Jaume Collboni has decided to create an infrastructure advisory council to advise the municipal government on the technical aspect. Santi Vila, in his capacity as ex-territory councilor and president of the Infrastructure Circle, has been chosen by the mayor to head it up.
What is the task of this new consultative body?
The mayor is worried because he sees how the debate around infrastructure has been very bitter and controversial in recent years. Barcelona, ??despite not having any skills, plays a lot. That’s why he wants to have an accredited and documented voice, with little ideology. And therefore, I am tasked with creating a committee of experts made up of diverse and credible professionals. The central value of this contribution must be the utility, that we can make solvent reports available to the mayor.
The PSC and ERC agreed to have a proposal on the expansion of the airport before the end of the year. Will it be the first issue they will work on from the council?
Not necessarily, the first task is for the council to be constituted by Mercè. This August I will make the relevant contacts to set up a committee of a minimum of 15 members and a maximum of 30. I have been given the freedom to make a plural proposal with the consensus that they are professionals of a technical nature and solvent.
Will they respond to a specific profile?
There must be road engineers, architects, geographers and ex-politicians. There are four profiles that I see very clearly. We also have to see if people from activism join, who at a given moment can say that they don’t go there, always with the prevention that it doesn’t become politicized and that a calm reflection can be made based on the data.
Even if they are technical, will they look for diverse sensitivities that represent the political variety of the municipal plenum?
Yes, this is a must. I will talk to all municipal groups to suggest possible profiles. It is important that there are different ideological approaches because otherwise we will deceive ourselves. Until now, those who shout have been valued more than those who do their work in an office. Activism must be balanced with expert professionals, listening to each other.
The mayor, for example, has made it clear that he is in favor of expanding the airport. Will the advisory board conclude that it is better not to do it or will it work with a predefined premise?
There is a broad consensus on the need to expand the airport’s capacity and it is quite cross-cutting between the major parties. Another thing is to see what is the technical solution that minimizes the unwanted effects, known to all and that go through neighborhoods: in some cases they have to do with noise pollution, in others with damage to natural spaces. The premise is to see how we do it to expand capacity and make it possible for the city and the country to aspire to compete with reference airports such as Madrid.
What authority can an advisory council of a city have without competences in the matter?
We will only be able to provide ourselves with moral authority to the extent that the reports made have quality. Solvent reports are read and heard by everyone. The ones that you can already see in the third line are part of it don’t go anywhere. My mission is to energize this committee of specialists and make them reach useful conclusions.
I guess you don’t expect to agree on thirty technicians to get unanimous proposals…
It’s not up to me either, the search for consensus is for politics. It is up to us to generate solvent information and documentation. If we take a controversial but well-credited decision that allows us to show that some people have prejudices, it will be beneficial.
Has the technical contribution not been sufficiently taken into account in the heated debates of recent times?
They have become excessively ideologised, we should try to reassert ourselves, to generate data and information. In the supervillas of Colau there has been too much ideology and there has been a lack of pedagogy and spirit of consensus.
Will the metropolitan vision be present in any way in the advisory board?
Joan Maragall said that if all of Catalonia were lost but the Empordà remained, Catalonia could be redone. I think that the phrase that works now is that if all of Catalonia were lost but the Baix Llobregat remained, Catalonia could be redone.
