Arzano - "We're witnessing the triumphalistic tones of the Metropolitan City's supposed 'positive opinion' on the Municipal Urban Plan. But the truth is different, and we must state it clearly: the PUC was not approved. It was technically rejected," explains De Rosa.
And then he adds: "Yes, you understood correctly. Behind the words 'positive opinion' lies a document that, in black and white, says something completely different: The Plan, as it stands, cannot be approved. The technicians' observations are not minor details, but rather hurdles that require a radical revision. The PUC wanted to raise the urban planning standards to 23 square meters per inhabitant, when the law (DM 1444/68) allows a maximum of 18. This is not a simple technical error: it is a violation of the law.
The Metropolitan City is demanding a return to the correct limits, halting uncontrolled building expansion and protecting green spaces. This is a victory for those who believe in a livable city, with parks, urban gardens, and public spaces, not just buildings and concrete.
De Rosa loudly calls for a hands-off approach to the agricultural area.
The Plan called for urbanizing the only remaining peri-urban agricultural area, that of ATS No. 35. An absurd choice, in an area already saturated with construction. The Metropolitan City has been very clear: that provision must be eliminated or radically revised.
That area must be preserved as an environmental and productive asset for our community, not sacrificed on the altar of speculation." The councilor also denounces the chaos of maps and papers.
Even the PUC maps are confusing and contradictory: an area is listed as a parking lot in one document and a green area in another; buffer zones are missing, and key territorial areas are missing.
It is an incoherent, technically fragile and legally exposed plan.
A plan like this cannot guide the future of the country." "The Metropolitan City's note," he continues, "is not a green light. It is a conditional technical rejection.
Subordinate Consistency = Current Inconsistency: The Metropolitan City has clearly stated that the PUC will be considered compliant only "subject to the resolution of the objections." This means that, as of today, the Plan is not consistent with the supra-municipal strategies, and the opinion has the practical effect of a technical veto on the current version.
Risk of Permanent Stalemate: If the Administration fails to make the requested substantial changes and attempts to approve the Plan as is, the resolution would be at risk of invalidation due to a lack of coherence. The result is an adopted but inoperative Plan, condemning the city to a prolonged urban planning stalemate.
Now the ball is back in the court of the Municipality of Arzano. And the question is simple, says De Rosa: "Do we want to continue down the path of concrete, forced construction, and illusions, or do we want to rewrite a plan that puts the environment, legality, and quality of life at the center? We say no to misleading announcements. No to shortcuts.
Arzano deserves a true, legitimate, and sustainable PUC—not a rejected document disguised as success. The truth cannot be erased with propaganda. It must be addressed seriously and with political courage.
Comments (1)
Reading this article, it seems to me that there's a lot of confusion surrounding the PUC and its approvals. De Rosa seems right, but I'm not sure what needs to be done to resolve the situation and whether there are any real plans in place.