Why Santa Maria de l'Avall is at the gates of an unprecedented institutional conflict
In any democratic municipality, the legitimacy of a decision is not measured only by its formal legality, but by the level of participation, transparency, and consensus that supports it. That is why what has happened with the urbanization project of Santa Maria de l'Avall is much more than a neighborhood conflict: it is a serious symptom of how an entire community can be trapped by decisions made without real backing.
Exorbitant costs and low participation
The Board of Delegates has promoted a project valued at more than 12 million euros. The figures that can alter the lives of hundreds of families are alarming:
- Announced cost of up to 28,500 € per plot.
- Additional mandatory costs within each property (disconnection and closure of the current septic tank, internal excavations, adaptation of facilities).
- Private pumping systems that generate recurring lifetime expenses.
- In numerous homes, these added costs can exceed 10,000 € extra.
And yet, the assembly that was supposed to validate this historic turn did not reach the quorum, nor the representativeness, nor the minimum guarantees of participation. Barely a few dozen people —many delegating votes among acquaintances— ended up endorsing a project with an unprecedented economic, social, and territorial impact.
The question is inevitable: Can a decision of this caliber be considered legitimate when the majority of neighbors were not present, were not informed, or were unaware of the real scope of the project?
Minority decisions, consequences for all
We are not facing a routine work. It is a project that:
- Indebts an entire community de facto.
- Will significantly increase fiscal pressure.
- Can lead to seizures or even expropriations for non-payment.
- Requires private works inside each plot.
- Obliges the installation of pumps in dozens of homes located below the collector.
- Will alter mobility, security, and daily neighborhood life for years.
All this without real participatory processes, without independent auditing, and without neighbors having had access to technical alternatives or comparative studies. In strictly democratic terms, the work lacks the informed consent of the community. And when local institutions lose the link with those they should represent, political conflict appears.
A Board that legislates without counterweights
The Board of Delegates has acted, in practice, as an executive power without citizen control. The project is complex, massive, and affects fundamental rights such as property, payment capacity, and mobility. However:
- ❌ A specific extraordinary assembly has not been convened.
- ❌ The budget has not been explained in accessible language.
- ❌ Independent experts have not been allowed.
- ❌ Financial transparency has not been guaranteed.
- ❌ Alternatives or comparative scenarios have not been disclosed.
In any public administration, this would be inadmissible. Here, however, it has been normalized. The lack of democratic counterweights is not a technical detail: it is the heart of the problem.
A gigantic project without public control mechanisms
More than twelve million euros cannot be managed as if they were the budget of a homeowners' association. In any city council, an expenditure of this magnitude would activate:
- Independent audits.
- Comparative studies of alternatives.
- Efficiency and sustainability analysis.
- Public monitoring mechanisms and external financial evaluation.
In Santa Maria de l'Avall, none of this exists. The Board is simultaneously promoter, evaluator, and defender of the project. A triple role incompatible with transparency.
CONCLUSION: The great political question
Can a project of more than 12 million go ahead if it has not been endorsed by an unequivocal majority of neighbors? The answer is not legal: it is political.
Joan R.
Neighbor of Santa Maria de l'Avall
November 24, 2025