Hace muy pocos días pudimos ver en la prensa la noticia de que el Ayuntamiento de Marbella no recurría la sentencia por la que se le obligaba a conceder una licencia de primera ocupación a un edificio de entre los catalogados "a demoler" por la Junta de Andalucía, y cuya licencia de obra está pendiente, al parecer, de tres o más recursos contencioso-administrativos. (Ver artículo completo aquí: http://www.diariosur.es/20080816/marbellaestepona/silencio-administrativo-permite-ocupar-20080816.html )
Al parecer esas viviendas estarán ocupadas en breve, por lo que, de entrada, de "demoler" nos olvidamos.
Al margen de consideraciones políticas, posiblemente, compradores, de buena fe, ocuparán viviendas sobra las que pesa una gran losa de recursos.
Sin embargo, el daño ya está hecho. Y no sólo a aquellos que se ven afectados por la carencia de zonas verdes, de vistas, de equipamientos... El daño afecta a aquellos que han visto como el precio que han pagado por esas viviendas difícilmente será de nuevo alcanzable.
¿Cuál es la devaluación que sufre un inmueble que se declara "ilegal" y con recursos pendientes que pueden afectar a la definitiva "legalidad" de la edificación?
¿Podrán estos compradores alquilar o vender su vivienda a alguien que sepa que existe un riesgo de que una sentencia ordene su demolición?
¿Pagará acaso el Ayuntamiento los resultados de la prevaricación, el cohecho, y, sobre todo, su inactividad ante la proliferación de licencias contrarias al planeamiento urbanístico?
Siempre he defendido que quien compra una casa compra eso, una casa, no un problema. Sin embargo son muchos los jueces, que, desde su particular perspectiva, consideran que el promotor no es responsable de que la Licencia haya sido impugnada, y que los derechos de los "especuladores" (en este concepto engloban a todo aquel que compró una vivienda asistido por un abogado) no son dignos de protección por las Leyes que regulan los Derechos de los Consumidores (sic). El hecho simple de la existencia de una impugnación de la licencia, que debería ser causa, al menos, de que quien provoca la situación, o al menos la conocía, (el promotor que construye lo que sin duda sabía que no podía hacer de acuerdo con la normativa vigente) devuelva el dinero a quien le pagó sin conocer el problema.
Ya no sólo es que el mercado haya descendido los precios, es que, ¿concederán los bancos hipotecas sobre fincas desarrolladas contra el planeamiento?
¿Pagará alguien por esto...?
Who pays for the legalization of properties?
Just a few days ago we were able to see in the press the news that the Marbella Town Hall is not appealing the sentence by which they were being obligated to grant the first occupational licence to a building categorized amongst those to be “demolished” by the Junta de Andalucía and such building licence is pending, it appears, to have three or more administration appeals. (View complete article at: http://www.diariosur.es/20080816/marbellaestepona/silencio-administrativo-permite-ocupar-20080816.html)
It appears that these properties will be occupied shortly, for now let us put tthe “demolishing” to one side.
Leaving out any political considerations, possibly, buyers, in good faith, will occupy properties which suffer the weight of the legal process.
Even though, the damage is already done. Not only those who are affected by the lack of green space, views, equipment…The damage affects those who have seen how the price they have paid for these properties with difficulty will again be unreachable.
What is the devaluation that these properties will suffer when declared “illegal” and with pending appeals that can affect the definitive “legality” of the construction?
Will these buyers be able to rent or sale their properties to someone who knows there exists the risk that the court may sentence and five the order to be demolish?
Will the Town pay for the result of the breach of legal duty, corruption, bribes and above all the inactivity before the proliferation of licences against the town planning?
I have always used the definition that who buys a home buys that, a home, not a problem. Even though there are many judges, that, from their personal perspective, consider that the promoter is not responsible for the Licence being contested, and that the rights of the “speculators” (under this concept grouping all those who purchased a property with the assistance of a lawyer) are not worthy of protection by the Law that regulates the Rights of the Consumer (sic). The simple fact of the existence of a contested licence, should be the lease cause, that provokes the situation, or at least the less know, (the promoter that constructs knowing without a doubt that it could not be done in accordance to the in forced regulations) returns money to whom paid it without knowing the problem.
It is now not only that the real estate market has descended prices, are the banks considering mortgages on properties developed against the planning act?
Is someone going to pay for this…………?
Just a few days ago we were able to see in the press the news that the Marbella Town Hall is not appealing the sentence by which they were being obligated to grant the first occupational licence to a building categorized amongst those to be “demolished” by the Junta de Andalucía and such building licence is pending, it appears, to have three or more administration appeals. (View complete article at: http://www.diariosur.es/20080816/marbellaestepona/silencio-administrativo-permite-ocupar-20080816.html)
It appears that these properties will be occupied shortly, for now let us put tthe “demolishing” to one side.
Leaving out any political considerations, possibly, buyers, in good faith, will occupy properties which suffer the weight of the legal process.
Even though, the damage is already done. Not only those who are affected by the lack of green space, views, equipment…The damage affects those who have seen how the price they have paid for these properties with difficulty will again be unreachable.
What is the devaluation that these properties will suffer when declared “illegal” and with pending appeals that can affect the definitive “legality” of the construction?
Will these buyers be able to rent or sale their properties to someone who knows there exists the risk that the court may sentence and five the order to be demolish?
Will the Town pay for the result of the breach of legal duty, corruption, bribes and above all the inactivity before the proliferation of licences against the town planning?
I have always used the definition that who buys a home buys that, a home, not a problem. Even though there are many judges, that, from their personal perspective, consider that the promoter is not responsible for the Licence being contested, and that the rights of the “speculators” (under this concept grouping all those who purchased a property with the assistance of a lawyer) are not worthy of protection by the Law that regulates the Rights of the Consumer (sic). The simple fact of the existence of a contested licence, should be the lease cause, that provokes the situation, or at least the less know, (the promoter that constructs knowing without a doubt that it could not be done in accordance to the in forced regulations) returns money to whom paid it without knowing the problem.
It is now not only that the real estate market has descended prices, are the banks considering mortgages on properties developed against the planning act?
Is someone going to pay for this…………?
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario