Golf course continues to generate debate

The PP government is still battling away to revive the golf course project, rejected by the Junta de Andalucia after the introduction of the POTAX (Plan for the Axarquia) in 2006. On November 15th the government approved another motion to request the Junta de Andalucia to change the law so that the project can go ahead.

The motion was opposed by the PSOE and IU.

The PP government argues that, under the 2000 PGOU approved by the Junta de Andalucia, the golf course project was initiated and land was sold to the Medgroup company for this purpose.

The Junta subsequently approved the POTAX which reclassified the lands involved, an area of the Sierra Tejeda, Almijara and Alhama Natural Park, as ‘protected’ land. Medgroup are still involved in legal proceedings to try and recover the €15 million they paid for the land.

The PP government accuses the Junta of cheating and acting irresponsibly in the matter as they approved the PGOU and approved the sale of the land to build a golf course but then changed the law.

The opposition PSOE, however, describes the latest motion as a smokescreen to divert attention away from the fact that the government sold land to Medgroup for the golf course knowing full well that there were problems.

According to the PSOE spokesman, Luis Peña, there are reports from 1997 to 1999 relating to the protection afforded to the area in question. In addition, the spokesman states that the Ministry of Environment reported the situation to Medgroup in August 2004 and to the Council on September 2004.

The saga is far from over and continues to be a can of worms, with everyone pointing the finger at everyone else.

Until dogmatic approaches, party political interests and the determination to assign blame are replaced by honest, open and reasoned dialogue involving all parties concerned, the issue looks destined to remain unresolved for some time to come.

Whether or not the town of Nerja needs a golf course as an added attraction or needs it to survive is open to debate, there are valid arguments supporting both points of view.

However, if the town does in fact need a golf course, one might question the necessity to also build thousands of houses, when there is a huge housing surplus, and a five star hotel as part of the project, apart from the obvious desire for municipal revenue from construction etc. Why not just build a golf course? Perhaps such an approach would be more favourably received.

The actual golf course itself just seems to be an incidental part of the project. The same applies to the marina project.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: