Jaume Collboni has decided to create an infrastructure advisory council to advise the municipal government at a technical level. Santi Vila, in his capacity as ex-territory councilor and president of the Infrastructure Circle, has been chosen by the mayor to take the lead.
What is the mandate of this new advisory body?
The mayor is concerned because he sees how the debate around infrastructure has been very bitter and controversial in recent years. Barcelona, despite not having competitions, has a lot at stake. For this reason, he wants to have an accredited and documented voice, little ideological. And therefore, he entrusts me with the creation of a committee of experts made up of pluralistic and credible professionals. The central value of this contribution should be the utility, that we can make reliable 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 that the council will work on?
Not necessarily, the first order is that for La Mercè the council is constituted. This month of August I will make the pertinent contacts to set up a commission of a minimum of 15 members and a maximum of 30. They have given me the freedom to make a plural proposal with the consensus that they be technical and solvent professionals.
Will they respond to a specific profile?
There must be civil engineers, architects, geographers and former politicians. There are four profiles that I see very clearly. We must also see if people from activism are incorporated, who at a certain moment can say that they do not pass through there, always with the prevention that it is not politicized and that a serene reflection can be made based on the data.
Even if they are technical, will diverse sensibilities be sought that represent the political variety of the municipal plenary session?
Yes, that is essential. I will talk to all the municipal groups so that they 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 to the detriment of those who do their work in an office. Activism should be considered 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 be able to 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 among the major parties. Another thing is to see what is the technical solution that minimizes the undesired effects, known to all and that go by neighborhood: in some cases they have to do with noise pollution, in others with damage to natural spaces... The premise it 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 benchmark airports such as Madrid.
What authority can an advisory council of a city have without competence in the matter?
We can only endow ourselves with moral authority to the extent that the reports made have quality. Creditworthy reports are read and heard by all. Those who you see in the third line are from the parties are not going anywhere. My mission is to energize this committee of specialists and make it reach useful conclusions.
I guess you don't expect thirty technicians to agree to get unanimous proposals...
Nor is it up to me, the search for consensus is for politics. It is up to us to generate reliable information and documentation. If we make some controversial but well-accredited decision that makes it possible to show that some have prejudices, that is beneficial.
Has technical input not been sufficiently taken into account in hot debates?
They have become excessively ideological, we should try to calm down again, to generate data and information. In Colau's superblocks there has been a surplus of ideology and there has been a lack of pedagogy and spirit of consensus.
Will the metropolitan vision be present in some way?
Joan Maragall said that if all of Catalonia were lost but the Empordà remained, Catalonia could be remade. I believe that now the phrase that works is that if all of Catalonia were lost but Baix Llobregat remained, Catalonia could be remade.
