THE Erripagaña Neighborhood Association rejected the option of “become dependent on two municipalities“, called for the “generosity” of municipalities, especially from Burladaand the “responsibility” of administrations to find a “definitive solution to the problem and not to put up insurmountable obstacles”.
This was stated in a press release after the report of the Court of Auditors who recommends that Pamplona or Burlada take charge of Erripagaña or, “failing that”, both.
The association assured that this report “confirms” that “Erripagaña was conceived as a source of financing for their municipal councils, which have not cared about providing services to the population and have negligently delayed investments.
In this sense, he criticized the fact that “investments are practically zero, taking into account that the two largest (the Burlada football field and Sarriguren footbridge) are not specifically intended for the district and have been financed mainly by public and regional funds.
Similarly, he accused the Government of Navarre of having “systematically abandoned Erripagaña, delayed the construction of the health centre without reason, installed a nursery school out of opportunism and used land from the school endowment to move regional facilities.”
On the other hand, he criticized the fact that “Comptos was able to make an economic analysis in three months, while local entities were three years in and they keep delaying it“.
Although he emphasizes that these data “they are not completesince the pending urban development revenues and the expenditure that the works and current expenditure of the grants will entail are not taken into account”; the report “is a good diagnosis of the economic consequences for the municipalities that lose or gain territory”.
THE neighbors of Erripagaña stressed that “no technical analysis will be able to provide a solution to the problem, since a political decision is needed, led by the Government of Navarre as the main person responsible for the SIEP (it must now provide the solutions that it had not considered 20 years ago) and adopted by the municipal councils with the benefit of the neighborhood in mind.”
So they appealed to “the generosity of the municipalities, especially from Burladawho would lose the most in proportion if he gave up his share: a third of his territory, a quarter of his population and an eighth of his budget. He therefore invites you to “value the significant income obtained”. , and who put the well-being of the neighborhood before the stability of your accounts, whether you gain or lose territory.
Furthermore, he urged Pamplona to “speed up the participatory process that he leads, so that within a year Erripagaña will have a solution decided between all the administrations and the neighborhood.
THE Erripagaña Neighborhood Association rejected “that the solution is to become dependent on two municipalities; we are a geographical unit, delimited and isolated by roads with heavy traffic and steep slopes.” One option, he added, “could involve a blockade by a municipal council.”
For all this, he called for “the responsibility of all administrations so that they seek a definitive solution to the problem and do not create insurmountable obstacles.
