His departure special city plan For Eye 1,500 residents of the district appeal to the Prime Minister. residents express their opposition to the fragmentation of property to create streets and sidewalks and redistribute property. Also protesting are 250 owners of waterfront buildings, as they are forbidden to fence their plots, most of them are given to the public, and they are given the opportunity to use a very small part without expropriating the rest.

The day before yesterday, a group of residents delivered a letter signed by 1,500 people to the Prime Minister’s office. According to them, the proposed improvement plan turns their territory “from a garden town into a city of cement.” The main points of contention outlined in the letter are as follows:

• Real estate is “fragmented” to highlight roads, common green areas, parking lots, footpaths. “This leads to the creation of a labyrinthine network of roads and sidewalks of dubious utility, but a significant risk in the event of an evacuation, even with the construction of two roads on the same site. And to create dozens of “shelters”, which is pointless and absurd,” they report.

• A lot of linear plantings are created, “which do not bring any benefit, we are not in Kipseli, where there is no greenery, and you are trying to create it on the street. Fences overgrown with plants and trees are destroyed by just 1 meter of drainage, and as a result, the road does not widen, but narrows, so that supposedly problematic traffic is not facilitated.”

They claim that their property is being “fragmented” to create roads.

• With the redistribution of property and the creation of small plots, “Mati will lose its resort character and risk becoming a densely populated urban suburb.”

• It is not allowed to repair buildings on the first coastline, they are not allowed to be fenced, which makes their surroundings a common area.

Notably, the Ministry of the Environment provided only a map of the area for consultation, refusing to provide residents with the supporting studies on which the map for review was based. In its response, the ministry argues that it cannot provide consulting studies because they are not approved by the administration (which of course… would invalidate the concept of consultation), and also cites the protection of the researcher’s intellectual property rights. .