Collective reflection: how and why we must take decisions together

Good afternoon, neighbors.

First of all, we wish to thank the Board of Delegates for the work done to date. That effort is undeniable. Having said that, thanking does not imply giving up having a different opinion or requesting that other points be included in the debate and the agenda.

Secondly, we want to express our concern about the unease that, week after week, is manifested in the Santa Maria group as a result of the letters that are published. We try to concentrate publications on Saturdays so as not to alter the usual dynamics of the group, but we consider the matter important enough to give it visibility.

This format should not be understood as an element of confrontation nor as the personal opinion of the communications team. Our role is solely to make available to neighbors a channel to express themselves and publish the voice of those who, faced with a lack of sufficient information, convey their doubts, concerns, and worries and debate them respectfully.

---

That said, we want to focus on the statement that it is not necessary to collect IDs or hold formal votes, and that a show of hands vote is sufficient. In this case, and from our point of view, it is necessary to maximize guarantees.

We are talking about a work of enormous technical complexity and colossal economic cost, which is intended to be executed through a Compensation Board. What is worrying is not just the figure, but that no one has explained clearly enough what happens if something fails or how current and future non-payments will be managed.

The risk we assume as a collective is enormous, and the way of approaching it should be reconsidered to protect especially the most vulnerable: our elderly, families with recent mortgages, or new neighbors who already bear significant economic burdens. In short, to protect all the neighbors of Santa Maria de l'Avall.

It is worth making something very clear: no one is against improving the sanitation system. Our goal is not to block solutions, but to explore viable, legal, and proportionate alternatives. Precisely for this reason, it is important to explain our position clearly.

And if, should the case arise, after exhausting all individual options, it becomes necessary to propose collective action, many neighbors consider that it is not reasonable for the entire technical, economic, and legal responsibility of a work of this complexity to fall on the entire urbanization through the Compensation Board.

There are other ways to comply with regulations and improve sanitation without collectively assuming such a high risk.

And when we talk about risks, we are not talking about assumptions: our elders already lived through similar processes when water, electricity, gas, or internet were moved underground. Those works dragged on, serious problems arose, some companies went bankrupt, there were impassable streets and impossible access for long periods.

The question is inevitable, and we should ask ourselves honestly: Are we really prepared to manage a work of this magnitude as private neighbors?

Therefore, we consider it fundamental that, in the meeting next February 1st, we are allowed to expose and debate other possible alternatives calmly.

Regarding the voting system, we insist: a vote by show of hands is not adequate in any case for a decision of this caliber. In a matter of such magnitude, a clear and verifiable record must be left in minutes: who votes in favor, who votes against, and who has the right to vote for being up to date with payments. That traceability is not a formality; it is a basic democratic guarantee.

Precisely on this point is where many of us consider it has not been done well. Furthermore, neighbors who cannot attend the meeting in person but are up to date with their obligations should also be able to manifest their position. Not doing so leaves people who comply with their responsibilities out of the process and voids the legitimacy of a decision that will have economic and vital consequences for decades.

This debate is neither theoretical nor abstract. It has very real consequences. Our neighbor César, one of those affected, expresses it with a harshness that should challenge us all:

Faced with this testimony, there is no room for indifference. We are with you, Mr. César, and precisely for that reason, we want to change things. So that you can enjoy your home and your retirement with the peace of mind you deserve. Like you, there are many more neighbors, and we always refer to them: the most vulnerable collective.

To avoid misunderstandings, we reiterate it clearly: Yes, we want an equivalent and homologated sanitation system. We do not accept assuming a high-risk collective responsibility without sufficient guarantees, nor generating situations of inequality or prejudice for directly affected neighbors, as happens in cases of mandatory pumping.

Let's do it right. Let's do it with guarantees. Let's make it easy for everyone and unite in a common cause that counts on vulnerable people and leaves no one behind.

Thank you, neighbors. Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year!

---