The affair of the Palazzo Edera in Cosenza which – as usual – we alone raised in the complicit and embarrassed silence of the regime media hired by Don Pierino the loan shark, has made and is making the entire city seethe.
And we use the verb boil because with the temperatures rising, the anger of the people of Cosenza increases in comparing their difficult economic situation with the deals they do at Palazzo dei Bruzi to unduly enrich their friends. Better if you loan sharks…
For those who have not yet understood, we are talking about the undue favor for what remains of Palazzo Edera that Franz Caruso, with his hood and his apron, together with Luigi Incarnato, with his ticks and the legendary Nicola Adamo better known as Capu i Liune.
Undue favor that the gang in question did to Don Pierino Citrigno, who was awarded compensation that will be seven figures although not yet quantified for the future use of the so-called Edera Palace which had been built with some illegal floors demolished by the mayor Giacomo Mancini.
Well, we were the only ones to unmask the deal not because we are good but only because we are honest and don’t let ourselves be bought by the enveloping advertisements of Don Pierino, not surprisingly called the loan shark. But the outcry was so great that the administration was forced to respond anyway by trying to patch things up which, as you will see, is worse than the hole.
To try to explain to you the nonsense that Frenz, Giggino and Capu i Liuni have set up for the benefit of Don Pierino, we have consulted an expert in accounting for public bodies.
First of all, the fundamental thing is that the city council of 10 June with a unanimous vote – just to clarify how right and left in the Council are the same thing – recognizes the enrichment of the body for the acquisition of the illegal building and the social function of the the building itself (intended for social housing).
This is exactly what the OSL (Extraordinary Liquidation Body) needed, evidently, to free itself from the obstacle of recognizing the off-balance sheet debt necessary to admit the Edera company in question to the liabilities side, in the absence of a sentence passed in judged which expressly obliges the entity to pay such an amount. In fact, the City Council voted to provide the OSL with an element of legitimacy to do what it has refused to do (in this one case out of hundreds) from 2020 onwards.
Furthermore, Frenz, Giggino and Nicola Capu the Liuni “embrace” a ruling by the Council of State which would have granted the Municipality the “right to invoke the forfeiture of the surface right” in 2018. And they also say that the urban planning agreement which “in cases of forfeiture” provides for compensation determined by a commission which the Administration does not tell us if it was ever established and if it ever decided. And this, given how easy it is to understand for everyone, represents a serious omission.
The three scoundrels, caught with the hands of the jam, justify themselves by saying that there would be a request to the 2020 OSL “for compensation”. And the procedure established at the OSL would be “in progress”.
Here too – explains the expert we consulted – “it is perhaps appropriate to specify that no person can make a “request for compensation” to an OSL, the body responsible for liquidating the creditors of the institution’s bankruptcy.
More likely it is an application for admission to the passive mass. Hundreds of such requests have been submitted. Some were immediately included in the liabilities to be liquidated, with full recognition of the debt; others were partially admitted, others were admitted only after a settlement with the creditor and, finally, many were rejected, with consequent denial of the debt towards the complaining creditor.
And here the donkey falls, or rather it would be to say the three dummies fall because they do not explain what would have prevented the OSL, in these four years, from deciding nothing on the request for admission to the liabilities of the company building the illegal property.
And in fact now the three dummies hide their hand after having thrown the stone saying that “at the moment no evaluation has taken place”, thereby dissimulating the value and scope of a fundamental part of the deliberative act taken by the Council on 10 June last which it is precisely that of acknowledging Don Pierino for having paid the compensation from the municipal body.
In simple words, without the decision of the city council on June 10th Don Pierino would not have obtained a nice fifth wheel.
At this point – the expert tells us – the administration’s patch opens up disturbing scenarios and imposes an indefinite series of questions…
When was the right to invoke the forfeiture of the surface right exercised, if at all? Who would perfect the exercise of the faculty? Did you have the financial resources to cover the compensation commitment? If not, as seems evident, has the Caruso administration taken steps to report him for treasury damage to the Court of Auditors, as he promised to do during the election campaign to prosecute those responsible for the organisation’s collapse?
And even if the right of forfeiture was exercised, was the commission that was to define the compensation then set up? Who was the representative of the organisation? Did he claim to deduct the compensation from the city for the damage to its image caused by that building abuse?
And even more so if the right has been exercised and the commission has determined the compensation, whoever has failed to enter the debt in the budget proceeding with the necessary recognition pursuant to art. 194 TUEL? Has the Caruso Administration taken steps to refer it to the Court of Auditors for the fiscal damage caused by the delayed recognition?
And finally, it is possible that the compensation was never included in the budget because, lacking the conditions of the art. 194, provided by the council resolution of 10 June, was no payment to the company involved in the serious building abuse absolutely legitimate?
As is evident to those who are fasting, it is clear that the three did quite well
mess and the questions would be even more disturbing if we were to learn that the right to invoke the forfeiture of the surface right has never been correctly formalized (as it would seem to read from the administration’s statement), or if we were to know that the commission to determine the the compensation has never been constituted or has never reached a conclusion, or if we were to know that the fruitless expiry of the ten-year deadline for the completion of the work has in fact determined the ineffectiveness of the building agreement and therefore the lack of the right to the compensation that today Caruso, Incarnato and Adamo define for the benefit of Don Pierino the loan shark.
At the end of the chat the expert insinuates a doubt and that is: if the Region does not build the property for the affiliated construction, then the social function of the asset is lost and, with it, the legitimizing assumption pursuant to art. 194 TUEL of the related recognition of off-balance sheet debt. In this case, do the councillors, who unanimously voted for the resolution of 10 June, know that they will have to answer for the damage to the treasury of the unjust payment of compensation to Don Pierino? We think they know…
