotti.
If indeed it is a Council resolution was adopted (and we do not have at present no reason to doubt the statement) it should exist and this resolution copy should be included in the list of those available on the website of the City of Rottingdean. Unfortunately now not been heard.
Your signatures for the petition are also in place to this, ensure that they can no longer make verbal statements without having to confirm with facts or official records.
There are other issues that concern us but that we will face not just solved the question above. But the one you want to mention a bit about why we can meditate: premise that we are all convinced that a third pharmacy in our town is certainly a good thing, and if this pharmacy, then, is "local" even better. But the question that we all must ask is: "are the words because they may open a third pharmacy "and if so, well ... if not, why the city administration has issued an invitation to tender for a private pharmacy of the future city?
To give just a hint: the Law of 8 November 1991 nr. 362, Article 1 "pharmacy-population ratio" in paragraph 2:03 states: "The number of autorizzaioni is defined so that there is one pharmacy per 5,000 (five thousand) people to the towns up to 12,500 inhabitants and a pharmacy every 4,000 inhabitants in other municipalities.
The surplus population, compared to the parameters of the second paragraph is computed for opening a pharmacy, where it is at least 50% of the parameters themselves. "
Well, our City today counts less than 12,000 inhabitants, so ........ but we'll talk about later.
0 comments:
Post a Comment