All the urban planning issues that need to be discussed in Milan today following the end of the wave of court cases

To the Editor – I was pleased to receive Editor Cerasa’s request regarding the impact that judicial investigations have had on the CCL co-operatives. As a trained town planner and a ‘mutualist property developer’ – and therefore a co-operator myself – with a position too complex to be summed up in a single quip, I have written these few lines.

Tuesday’s news is excellent – for those concerned, for those who, like myself, are staunch defenders of due process, and for those who believe in justice. The fact that the request to dismiss the case comes from the public prosecutor’s office itself is of great significance. Allow me to commend Manfredi Catella’s statement: it conveys a sense of great personal dignity and an equally great respect for the institutions that uphold the democratic order.

That said, as I am neither a blind believer nor a fan, I always try to look at phenomena in all their complexity.

The investigations, which have covered a far wider scope than that addressed by yesterday’s ruling, stem from an underlying malaise whose causes can be attributed to confusing legislation that is open to too many interpretations, an encroachment by the construction industry into the field of town planning – which, as the saying goes, is a discipline of design rather than law – and procedural shortcuts made possible by political indecision, which has led to structural social dissent.

If urban development processes are not managed seriously – all the more so in a city like Milan, which has always been the epicentre of the seismic shocks caused by economic upheaval – voids, anger and frustration are created. Citizens end up seeing legal action as the sole force for justice and morality, ushering in periods that leave bleeding wounds in their wake.

At Ccl (Consortium of Workers’ Cooperatives), guided by our convictions, prudence and experience, we have chosen not to use procedures that could prove problematic; on the contrary, at the slightest hint of potential difficulty, we have preferred to start projects from scratch (incurring additional costs and operational delays); the resulting damage has been, and continues to be, considerable, even though we are not involved in any investigation.

And since we – I say this with a touch of irony – are indeed ‘property developers’, but staunch advocates of co-operative principles, that is, respectful of Article 45 of the Constitution, such damage affects both the business organisation we have the honour of leading and, above all, our resident members, the vast majority of whom want an affordable home to live in, not to extract parasitic rent from it.

What does this mean in practical terms? The freeze on the issuing of planning permission has also affected our projects. Focusing on just five projects (in some cases in partnership with the Lum co-operative) that, under normal circumstances, would already have been completed or handed over, here are some figures. The aggregate turnover of these projects is approximately 170 million euros. They correspond to around 450 homes across various types of housing: ranging from 2,750 €/m² for subsidised social housing, to €3,300 per square metre for standard housing, right up to a peak of €3,900 per square metre for the private sector – including around 70 rental properties at €110 per square metre per year, or €550 per month for a 60-square-metre two-room flat. A real mini ‘housing plan’, one might say, which could already be ready and occupied today.

These delays have had another effect: an average increase in costs of between 300 and 500 euros per square metre for sales and 10–20 euros per square metre per year for rentals. The rise in tender costs, the redesign of projects (the costs of which have not been passed on to resident members), the IMU – a significant annual expense – and financial charges weigh heavily, and, as the entity is a co-operative, these costs are largely passed on to the residents through the cost-sharing scheme, in addition to the dramatic postponement of essential projects.

Finally: for the first time in 52 years and after having built 16,000 homes, Ccl sees its business continuity – founded on rigour, loyalty to cooperative principles and entrepreneurial initiative – at risk.

There are many parties responsible for this situation: it is wrong to seek scapegoats; we must reflect on the future. We need more politics, clear rules that leave little room for interpretation – and here the version of the PGT under discussion concerns us: based on the simulations carried out, clarity remains a pipe dream and interpretation a certainty – more effective bureaucracy, better process management, greater urban equity and more redistribution.

Only in this way will Milan once again become a city of work, innovation and social justice.