“He understood this for a long time”but also “còca per broca”or “Rome for Rome”. These are all ways of saying that the Piedmontese has invented to define a misunderstanding between two things that “sound similar”. Something like this happens in the hall of the town hall of Cuneo, when we talk about Tettoia Vinaj: the opposition thinks of the fees that were never paid, the guarantee that never arrived, the controversial legal matter that continues. The majority to the redeveloped square, to the sentence that would have “exonerated” the previous administration, to the activity of Baladin and those who have worked there so far.
Thus, in the second extraordinary council on the theme imposed by the minorities, a comedy of errors is staged between two parties who speak to each other but do not understand each other. Everything has already been heard, apart from the name of the lawyer who replaced Vittorio Barosio: he is Giorgio Lezzi, of the Osborne Clarke firm in Milan. He lets the mayor know Patrizia Manassero, currently on holiday, who connects with the councilors remotely. No explanation on the reasons for the dismissal of the mandate, yet another twist in the soap opera, over which hovers the shadow of an irreconcilable disagreement regarding the procedural strategy to follow. Barosio wanted the agreement with Tettoia Vinaj srl, a circumstance confirmed by the lawyer Fabrizio Revelli who defends the company Dario Dalmasso. For the most part, someone got in the way, and according to rumors they are the centrists. The strangeness, remarked by the leader of the Independents Giancarlo Boselliis that there is no trace of this interlocution: “There are no cards – explains the mayor – because there was a search by the lawyers, but there were no conditions for a solution of this type: it never started”.
The opposition’s suspicion: “A direction behind what happened”
At least one mystery is solved, then. The other concerns the cause of the extraordinary summons, i.e. the failure to communicate the revocation of the legal mandate: “The mayor had, until the day before, extolled the abilities and the thirty-year relationship with the Barosio studio” recalls Boselli. “Councilor Fantino’s choice to entrust the case to a new lawyer was made and formalized later” replies the Centro per Cuneo group leader Vincenzo Pellegrino. “It is true that the change of lawyer was made after the city council meeting” confirms Manassero. Here however, we add, even if we want to understand this for bad something doesn’t add up with the dates: the scoop de The print on the “dismissal” of the lawyer Barosio was published on May 29th, the day after the last council meeting. It is possible that it was “formalized” later, not that it hadn’t at least been decided before.
“The fact that the act is not completed does not exempt the majority from expressing opinions on what has already been decided by council resolutions” objects in this regard Ugo Sturlese (Cuneo for Common Goods), denouncing the “let’s play ‘formal acts’”or that “In recent months there is always some formal act not completed when we make an inquiry and the councilor replies that the act has not yet been completed”. “It’s not a coincidence” adds the doyen of the civic left: “The majority do this because they don’t get along, and to avoid getting into trouble they hide things”. And it would not be a coincidence, he hypothesizes, not even that no injunctions were received by the manager considered to be in default: “This good-natured treatment is linked to the fact that, lacking money for the renovation of the buildings in Piazza Foro Boario, we turned to this counterparty who did the work and committed some capital. Hence the attempt at an agreement, carried forward despite eleven interpellations by me and Lauria, but it was never concluded”. At this point, he adds, “the only logical path is to reopen this investigation and establish a specific commission, because this way of operating is outside the logic, common sense and dignity of a municipal council”.
“I am increasingly convinced that the whole thing could not have developed, in recent years, without direction” observe Beppe Lauria (Independence!), pulling Baladin by the jacket again: “In Montagnola an entrepreneur invested and it was explained to him that he could not continue. Now everyone is tearing their clothes up saying that the private entrepreneur is excellent, so much so that he is the same one to whom we will give Cascina Vecchia at a price of 12 thousand euros a year. Given the direct relationship between us and Baladin, I believe there will be no problem in showing us the supporting documents for payments made in the past”. Lauria focuses on the consequences of missed payments: “Faced with the loss of a million, we are making council commissions where we will prepare to decide on an increase of more than 21% in urbanization charges”.
The same theme is raised by Paolo Armellini (Independent): “There is public money at stake, and a lot of it, which could have been allocated – for example – to the removal of architectural barriers in the municipal area”. “To say that this matter was handled superficially is an understatement: in the meantime we wonder why it took years to act legally” he claims Massimo Garnero (Brothers of Italy): “You handled the matter on an amateur level, – accuses – even if the emoluments you receive are not such”. “It’s our citizens’ money, the IMU we pay these days has been increased” he warns Franco Civallero (Forza Italia): “If we had had that million, most likely there would have been no need”. Mavy Civallero (SiAmo Cuneo) raises further suspicions: “Does the Municipality want this money or not? It makes me think that he doesn’t want them, because he knows that they aren’t his and that there are prior agreements to that effect, but we have to fight to pretend we want them.”. Claudio Bongiovanni (Cuneo Mia), addressed to centrists, question “until we have to continue to see blackmail paralyzing the city and what advantages does it bring to the mayor to pretend and accept that blackmail becomes a working method”. “We can continue to discuss the topic for months if we remain entrenched in our positions. We always have the information the next day” he concludes Luciana Toselli (Cuneo for Common Goods).
The majority: “We have the premises. The sentence proves us right”
“There is no information on the dispute, other than that already given, that should or can be given” Pellegrino replies to those who ask for information on what will happen with the change of lawyer (there is also an appeal at stake, which has already been decided). The agenda of the opposition is defined “erroneous and specious”fruit of one “very copious instrumental activity on Tettoia Vinaj”: “What matters is that today, thanks to the work of councilor Fantino, the Municipality has taken possession of its property. A tender will be made which will lead to a new contractual relationship, healthy and solid, with economic advantages for the municipality and great social, cultural and artistic repercussions for the square”. “The sentence clears the field of any doubt and suspicion regarding the administration’s actions and recognizes the company’s guilt” reiterates the leader of the Democratic Party Claudia Carliin newfound agreement with the centrists: “The custody of the property and the continuity of the administration activity have been guaranteed, in a delicate area of the city in terms of public safety”.
The mayor also invites us not to take the return of the premises for granted: “The refund allows us today to take over the relationship with Open Baladin and immediately get back the payment of the fee”. We then move on to a broad one excursus on the square “which was a non-place” and which was recovered “to the sociality of the city”: Then “there was an unfortunate event, a misfortune, we met an operator who did not pay the concession fees”. Words that provoke further replies: “We worry a lot about the ‘non-places’ of the city, given what happened in this ‘non-place’” replies Bongiovanni. “Even the Bassotti gang can do nice things” Sturlese quips, while Boselli presses on, calling into question the future exposed for tax damage: “I ask the mayor if he thinks he will be able to justify himself before the Court of Auditors by saying that it is a beautiful square”.
