Already the Super bonus 110%, the one that allowed the owners of residential buildings to have the costs of restoration reimbursed by the State, has burdened the public coffers in an abnormal way, making all Italians pay for the houses (often) of the wealthiest. Now, after the publication of the data of Ministry of the Environment, it turns out that part of that money was taken by the Pnrr. In short, from Europe: currency that theoretically should have been made available to the community and which instead served to pay for the energy requalification of thousands of villas, cottages and condominiums. There is a Venetian condominium that has received 3.2 million eurosa house in Tarzo (Treviso) took some 400 thousand. And then there are other single-family and independent properties that have taken one hundred, two hundred thousand, a building financed with 2.3 million, another with 2.1 million, another with 1.8 million euros. Thanks to Next Generation Eu. The total for Veneto amounts to 1.55 billion to redevelop 7,579 villas and 975 condominiums: it is the second largest region in Italy after Lombardy, except that here the population is half. The Venetian amount is 11.2% of the expenditure of the Pnrr certifications of the entire country, but with a larger share of interventions, 14.1%.
The builders: «Undemocratic Superbonus»
Veneto, according to the data Aeneas at the end of May, it is the most “superbonusized” region of the country: almost 60 thousand sworn statements, 5.6% of homes (the national average is 4.1%). Spending, however, is among the lowest with average investments of 194 thousand euros for a total of deductions accrued in Veneto, paid by the State – therefore ours – of 11.6 billion. Comment Alessandro Gerottopresident of the manufacturers of Reeds Veneto: «The money was brought home and the interventions carried out, it would have changed little for us to know where it came from, but now we know what shouldn’t be done. It would have been appropriate to do one study on the movement of those figures which went, for the most part, in favor of wealthy owners who took the opportunity for huge jobs. She was one norm partly antidemocratic, few have benefited, the redeveloped properties are minimal percentages, the bonus lasted too long. Now, however, we must be careful with the directive on green houses: it must be supported with funds, assigning them to those who really need to redevelop their home or production plant to waste, spend and pollute less.”
The amount
The ministry has published the list of reported statements: over a thousand pages and 60,755 interventions for a total of 13.7 billion of Euro. But how was it possible? The government Dragons, in 2021, found itself faced with a disproportionate amount of public money for the Superbonus: it was already clear then that the state coffers would suffer. A portion therefore, 13.7 billion, was supported by the Pnrr for the energy redevelopments (Europe is calling for a 40% cut in consumption by the end of 2025). It had not been easy to get Brussels to accept this option, but Draghi had managed to cover part of the bonus with the Next Generation. All legitimate, transparent and verified. However, the opportunity, today, raises doubts and perplexities, especially due to the difficulties encountered by the Municipalities precisely on the redevelopment front, between increasingly meager budgets and spending limits.
Anci: «Money more useful for schools»
And in short, in Veneto there are 8,554 renovations financed with the common European debt. «This is certainly an objective worthy of attention and consistent with Mission 2 of the Pnrr, renovations profound, which imply an improvement in at least two energy classes – he notes Carlo Rapicavoli, director of Anci and Upi Veneto -. But at least a portion of that paid by the Pnrr could have been destined to increase the resources Already expected for public heritage and for the energy efficiency of public buildings. From schools, to museums, to public housing, to healthcare facilities, to state buildings. It is enough to think about the state of construction residential public and the difficulties of the Municipalities in managing the housing policies or to the necessary interventions on school buildings for the energy efficiency of buildings, to realize the importance and necessity of public investments. Just for them schoolsresources could have been allocated to finance all the interventions already presented and included in the rankings and regional plans and not implemented due to the exhaustion of the available sums”.
