The Environment Minister has assured the Parliamentary Committee on the Environment that there will be no further demolitions beyond the 22 'at risk' houses on the island of Culatra whose owners already have been notified.
Minister João Matos Fernandes was responding to a set question from Faro’s socialist MP, Luís Graça, who had asked if the government planned to demolish any more houses, after the current batch of 22.
Graça said that in April 2015, 808 houses were scheduled to be demolished on the Ria Formosa islands and that, "with the intervention of this Government," this demolition operation was restricted to "those in danger."
"A little more than 80 houses were identified for demolition, and of these, by the intervention of the Government in close consultation with residents, exemptions were given to houses that were first houses and houses owned by fishermen, nurserymen and shell-fishermen who were active or retired."
The socialist parliamentarian also accused the Social Democratic Party of wanting to demolish all the houses, "without separating the wheat from the chaff."
João Matos Fernandes claimed the Government is "making all efforts to remove a set of first dwellings that exists in the island of Faro in a zone of proven risk, always with rehousing."
The minister warned that those dwellings "are in the public maritime domain." Therefore, the Government will not cease to be attentive, he assured MPs.
The minister said that the court was right to enable the government to demolish these 22 houses, and for 19 of them, "there is no doubt" that they are second homes.
The other three cases have been examined one-by-one by the government, who failed to give any good reason why they should be exempt.
At the beginning of this week, a municipal assembly was held in Faro where extra time was given for these three cases to submit new evidence, if there was any.
The minister announced that he will travel to the Algarve in the first week of April to preside over the first meeting of the revision committee for the new Coastal Plan (POOC) Vilamoura - Vila Real de Santo António.
The Government is "demolishing these houses and it will be in the context of the POOC where everything will be reassessed," he explained, omitting the fact that the plan has yet to be set, so demolishing these houses preempts the plan's operational details.
Luís Graça's version of history varies from what actually happened on the Ria Formosa islands whose residents have been hounded by successive governments and who have mounted a spirited campaign to have their rights recognised.
Graça's role in this exchange was to support the minister's sly manoeuvring, rather than represent his Culatra island constituents.
As for "the Government's close consultation with residents," this will leave more than a bitter taste in the mouths of islanders who have been lied to, misled and used a pawns in a political game to rid the islands of often unsightly properties and to remove people from what has become a tourism jewel.
"A little more than 80 houses were identified for demolition, and of these, by the intervention of the Government in close consultation with residents, exemptions were given to houses that were first houses and houses owned by fishermen, nurserymen and shell-fishermen who were active or retired."
The socialist parliamentarian also accused the Social Democratic Party of wanting to demolish all the houses, "without separating the wheat from the chaff."
João Matos Fernandes claimed the Government is "making all efforts to remove a set of first dwellings that exists in the island of Faro in a zone of proven risk, always with rehousing."
The minister warned that those dwellings "are in the public maritime domain." Therefore, the Government will not cease to be attentive, he assured MPs.
The minister said that the court was right to enable the government to demolish these 22 houses, and for 19 of them, "there is no doubt" that they are second homes.
The other three cases have been examined one-by-one by the government, who failed to give any good reason why they should be exempt.
At the beginning of this week, a municipal assembly was held in Faro where extra time was given for these three cases to submit new evidence, if there was any.
The minister announced that he will travel to the Algarve in the first week of April to preside over the first meeting of the revision committee for the new Coastal Plan (POOC) Vilamoura - Vila Real de Santo António.
The Government is "demolishing these houses and it will be in the context of the POOC where everything will be reassessed," he explained, omitting the fact that the plan has yet to be set, so demolishing these houses preempts the plan's operational details.
Luís Graça's version of history varies from what actually happened on the Ria Formosa islands whose residents have been hounded by successive governments and who have mounted a spirited campaign to have their rights recognised.
Graça's role in this exchange was to support the minister's sly manoeuvring, rather than represent his Culatra island constituents.
As for "the Government's close consultation with residents," this will leave more than a bitter taste in the mouths of islanders who have been lied to, misled and used a pawns in a political game to rid the islands of often unsightly properties and to remove people from what has become a tourism jewel.
Luís Graça - brown-nosing 'a speciality'
Comments
Most of these buildings pre-date the edict that all land near the sea belongs to the state.
The new rule states that homeowners have to prove provenience back to biblical times, or their property is forfeit. That's unfair and unusual IMO.
If property rights are not respected, then what is?
José Matos Fernandes can give all the assurances he wants, but of course no-one believes him, any more than they believe António Costa. …"always with rehousing" is an assurance which might be contradicted by the victims of the first wave of demolitions. The principal danger faced by the island houses of course is from the government.
Government should not be allowed to strip any honest citizen of their property, whether they be fishermen or not.
The whole story reeks of ulterior motives, but with the norm here of providing as little information as possible at all times, how can anyone know?