These days, in Parliament, the green light is being given to the decree called “Save Milan”already approved by the House and now being examined by the Senate. Supporting him is a transverse axis who sees, in the front row, next to each other, FdI, Forza Italia, Lega, Democratic Party and Action. The Left-Green Alliance and the Five Star movement are against.
There are historical moments, and geographical contexts, where the Democratic Party lines up alongside some of its former “allies” of the Draghi government, starting with Salvini’s League. The “save Milan” initiative was born from a pact stipulated between the deputy prime minister and the mayor Beppe Sala.
On the banks of the Strait, the Democratic Party reiterates its hard line towards the Bridge, asking, with a question from the councilor Alexander Russoto the mayor to challenge before the TAR the opinion of the Via-Vas del Mase Commission, which approved the definitive project of the stable crossing. And instead up there, in the Northern capital, the Democratic Party is with the League and says yes to a measure aimed at unblocking as many as 150 construction sites that have remained at a standstill, after the intervention of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
What is “Save Milan”? Some call it the biggest building speculation in recent decades. We started from the consideration that the judicial investigations have led to the total paralysis of urban planning in the Lombardy metropolis, with damage of 130 million euros in uncollected urbanization costs and a loss of investments amounting to 5 billion euros. And here, then, the “Save Milan”, a sort of maxi-amnesty on all those projectsthanks to «the authentic interpretation of the 1942 urban planning law, which clarifies once and for all the procedure to be used in urban regeneration interventions».
It is established that «the prior approval of a detailed plan or subdivision agreement is not mandatory in cases of construction of new buildings, replacement, following demolition, of existing buildings and interventions on existing buildings located in built-up and urbanized areas which determine the creation of heights exceeding the height of pre-existing and surrounding buildings, where this does not conflict with a concrete and current public interest in respecting the aforementioned height limits”. All that is needed is the “Scia”… Where there are dilapidated buildings, skyscrapers can be demolished and built. If it had been called “Save Messina”, would the Democratic Party have voted in favor?